Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

Expanding scope?

I'm glad that at long last this article has been created. It needs to be noted, however, that not everyone who uses the term is buying into the conspiracy theory. So my question is, do we want to expand the article to include the *term* and/or the thing people are referring to by it (if not the conspiracy theory)? StAnselm (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources documenting use of the term in other senses? No-one had provided any, prior to the split. Newimpartial (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a balanced review that should be in the article; it also mentions the British use of the term. StAnselm (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the article distinguishes between the "conspiracy theory" and the "conservative narrative" of people like Peterson. If we are going to mention Peterson, I think we would need to adjust the scope of the article (and move it to Cultural Marxism). StAnselm (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

How do you see that as a distinction in the article? I read the "conspiracy theory" and the "conservative narrative" as depicted in that source as essentially the same thing, while the distinction it makes is between those appropriations and actual intellectual movements on the left and in the universities. Newimpartial (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"But beyond its unshakable association with fringe conspiratorial thinkers, the cultural Marxism narrative has another shortcoming...": there's the conspiracy theory of fringe websites, and the "narrative" of conservative intellectuals (which is associated with/based on/inspired by/related to the conspiracy theory). StAnselm (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, I think that's a distinction without a difference. If someone blames pronoun choice on "cultural Marxism", for example, their "conservative narrative" hasn't stopped being a conspiracy theory. I think the more relevant distinction the author is making is between "fringe" websites and users of the conservative narrative who may not be obviously Fringe (like Peterson, for example). The conspiracy theory winds through both. Newimpartial (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but this (Wikipedia) article is weighted towards the far-right, whereas the phrase has (int he last couple of years) become a lot more mainstream than that: e.g. the Washington Times,[1] Tablet,[2], and the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.[3] To be NPOV, the article must describe these opinions/uses of the term. StAnselm (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

That is to say, not everyone accepts that it is a conspiracy theory. StAnselm (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

No amount of public support for QAnon will stop it from being a conspiracy theory. The same is true of the "cultural Marxism" trope. Let's not rehash the 2014 RfC from hell, shall we? Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

But 2014 was a long time ago. Most of the sources are from 2018 or 2019. StAnselm (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• The Washington Times and the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal are not remotely mainstream (perhaps you've mistaken the Times for the Post?) And all three of those are just opinion-pieces. Those sorts of things have been discussed before and they don't mean anything compared to the massive amounts of high-quality academic and mainstream sourcing describing it as a conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, while I am happy to discuss here before inclusion and pursue improved sources, I don't see any serious opposition in the RS to the idea that Jordan Peterson has disseminated the conspiracy theory, and therefore no BLP violation in saying so since it is not a controversial claim. Newimpartial (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

We need something more than an opinion piece on thestranger.com. StAnselm (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I have added new text with a proper source. Newimpartial (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Alexander Zubatov notes, "I have never heard Peterson make reference to any crazy “conspiracy” in his many rants against cultural Marxism." StAnselm (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Zubatov is not exactly a reliable source on the subject, since his argument is essentially that the conspiracy is real. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but Zubatov comes up with a different conspiracy theory with different actors (being no longer anti-semitic): "A Far-Right Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theory Becomes a Mainstream Irritable Gesture". StAnselm (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't make him more reliable as a source. Ahem. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Tablet is ok for some things, but it doesn't print much straight news; most of it is commentary/analysis and not necessarily reliable for facts. The peer-reviewed scholarly sources all state that it is a false conspiracy theory. Because of the nature of the topic it is especially important to stick to reliable sources, which for this article exclude opinion/commentary pieces and likely should be restricted to scholarly sources. (t · c) buidhe 21:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• If we are going to start discussing Jordan Peterson in an article about a conspiracy theory closely tied to Nazi propaganda, we should acknowledge that Peterson is not a historian. Although a self-described expert on totalitarianism, he is not recognized as an expert by reliable sources, and is frequently challenged for misrepresenting or even fabricating important historical information. Regarding Peterson's targeting of "postmodern neo-Marxists", Bernard Schiff said I do think Jordan believes what he says, but it’s not clear from the language he uses whether he is being manipulative and trying to induce fear, or whether he is walking a fine line between concern and paranoia. Schiff was one of Peterson's academic mentors.[4] Peterson's belief in this conspiracy theory doesn't make it any less of a conspiracy theory. The specific language he uses to describe it is largely irrelevant compared to actual reliable sources. We cannot use Peterson as a source to imply this conspiracy theory has legitimacy. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Agree I found StAnselm made valid claim and all the sources he suggests are rejected by trivial reasons. I read through all the past discussion about this issue, and found this : "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" by Richard Weiner, 1981 [5] "Conversations on Cultural Marxism" by Fredric Jameson, 2007 [6]n"Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain" by Dennis Dworkin, Professor of History at the University of Nevada [7] "Cultural Marxism" by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome [8] "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies" by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner [9] "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society" on the Critical sociology Transforming sociology series of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Soc:iology [10] Cultural Marxism is already used by scholars before conspiracists used it. This term was once used to scholarly describe Frankfurt School's early influence on Cultural Study was actually. I don't have clear reason this term should be contributed exclusively to conspiracists' usage. And also, I read some speculative realists view Marxism had cultural turn (https://www.re-press.org/book-files/OA_Version_Speculative_Turn_9780980668346.pdf 4page 3rd paragraph), so there is no reason it should not be called Cultural Marxism. They include Lacanian, and Althusserian to this movement, and they consider themselves as antithesis to this movement. They are far from far-right conspiracists, so exclusively tying the term Cultural Marxism to the far-right conspiracists seems nonsense to me. Fictualinfidel (talk) 3:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Expanding this article implies that both fall under the same term. This is not accurate. Including these far more obscure usages would falsely imply that both are directly connected, but sources are saying the exact opposite. They are only treated as the same term by fringe sources attempting to fabricate academic legitimacy. Including this implication in the article would violate WP:FRINGE in various ways. The conspiracy theory doesn't share a continuum with real scholarship. This conspiracy theory is treated by many reliable sources as a conspiracy theory. Expanding the article would ignore what these sources are saying. That other sources may also use this term is not necessarily relevant to this topic. Grayfell (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You mean there is something but it should not be linked to the term 'cultural marxism'? or you mean, even a philosophical movement was made because of this current culture-oriented tendency in marxism, cultural turn in marxism itself is fringe theory? Yes, I agree there are many people who want to link cultural turn in marxism to their conspiracy theory. but it does not mean there is nothing related in academia. I believe both side ( conspiracy theory part and real cultural turn in marxism part ) should be explained in this article, and if not it's biased. And the source StAnselm suggested (https://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-2-45562) says there is loose link between this two sides. (quote:None of this is to deny the moderate thesis that much contemporary cultural criticism has roots that trace back to the 1960s New Left, the Frankfurt and Birmingham Schools, and various Marxist theories of culture.) Yes, there are many scholarly sources arguing it's just conspiracy theory, but there are some opposition, too. If you want people don't get confused, then article itself should explain it, just omitting out information could not be a solution. I believe it violates intellectual integrity. Fictualinfidel (talk) 6:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

As shown by the rest of this talk page, and the discussions prior to the split, there is no consensus for expanding this article to imply that this is a legitimate theory. It is not enough to tell readers that parts are a conspiracy theory and parts are not, because this is false. The topic of this article is a conspiracy theory which falls under WP:FRINGE. The use of the term elsewhere is only tangentially related to the conspiracy theory, just as the conspiracy theory is only tangentially related to fact and reality. Grayfell (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The use of the term elsewhere is only tangentially related to the conspiracy theory? NO IT'S NOT. StAnselm and I already showed some examples. How many people argued does not make something credible. It seems to me that you want to argue cultural turn in marxism itself is conspiracy theory, then I can argue you are wrong. If you argue cultural turn in marxism itself is conspiracy theory, then you should defy some scholarly trends themselves (like speculative realism or new materialism) in the field of philosophy. It seems impossible to me. Fictualinfidel (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not mean to be rude, but your comments suggest you did not understand what I was saying. None of the sources on this page are remotely persuasive that this isn't a conspiracy theory. This article is not about the term "cultural Marxism". There is no consensus to change the article to be about the broader term. The article is about the conspiracy theory which is labeled "cultural Marxism" by proponents . It is labeled this by proponents because it sounds academic. It is common with conspiracy theories to adopt names which sound more legitimate than they actually are. Wikipedia has no obligation to play along with this game. We cannot warp the article to imply that this prior usage has any valid connection to the conspiracy theory. Your proposal to expand the article is therefore completely inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

StAnselm and I already showed some examples like this (quote:None of this is to deny the moderate thesis that much contemporary cultural criticism has roots that trace back to the 1960s New Left, the Frankfurt and Birmingham Schools, and various Marxist theories of culture.) to show it has at least loose relationship with some movement actually ongoing in academia. You can't just reject this kind of source just because of excuse like I don't want to play game. I have no interest in playing game, I am interested in intellectual integrity. In my eye, this article just lumping legitimate argument that there are cultural turn in marxism into conspiracy theory, so it's hard to be unbiased. To justify your argument, this article must pinpoint pure conspiracy theory, which I agree is problematic, but it's written misleadingly enough to think every standpoint that cultural turn in marxism really exists and they affected contemporary culture is conspiracy theory. I can strongly argue it's far from truth. If conspiracy theory labeled cultural marxism is trivial and just a 'game', then this article must be deleted, but if it's not trivial, it should be written precisely not to mislead people. Lumping every argument about cultural turn in marxism into conspiracy theory is just another game to me. I don't want to play game in Wikipedia. Fictualinfidel (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Fictualinfidel, we have perfectly workmanlike articles at Western Marxism and Frankfurt school that discuss the "cultural turn" in Marxist theory and scholarship (the latter being the article from which this one was recently split). If neither of those articles uses the term "cultural Marxism", that's because the vast majority of RS don't use the term either. So I don't see a rationale to expand the scope of this article (on the conspiracy theory) just so that it overlaps with the others (on actual Marxist thought). Newimpartial (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Then, this article should be adjusted to pinpoint pure conspiracy theory. Not lumping every single argument based on cultural turn in marxism into conspiracy theory. A distinct line should be drawn. Why I agree to expand this article is that I believe there should be more information in the article to draw a valid line . Fictualinfidel (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

If there are critics of Western Marxism or the Frankfurt school who use the term "Cultural Marxism" but who do not build on the straw men originating from the conspiracy theory, I would love to see the reliable sources to that effect. So far, I have seen none. Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Newimpartial, do you think the sidebar representing the page as part in a series on "The Frankfurt School" is still appropriate since the spilt? Just seeking your opinion. ---- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 12:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I would add it as a "Related" article in the Marxism series, but others might want to weigh in. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I already suggested some papers and this link : https://www.re-press.org/book-files/OA_Version_Speculative_Turn_9780980668346.pdf 4page 3rd paragraph. But if it's not clear because this book didn't use the exact expression 'cultural marxism,' I will show you this : https://www.euppublishing.com/userimages/ContentEditor/1396275575603/Onto-Cartography%20-%20Author%20Q&A.pdf page6's last, and page7's first paragraph. He uses the exact term cultural marxism meaning frankfurt and althusserian schools. StAnselm already cited others who use the term, too. But I see kind of circular reasoning in the past debate. When StAnselm or someone suggests somebody who uses the term cultural marxism, then the one cited automatically regarded as a conspiracist and rejected, and cultural marxism conspiracy theory itself is readjusted to match the argument the one cited made. It's far from intellectual integrity. Fictualinfidel (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Plus, whether someone uses the exact term cultural marxism or not could not be a point. The point is even though there exists scholarly movement that could be called 'cultural' marxism, this article lumps everything into conspiracy theory, and denies its existence. Fictualinfidel (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because this article is about the conspiracy theory. Other articles are a better place to discuss "Cultural" + "Marxism", because those articles can give a better context and more fairly summarize sources. Expanding this article to be about something different one would do a disservice to readers by confusing the issue. Grayfell (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

To justify your argument, this article should focus on 'conspiracy' part. But it actually has many lines arguing and implying non-existence of cultural approach by marxism, it's not true, so it can be blamed to be biased. To be unbiased, it should be expanded, or at least those lines secretly mesmerizing non-existence of 'cultural' marxism be deleted and 'See also' be added to suggest links to other 'cultural' marxism related topics with brief explanation. For example, the article should start with defining 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory', rather than defining 'Cultural Marxism,' which the article tries to do now and which is not accurate. These are what I intended when I said this article needs adjustment to pinpoint pure conspiracy theory. Fictualinfidel (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears you have misread the article. The article explains the conspiracy theory, and is focused on the conspiracy theory. Nobody is postulating the "non-existence of cultural approach by marxism". As already explained, the articles on Western Marxism and Frankfurt School discuss culture, but this conspiracy theory completely misrepresents these movements. Per the quote: "Cultural Marxism does not exist—not only is the conspiracy theory version false, but there is no intellectual movement by that name". Nobody is saying that there is no movement discussing both culture and Marxism, only that this conspiracy theory is false. "Cultural Marxism" is a hoax movement which has almost nothing to do with how Marxists discuss culture, despite the occasional similarity in word choices. Grayfell (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not misreading the article. You guys argues that expanding and adding more information is to 'play along with this game', then misleading lines like "Contrary to the conspiracists’ claims, Cultural Marxism is not an academic school of thought" and "Cultural Marxism does not exist—not only is the conspiracy theory version false, but there is no intellectual movement by that name" is also just 'playing along with another game'. That's why I told this article is biased. So, these lines should be deleted as your argument, or more information could be added by my argument. In my eyes, actually there are two conspiracy theories promoted nowadays. The first is antisemitic conspiracy theory blaming everything of 'cultural' marxism, and the second conspiracy theory arguing that everything trying to connect culture and marxism is fabricated by far-right. Both are biased standpoints, so if an article could be unbiased, both conspiracy level standpoints should be debunked, or at least not promoted, which means this article need more delicate expression dealing with this issue. The article right now is trying to debunk first one but let second one mesmerizingly reinforced. That's why I argue this article is biased and at least should be adjusted. Fictualinfidel (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Fictualinfidel, all this is very easy, it’s all about this line: “Cultural Marxism is not an academic school of thought' “ . This is exactly right, there is no academic movement or school of thought with that name. The fact that in almost 100 years of scholarship (and there has been *a lot* of scholarship on critical theory) we can find only 5(!) reliable sources only so much as mentioning the two terms together should tell you everything. The view that there is a school of thought called “Cultural Marxism” is WP:FRINGE at best, completely unverifiable at worst. In any case not suitable to include. --Mvbaron (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not arguing 'cultural marxism' is 'widely' used to depict academic movement. I'm arguing there are real academic movement, which could be called 'cultural marxism' by a general term. Whether is called 'cultural marxism' or not is just a problem of coinage. The point I make is there is something which it corresponds to in academica, but the article mesmerizingly denies it. Fictualinfidel (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

We have many reliable sources which directly explain that this is a conspiracy theory, not an academic movement. It appears you are attempting to cite examples of the term, or of vaguely related concepts, to suggest that these many, many sources are somehow wrong. Using sources in this way is WP:OR. We need sources to make this conclusion for us. You will need a reliable source directly supporting the existence of this movement, and even then, this is unlikely to be enough to transform the entire article into something radically different. The sources proposed on this talk page section are completely insufficient for your stated purposes. Again, there is a large number of reliable sources documenting the existence of this conspiracy theory as a conspiracy theory. Summarizing those sources is the purpose of the article. Grayfell (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a conspiracy theory because it comes with conspiracy narrative many times, but not because academic genealogy does not exist. Far-rights tend to lump these two together, but it can't deny academic genealogy itself. I'm not citing 'some' examples. I'm citing 'academic movement as a whole (like speculative realism and new materialism)' as an example, so it can't be original research. and the article is not summarizing those source, it is cherrypicking delicately written academic papers. Actually, the lines I cited as problematic (like this : ontrary to the conspiracists’ claims, Cultural Marxism is not an academic school of thought.[7] The academic Joan Braune said that the Frankfurt School scholars are called "Critical Theorists", not "Cultural Marxists", and that postmodernist and feminist scholars also mislabelled as Cultural Marxists by conspiracy theorists have slight connections to the Frankfurt School, to Marxism, or to critical theory.[7] "In short", writes Braune, "Cultural Marxism does not exist—not only is the conspiracy theory version false, but there is no intellectual movement by that name".[7]) is written delicately. It defines 'cultural marxism' by proper noun, and criticizes it. It does not deny the possibility of general noun, cultural marxism, to depict specific academic genealogy. But the article, by not openly mentioning it, uses the quotes to mesmerizingly deny academic genealogy itself. That's why I repeatedly say 'adjustment' is needed. Actually, I am suggesting middle ground several times, but you guys just try to deny whole my argument and evidences. I don't think my standpoint is that far extreme. Fictualinfidel (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

An "academic movement as a whole" cannot be cited in a Wikipedia article, because this fails WP:V. Yes, this absolutely does qualify as original research. We summarize sources. We do not summarize an individual editor's understanding of an entire movement. If you had a reliable source which said that speculative realism is also known as cultural Marxism, I presume you would have already presented it earlier, but such a source would raise far, far more questions than it would answer, and it would still not challenge the article's current scope.

Regardless of whether or not your suggestion is extreme, it is unsupported by sources, and is contrary to prior consensus built over many lengthy discussions on multiple pages. Grayfell (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not just cite "academic movement as a whole" only. I also cited specific sources like (https://www.re-press.org/book-files/OA_Version_Speculative_Turn_9780980668346.pdf 4page 3rd paragraph, and https://www.euppublishing.com/userimages/ContentEditor/1396275575603/Onto-Cartography%20-%20Author%20Q&A.pdf page6's last, and page7's first paragraph) It does not qualify as original research, you just want to make me seem like that. And I don't think speculative realism or new materialism are cultural Marxism, because it is a movement made to defy cultural Marxism as a whole! , which means the cultural turn in marxism so extreme that such an philosophical movement made. I don't understand what makes you misunderstand my argument this level. I feel it's level of insult. stop judging me and stick to discussion. Fictualinfidel (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Fictualinfidel, I am sorry but the quotes you giving us explain exactly why no academic movment of the name "Cultural Marxism" exists: "We might also point to the lack of genuine and effective political action in continental philosophy—arguably a result of the ‘cultural’ turn taken by Marxism (...)" (Bryant et al) That marxism took a 'cultural' turn at some point, or any turn for that matter, doesn't *make* an academic movement. And " I think a lot of this focus on the material world has been lost in the cultural Marxisms characteristic of the Frankfurt and Althusserian schools. It seems that idealism has there returned" Apart from the fact, that the second sentence is a bit hard to understand, they are stil talking about cultural elements in Marxism, not about the Frankfurt school. Again, this has nothing to do with the Conspiracy Theory. If you want to write an article about the role of culture in Marxism, by all means do it! --Mvbaron (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Mvbaron Sorry, can we talk here? because it became abundant I feel it need to be separate. 1. I thnik that marxism took a 'cultural' turn at some point, or any turn for that matter, shows there existed an academic movement. I need more explanation to properly understand your argument. 2. They are talking about the Frankfurt and Althusserian schools, and saying the cultural Marxisms characteristic is their essence. I think I need more explanation by you to continue discussion. And about their relationship with the conspiracy theory, I see far-rights exaggerate their motivation and goals and add conspiracy narrative to this genealogy. Fictualinfidel (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Fictualinfidel, your OntoCartography source doesn't refer to "Cultural Marxism" but rather "cultural Marxisms". The meaning is not at all the same. You simply cannot insist that any cultural turn in Marxist theory is appropriately labelled as "Cultural Marxism" thereby asserting a non-conspiracy theory meaning of the term. You would need actual, reliable sources of that, having so far supplied none.

You also have not provided an argument why the existing articles, Western Marxism and Frankfurt school do not provide an adequate treatment of the cultural turn in Marxism, since those are the terms in which this debate about Marxist theory and scholarship has actually been conducted according, as I say, to the RS. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree your idea dividing "Cultural Marxism" and "cultural Marxisms". That's not far from my understanding. But I'm not arguing all the information of "cultural Marxisms" should be included in Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article. If division between "cultural Marxisms" and "Cultural Marxism", which lumps "cultural Marxisms" and conspiracy narrative, is clarified in this article, then I'm OK. and that's why I have said just adjustment could improve the article. The article right now could be somewhat ambiguous to the people who are not interested in this issue. You know, even in the discussion many people are confusing these two concepts.

And I agree those articles like Western Marxism and Frankfurt school could be developed. Actually, article Freudo-Marxism would be the article more corresponding to "cultural Marxisms". I'm quite new to developing Wikipedia, so maybe someday I could improve those articles. Fictualinfidel (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

In spite of its terrible (IMO) title, Freudo-Marxism might actually be the article that would benefit the most from your interests, since it negotiates the terrain between Marxism and Post-Marxism in a potentially more interesting way than Western Marxism or even Critical Theory. But my essential point is that this article isn't the place to work on that set of issues. Newimpartial (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Freudo-Marxism is actually used term in academia, so its title doesn't have problem. You can find it easily in google scholar. Anyway, you mean your point is that this article isn't the place to work on that set of issues. But my point is that this article itself is crossing the border to "cultural Marxisms" and talking about the issues, which means your point can't invalidate my point. Fictualinfidel (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

No, this article does not "cross the border to cultural Marxisms" - only this Talk page does that. And while "Freudo-Marxism" may be "actually used term in academia", it is much *less* used than "Freudian Marxism" or "Psychoanalytic Marxism". But this isn't the place to discuss the title of another article lol. (And as a tangent, Frodo-Marxism seems to be tragically lacking its own article, for some reason. Sad.) Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It's just a side story, but actually google scholar shows Freudo-Marxism is the mostly used term. I'll show the links, Freudo-Marxism : (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Freudo-Marxism&btnG=), Freudian-Marxism : (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=Freudian-Marxism&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5), Psychoanalytic-Marxism : (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=Psychoanalytic-Marxism&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5). Actually, "Freudo-Marxism" is widely used, and "Freudian Marxism" or "Psychoanalytic Marxism" is less used. Plus, "Freudo-Marxism" has papers dedicated to itself like this : (https://philpapers.org/rec/ONEPAS)

Anyway, you can't deny my point just saying this article does not cross the border to cultural Marxisms. I already suggested some examples, and it's not refuted. Plus what I've suggested, what RecardedByzantian said above can be added. This article includes the sidebar representing the page as part in a series on "The Frankfurt School", wanting to keep the relationship with "cultural Marxisms", even though you argued this article is stand-alone conspiracy theory page. Fictualinfidel (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, your position is refuted in the specific sense that that no sources have been produced that introduce "Cultural Marxism" as a term without employing concepts and assumptions from the conspiracy theory. As far as arguing that this article is "a stand-alone conspiracy theory page", I never said that. Obviously the conspiracy theory is not "stand-alone", in that it refers to concepts from Western Marxism, the Frankfurt school, other Critical Theorists, Feminism and Postmodernism. The way it integrates these concepts, however, is specific to the conspiracy theory and its epigones. (And as far as the other article's title is concerned, I get twice as many hits in Google Scholar for "Psychoanalytic Marxism" as I do for "Freudo-Marxism" but, as I say, that is a digression). Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

About the side story, you'd better reading through search result, not just checking result numbers. If you search just for "Psychoanalytic Marxism", search engine just spit out any papers containing both words "Psychoanalytic" and "Marxism". If you want to check "Psychoanalytic Marxism", you should search for "Psychoanalytic-Marxism", it just spit out 292 results, compared to 863 results of "Freudo-Marxism". Well, both includes some search errors, but error-removed results of "Freudo-Marxism" was much more than error-not-removed results of "Psychoanalytic-Marxism", when I checked.

My argument don't need papers using "Cultural Marxism" as a term without employing concepts and assumptions from the conspiracy theory. My argument is OK just by presenting "cultural Marxisms" is actually an usable term, because my point is the article is crossing the border by mesmerizingly denying the existence of "cultural Marxisms". and.. OK you acknowledge Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is lump of actually existing so-called "cultural Marxisms" and conspiracy narrative, then why should "cultural Marxisms" part not be described? If the sidebar is OK, then 'See also' be OK and brief explanation of "cultural Marxisms" be OK. Fictualinfidel (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Where exactly does this article deny a "cultural turn" (to use the typical term from the best sources) in 20th-century Marxism? Hint: it doesn't, because that would be out of scope for this article.

And as far as the title of the other article is concerned, I searched for "Freudo-Marxism" and "Psychoanalytic Marxism" as a phrase, in each instance. I still think "Frodo Marxism" would be more relevant: something about the long-suffering proletarian revolutionary subject, most likely. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Well.. About the other article, this kind of non-agreement on coinage have happened very often in the history of philosophy and humanities, and it has been hard to make consensus, so I'll keep this issue stopped here. Actually you said it's just your opinion, and my standpoint is explained enough, so we don't need this issue to be discussed more.

Anyway, I think I can argue that the article is misleading. I mean, even in this talk page many people are thinking "cultural Marxisms" do not exist. If the article is not misleading and enough delicately written, that kind of happenings should not be seen here. and I have suggested some examples why those misunderstanding is happening, but you are constantly saying just no, not refuting most of my examples, which can't persuade me. Fictualinfidel (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose expansion at this time; the arguments for it have not been convincing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• I also fail to see any reasons for expansion. Even if something called cultural Marxism existed in the real world, it would be so far removed from the topic of this article, that it would not belong here. TFD (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• For clarity, I also oppose expansion. The article defines "Cultural Marxism" according to reliable sources, and then explains that it is a conspiracy theory according to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – For the same reasons the original article was deleted. The creation of this article was expressly premised on a scope limited to the conspiracy theory. RGloucester — ☎ 14:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Diingus comment

This article needs major changes. Different writers mean different things by the term. Conservatives like Ben Shapiro and Andrew Sullivan just mean (approximately): the worldview that sees ethnic groups in an oppressor/oppressed dynamic much like Marxists viewed capitalists and the proletariat. This use of the term isn't a "conspiracy theory." It's pointing to a resemblance between discussions of oppression in Woke spaces and in Marxist spaces. Calling this use of the term a "conspiracy theory" is a category error. It's not even the sort of thing that could be a conspiracy theory. When Ben Shapiro talks about cultural marxism he is talking about this resemblance in discourse not a loony conspiracy theory. The article should point out that different writers use the term vastly differently. Otherwise it is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diingus (talk • contribs) 08:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done - please see WP:V, WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR before proposing something more specific. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW not moved, not supported by anyone except the proposer. (t · c) buidhe 22:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory → Cultural Marxism – This article needs to be more general, and cover the use of the term, and the (alleged) theories covered by the term. There are different opinions (especially in the last few years) over the reality of the thing, and focusing purely on the conspiracy theory is POV, as it lumps everyone into the far-right. Notable voices include the Washington Times ("The Cultural Marxist attack on Western society") and Tablet magazine ("Just Because Anti-Semites Talk About ‘Cultural Marxism’ Doesn’t Mean It Isn’t Real"). StAnselm (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Question Did you read the RfC that produced the split? The result of that RfC was quite clear, and favoured the current article title. I would suggest waiting a decent interval before proposing a change. If not, then at a minimum all participants in that discussion should be pinged, and a new RfC should be posted, which strikes me as considerable wasted effort and against policy so soon after the last closure. In fact, the creation of this section could be seen as forum shopping, though I doubt it was intended as such.

So my suggestion would be to withdraw this proposal before many electrons are shed. Newimpartial (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and the RfC was mainly focused on getting it out of the Frankfurt School article, which I agree with completely. As one user said, "the conspiracy theory is independently notable from the actual school of thought, and also has very little practically to do with it." It's precisely because the article has been disentangled from the Frankfurt School that we can expand the scope - that would have been totally inappropriate in a section in that article. StAnselm (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

No, the other RFC unambiguously considered and rejected the title you are suggesting here. Your unhappiness with that outcome does not allow you to WP:FORUMSHOP by repeatedly posing the question until you get the outcome you want - especially with a flagrantly non-neutral (and therefore patiently nvalid RFC like this one. -Aquillion (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Some did, most did not. The title and scope of the new article were not referred to in the close. StAnselm (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Russell Blackford says, "Like other controversial expressions with complex histories (“political correctness” is another that comes to mind), “cultural Marxism” is a term that needs careful unpacking." That's what our article needs to do - unpack the term. StAnselm (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Since no-one else seems motivated to do it: the participants I see in this year's RfC were buidhe, RGloucester, Snowded, LokiTheLiar, The Four Deuces, RecardedByzantian, Newimpartial, Mvbaron, Idealigic, Desmay, Chas. Caltrop, Teishin, and Davide King. If I missed anyone, I promise it was not on purpose. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Invalid RFC / Speedy close. First, this was considered very recently in the previous move RFC, which (contrary to what is stated here) did consider where to place it. But much more importantly, RFCs are required to be neutral. Saying flatly false things like there are different opinions (especially in the last few years) over the reality of the thing (citing, as "evidence", a mere two grindy culture-war opinion pieces from low-quality sources) violates WP:PROFRINGE. Stating a WP:FRINGE position as fact in the RFC statement is a shockingly extreme abuse of the purpose of RFCs. There is no serious debate among high-quality academic sources that this is a conspiracy theory, and the idea that handful of opinion pieces from culture-warrior types could be used to challenge that is absurd and insulting. --Aquillion (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand: this is an RM not an RfC. StAnselm (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy close/strongly favor current title. This is a conspiracy theory. The previous RfC was clear that it was a conspiracy theory. The sources are clear that it's a conspiracy theory. I don't see why this proposal even exists. Loki (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a conspiracy theory. But it's also a term used with a range of meanings beyond that. StAnselm (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Please, substantiate your statement with factual examples, as required by the rules of Wikipedia, which you have impolitely dismissed above.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As explain in the previous move discussion, there is no topic other than the conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theorists have found a few obscure examples where authors have put the two words together, but no evidence that any coherent concept existed. The two sources StAnselm presented are both opinion pieces (although the second is labelled as news), and hence not reliable sources. The second article is by Alexander Zubatov, who is a commercial lawyer and right-wing polemicist, not a journalist or political scientist. The reason you have to use terms such as African American, chairperson, LGBTQA+ and LatinX is not because some leftist professors determined this was the best way to overthrow Western civilization. TFD (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Providing any single reason this is a bad idea would be insufficient, and attempting to provide all the reasons this is a bad idea would take too long. Grayfell (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It is should be made clear that there is no Cultural Marxism beyond the conspiracy theory and its proponents. The "range of meanings" is limited to anti-marxist polemics. Dimadick (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This article is the same anti-communist and anti-Semitic lies re-labelled; only one thing stinks of shite. The crookedness of the Cultural Marxism nonsense is evident in the facile lies used to change racist fantasy to the “verifiable reality of a Wikipedia article”; there is nothing to unpack, because "political correctness" already is a known fact, verifiable as they say in Wikipedia; whereas Cultural Marxism is just All-American anti-Semitism and crypto-Nazism that christers misrepresent as fact, especially given the spelling games in which these people engage; sure, all coins are money, but they are not the same denomination; therefore the essential dishonesty in the false arguments about cultural Marxism vs Cultural Marxism identifies the pro arguments as Sunday School sophistry. Because the article Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory peddles hatred, the Conspiracy title must remain if the article is not deleted. The bluntly obvious hustle is inherent to changing the title of the article . . . before a complete article exists; y’know, first, raise the roof and then lay the foundation? There is a big-time paid editor behind this nonsense. . . THE TIMING is coincidental?

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

That's right - George Soros is paying me. StAnselm (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose of course - It should be clear to everyone who bothered reading the previous RFC or the talk page archives over at Frankfurt School that you have to go to great lengths to even find reliable sources *using* the term Cultural Marxism, and there are zero reliable sources *about* a school of thought called “Cultural Marxism”. There are roughly 5 pieces that mention these terms in passing, none of which give a definition or even an explanation of a coherent movement. At best, it can be seen as a fringe and long out of use descriptor for Marxist theories that “have something to say about culture”, alas it hasn’t been picked up by academia at all until at some point the conspiracy theorists dug up those two words and put then next to each other and used them for their purposes. Not only would renaming this article violate a good deal of Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:FRINGE), this article clearly is about the conspiracy theory so it should be called like that. -- Mvbaron (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV Article

The article does not adhere to WP:POV. Starting with the title and ending with he content itself, the article is written from a visibly politically biased perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berehinia (talk • contribs) 15:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe read the RM discussion immediately above, and then the RfC discussion immediately before (and linked from) that. There is strong consensus for the current title (and content reflecting that title) as the NPOV treatment of this topic. Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That consensus is not so strong. I, Berehinia, Fictualinfidel, one other IP editor take strong issue with the clear bias of this article.

I absolutely agree that this article is POV. As evidence I present the strident defense by editors of this article of clearly-biased sources materialike Braune, who is a far-left activist and polemic and the furthest thing from a reliable source. As long as those resources are used to make specious claims about adherents of Cultural Marxist Conspiracy, this article is poisoned from its roots with POV

Note: I have added the {{POV}} tag to this article until we find consensus on a neutral way to address Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory. .47.197.54.139 (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

There's so much wrong with the neutrality of this article that it's hard to know where to begin. However I will attempt to enumerate them, as time permits me.

Item 1: my first concern is the inclusion of references to "http://transformativestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/Joan-Braune.pdf" Joan Braune's work in the opening paragraph used as a refutation of Cultural Marxist Conspiracy, and also used as justification for labelling the theory and its adherents as anti-semitic. This "academic" is an avowed opponent of and activist in the area of cultural warfare against right-wing ideologies. Her thoughts belong under a "Criticisms" section at best, and should not be present with equal weight as the initial basic explication of the conspiracy theory. The article starts out POV as mentioned above by other editors, and this is where that starts.47.197.54.139 (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Item 2 The origin of this conspiracy theory is misattributed. The theory began as an analysis by the United States Marine Corps on 4th Generation warfare. That analysis and paper were written by Major John Scmidt, Colonel Gary Wilson, and William S. Lind in 1989. Notably the article was published in the Marine Corps Gazette as follows: "The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation,” Marine Corps Gazette, October 1989. The article establishes "Cultural Marxism", and its parameters. Not only should the paper be referenced in this article, it should be handled with the credulity due a document on warfare paid for and written by the US Military. By failing to present the more legitimate beginnings of this Conspiracy Theory, the article skews the narrative by misattributing it to far-right ideologues rather than official government sources.47.197.54.139 (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

For the first item, the source is reliable even if you don't like it.

The second item is a non-issue. Your own source says that Lind didn't start talking about "Cultural Marxism" specifically until 1994, two years after the conspiracy theory originated from the LaRouche journal. Further, that source doesn't appear to be reliable anyway. There is no conflict here, and even if there were, this wouldn't be a POV issue. Grayfell (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a question of what I like. This source is a perfect example of WP:NOTRELIABLE due to Conflict of Interest. She is a far-left political activist whose academic work is focused on how to engage in cultural warfare against right-wing ideologies. Using her work to define Cultural Marxist Conspiracy Theory is inappropriate bordering on absurd. Perhaps her work should be placed in a "Criticisms" section, but in no way is giving it a featured position in the article's opening paragraph warranted.47.197.54.139 (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It is absolutely an issue. Also. That is not the source I referenced as the origin of this conspiracy theory. Please read up and review the October 1989 Marine Corps Gazette article "The Changing Face of War: Into the 4th Generation." The Very Real issue that you are ignoring is that attributing the origin of the Conspiracy Theory to a right-wing publication with questionable connection to far-right ideologues is a vastly different portrayal of the topic than presenting an accurate accounting of how the theory cane to be. Specifically that the seminal work on topic was paid for and written by the United States Marine Corps.47.197.54.139 (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

IP, if you think there is some kind of incompatibility between antisemitism and the USMC, or 1980s/90s US military intelligence in general, then it is possible that you "do not get out much", as the expression was back in the day.

And for the record, I have pointed out that the discussion about the title, framing and POV for this article has taken place at least five times since 2014; these discussions have seen the participation of hundreds of editors, and have always reached the conclusion that "Cultural Marxism" should be treated as conspiracy theory - that is, essentially, as a hoax. Your idea that the theory should be given more credence or a "both sides" treatment has been repeatedly presented (perhaps even by you, yourself, in a pre-IP incarnation) and has failed spectacularly to achieve consensus, each time. So your claim that editors "have not addressed" the NPOV issues seems to fail verification. Newimpartial (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Item 3: A photograph of a mass-murdering terrorist is prominently displayed at the top of the page. This photograph has nothing to do with Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory, conceptually. It's true that individual in question referenced the conspiracy theory in his writings, but it serves to reduce the neutrality of the article when we present the worst of its adherents front and center, as though to equate those who give credence to the conspiracy theory with mass-murdering terrorists. This photograph belongs in the relevant section detailing the crimes of the individual in question.47.197.54.139 (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I actually agree about the photo, I have moved it down the article to the mentino of Breivik --Mvbaron (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion 1: Add a Section Header "Criticism" to present critique and refutations of this Conspiracy Theory. Move the following out of the opening paragraph to the "Criticism" section: "Contrary to conspiracist claims, the academic Joan Braune explained that Cultural Marxism is not an academic school of thought..." I suggest placing Criticism/Refutation after the first section that details the essential elements of the Conspiracy Theory. Leading with a refutation is not a neutral treatment of the subject matter. It would be better to dedicate a section to that and explore refutation and critique in greater depth.47.197.54.139 (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Criticism sections are generally discouraged per WP:CSECTION. More generally, the article as a whole should reflect high-quality mainstream scholarship on the topic; when the entirety of such coverage describes the topic as a conspiracy theory, the article as a whole is required to reflect that to avoid WP:PROFRINGE. --Aquillion (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done - it is in fact customary to include a refutation of the conspiracy theory in the lede; q.v. Moon landing conspiracy theories and Pizzagate conspiracy theory. There is never a need to contort WP articles to give FALSEBALANCE to a FRINGE perspective, such as the Moon Landing, Pizzagate or Cultural Marxism conspiracy theories. Newimpartial (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir_of_Wikipedia just removed that sentence, but I think it should stay in the lead. In fact, it doesn’t need attribution to Braune, because it’s a published paper in a peer reviewed journal and there is no reason to think it’s a biased source. Also, since I’m already pinging Emir, the SPLC is actually a RS, which can easily be verified at WP:RSP, would you like to self-revert these changes, Emir? Mvbaron (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I understand the Emir's removals, and would propose a different course. For the treatment of Braune in the lede, I would first add a version of the previous text to the body, in a new section: probably not "Criticism", which is too BOTHSIDESey, but perhaps "Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory" or something. Then I would re-add a shorter treatment to the LEDE. I think Braune is obviously due (and the Emir's edit summary showed that they didn't read the Talk page, which is sub-optimal), but there is a right way to include content and revert-warring over the LEDE would not be the right way. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I have added an empty section "Scholarly analysis". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

(ah too many edit conflicts) Yes, all that sounds great, finding better sources is always a priority. Thanks Mvbaron (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reinserted the Braune material, but in the new section; I left the Emir's added source although I haven't found a use for it yet. My sense is that it might be worth reworking some of the material from the previous subsections into the "Academic analysis" section so that the high-level analyses are gathered together, while leaving the more descriptive material in the section preceding the "Analysis". It would be best to make what improvements we can *before* adding back to the lede, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying that Braune is not reliable, but saying whether half the lead should be based on what she said. WT:RSP says "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) (RSP entry) is one of the most controversially classified sources in this list", so it not as simple as just calling it reliable especially if we have better sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

O Emir, I fear that the tone of your recent edit summaries did not represent the best of your work. Making dismissive comments about reliable sources with which you do not happen to be familiar, while removing them, is not the "best look", as the kids say. Newimpartial (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and the previous sections already state that the CT originated in the US; we don't need to repeat this in the "Analysis" section. Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hard no on removing the academic paragraph from the lead and putting it down in its own section at the bottom of the article. Those are the key points and need to have a paragraph devoted to them in the lead. If you feel that Braune in particular is being given WP:UNDUE weight, that paragraph can be rewritten to rely on more sources, but this edit is completely unacceptable; that paragraph is an essential part of the lead, summarizing much of the article, and absolutely cannot be removed. --Aquillion (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• • I have restored the same text to the Scholarly Analysis section that is in the lead. This is not ideal, but it is better than the state Aquillion left the article in after this edit. The lede simply should not contain any assertions that are not substantiated in the article. Period. Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The lead should be a summary of the article, not a whole paragraph of something not mentioned in the text body. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

    Now the section has been removed by Davide King, with the justification that it is the lead. This is not how things work. What is in the lead should be in body, but not always vice-versa. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

    Emir of Wikipedia, it is very simple. There was a literal duplication. I simply removed the section, but I could have done vice versa, i.e. remove from the lead, etc. Either way, it was duplicated and it was a problem. If there is an issue to where to put that, then let us discuss that, but let us avoid duplicating that and cause refs' errors. You also disputed Braune as not reliable and tagged it, yet Newimpartial was clear that "Braune is a published and credentialed expert both in Marxist theory and in far-right political movements, and is therefore clearly a reliable source on this topic where the two intersect. Even her self-published work (blog posts etc.) would be considered reliable on this topic, per WP:SPS." Davide King (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

    If there was duplication you should have removed from the lead, as the lead is meant to summarise the article not the other way around. If references are duplicated they can simply be fixed. When did I dispute Braune as reliable? (Which you also said on your talkpage). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

    Emir of Wikipedia, sorry, it was undue tag, not reliable source. Either way, I do not see how "a published and credentialed expert both in Marxist theory and in far-right political movements" is undue. My bad for removing the section rather from the lead. Davide King (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

    Please see #Second-paragraph lead summary. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Item 4: Braune is WP:NOTRELIABLE and should be removed entirely from this article. The "Journal of Social Justice" is part of the Transformative Studies Institute's collection of online open-access journals. It is not a DOAJ-approved academic journal. https://doaj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22query_string%22%3A%7B%22query%22%3A%22Journal%20of%20Social%20Justice%22%2C%22default_operator%22%3A%22AND%22%7D%7D%7D It is not a peer-reviewed journal. It is not a reliable source and therefore neither is Braune, per WP:NOTRELIABLE. I keep saying this but everyone keeps ignoring it. Braun's paper is part of a social justice activist publication and has no academic merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.54.139 (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done - Braune is a published and credentialed expert both in Marxist theory and in far-right political movements, and is therefore clearly a reliable source on this topic where the two intersect. Even her self-published work (blog posts etc.) would be considered reliable on this topic, per WP:SPS. Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Joan Braune has never had a peer-reviewed article published in an independent Academic Journal with DOAJ approval. Her only credits in a "peer-reviewed" publication is that of the University at which she teaches which publishes the "Journal of Hate Studies" and it is a publication over which she has editorial oversight. She is not a recognized expert in this field. She is an activist professor who has thusfar failed to publish in any independently recognized scholarly journal... and yet she is featured prominently in this article?? 47.197.54.139 (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, she is published in reliable, scholarly publications. Monographs count, but she has articles too. Newimpartial (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

There is still the issue of due weight, not just an IP questioning reliability. I am on about the lead (where it is no longer at the time of writing). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I was going to reply to this, but the IP distracted me. There is indeed a WEIGHT question, which is why I recommend composing a section on high-level scholarly assessmetns of the Conspiracy Theory before deciding on the LEDE second paragraph (which should summarize those assessments).

Radical Philosophy Review is another open-access journal without DOAJ credentials. I'm telling you she's not the published expert you are claiming she is. Pick a different source to feature. She's WP:NOTRELIABLE and deserves No Weight At All, let alone full feature in the lead paragraph for this article.47.197.54.139 (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Radical Philosophy Review has peer review. It meets WP:V handily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs)

That "Forum" is Fringe, period and doesn't claim to be a scholary journal. Give it up, "Radical Philosophy Review provides an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed forum for activist scholars, community activists, and artists". You can't be seriously defending an open access "forum" that literally anyone can publish in, that cant meet the extraordinarily low bar for DOAJ certification and that is positioned as an outlet for publishing activist propaganda.47.197.54.139 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to AGF, but we are discussing a *Journal* with a peer review process, volume-issue publication, a print edition, and a long list of established scholars as contributors and peer reviewers. We are not discussing an open access "forum" that literally anyone can publish in, as if it were a blog platform or predatory journal. I would once again direct your attention to WP:SEALION, because I feel the heady whiff of gaslighting coming on. Newimpartial (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Other peer-reviewed publications include one in Critical Research on Religion and contributions to two edited anthologies - all peer-reviewed contributions. Care to retract your ASPERSIONS? By the way, the DOAJ reference is a complete red herring - WP has no policy-based preference for DOAJ journals. Newimpartial (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

So... Braune edited an Anthology, and reviewed a book? I'm not going to dignify defense of this source's "expertise" or "reliability" any further. As far as "aspersions", there's no such thing present here. As I have noted, you are harassing me and my every post here, looking for any way to silence or intimidate me into not contributing views to this article that differ from yours. I have asked you to stop, privately. I am mow asking you publicly to quit hounding me. Enough already 47.197.54.139 (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Braune didn't edit either of the anthologies I linked above, to which she contributed. So she has a peer-reviewed academic monograph, two peer-reviewed anthology contributions, and at least two peer-reviewed journal publications (one article and one review). That is without a thorough search on my part. I don't know how familiar you are with publication expectations in radical philosophy, but that's a clear reliability pass. As far as your dramatic I am mow asking you publicly to quit hounding me injunction, please read WP:HOUND. Providing evidence-based replies to false claims and ASPERSIONS you make on a Talk page is, ahem, not what HOUNDing is. I am not harassing (you) and (your) every post here, looking for any way to silence or intimidate (you) into not contributing. I am correcting errors of fact, policy and reasoning that you have introduced on this Talk page. If you wish me to stop doing that, then simply stop making proposals that run contrary to site-wide policy and RfCs with wide participation. One-against-many RIGHTGREATWRONGS crusades are seldom rewarding for anyone except spectators in search of entertainment. Newimpartial (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• not a chance - the only POV editing going on here is by those arguing against a peer reviewed subject matter expert. What a joke this debate is. Full of bad faith accusations and POV pushing. Bacondrum (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Revert

@Chas. Caltrop: Re: [11], what was I censoring? In my edit the intro still mentions that "Cultural Marxism" isn't a real movement or school of thought that people belong to, it just says it two times instead of four, to avoid over-prioritising it over other information, like that the various supposed adherents aren't generally linked. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 14:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply

Sure. You don’t see it.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chas. Caltrop: I'm not sure I do. I guess maybe merging the sentences loosely makes it look like the Frankfurt School could be an apt target for the label(?) but that honestly wasn't my intention, and it still doesn't really come across to me since it's contradicted by the previous clause and the following sentence which both say explicitly that "Cultural Marxism" isn't a real movement. I'm not going to make a fuss just for the sake of concision but please try to WP:AGF. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Useful reference

There's a useful academic study on cultural Marxism 'The Alt-Right's Discourse of 'cultural Marxism': A political Instrument of Intersectional Hate' it has a large bibliography

• https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/322499374.pdf

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Making the lead more readable

Chas. Caltrop (talk · contribs) May I ask you why you reverted my edits to the lead with bogus edit summaries? I appreciate your edits, and I think we agree about the status of the conspiracy etc. So let me make this as clear as possible: 1. You reverted my change "The conspiracy states that Marxist theorists and... " ---> "That Marxist theorists and ... " Why? I stated in my edit summary that my aim was to make the lead more readable and split overly large sentences into parts. 2. Same here "Contrary to the conspiracy theorist's claims, "Cultural Marxism" is not an academic school of thought, as academic Joan Braune explains: " ---> "Contrary to the claims of the conspiracists, the academic Joan Braun explained that Cultural Marxism is not an academic school of thought; that Frankfurt School scholars are "critical theorists", not "Cultural Marxists"; that ..." Why are you reverting this? Why did you remove the quotation marks?

I would like to ask you and discuss these points: (1) Why are you reverting changes that I have justified with reasons with bogus edit summaries like "npov. Deleted off-topic text." etc (2) Why are you reverting changes to the leade that make the lead more readable and removed overly large sentences? If I knew your reasons maybe we can find a middle-ground, or work on the readability of the lead paragraph? --Mvbaron (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply

Explicit encyclopaedic style, not newspaper style. The Wikipedia rules are explicit about clearly answering the Who? What? Where? When? and Why?

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but what has that to do with the questions I asked? Let me try again: I replaced this sentence

Contradicting the conspiracists’ claims, the academic Joan Braune said that Cultural Marxism is not an academic school of thought. That Frankfurt School scholars are "critical theorists", not "Cultural Marxists", and that academics of post-modernism and feminist scholars are not Marxist theorists, and have slight connections to the Frankfurt School, to Marxism, and to critical theory; that "Cultural Marxism does not exist—not only is the conspiracy theory version false, but there is no intellectual movement by that name."

With this one:

Contrary to the conspiracy theorist's claims, "Cultural Marxism" is not an academic school of thought, as academic Joan Braune explains: Frankfurt School scholars are "critical theorists", not "Cultural Marxists", and academics of post-modernism and feminist scholars are not Marxist theorists, and have slight connections to the Frankfurt School, to Marxism, or to critical theory. "Cultural Marxism does not exist—not only is the conspiracy theory version false, but there is no intellectual movement by that name."<ref name="braune2">

For these reasons: (1) It splits an overly long sentence into two, this is especially important in the lede section of an article (2) It makes the sentences generally more readable (3) "Cultural Marxism" is in quotes in the rest of the lede. (4) It moves the quoted text closer to the reference, and removes undue emphasis on "the academic Joan Braune". (5) It removes a sentence starting with "That" which is only an enumeration of points for a better integarted sentence. The same reasons apply to the other sentence as well. So, again, what are your reasons for reverting this? --Mvbaron (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

How to reference that InfoWars is promoting the conspiracy?

Hi all

I've added InfoWars to a list of media organisations who promote the conspiracy however I'm not able to reference it or even link to the articles here as plain links (just add their main url to the start of the links below) because InfoWars is understandably not allowed as a source, how should this be resolved? I can see similar issues with adding promotion by the Daily Mail etc

• /is-cultural-marxism-americas-new-mainline-ideology-2/
• /how-cultural-marxism-will-actually-create-atheistic-nazism/

John Cummings (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

When we add a group that promotes the conspiracy theory, we should provide secondary sources that say so. There is usually very little reason to use primary sources. While obviously not the case with Infowars, its possible for us to misinterpret primary sources. For example if an op-ed in the New York Times refers to cultural Marxism, that does not mean the publication promotes it. TFD (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks The Four Deuces I understand, my issue is that these sources are clearly spreading the conspiracy e.g 'in the schools, the universities and most of the public sector, the wild Marxist Cultural Revolution quietly continues its long march through the institutions' (Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail). All I want to do is quote them which will always be a primary source Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Not_a_matter_of_counting_the_number_of_links_in_the_chain. John Cummings (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

John Cummings, If there are no reliable sources talking about this, I think it's probably not warranted to include this piece of information in an encyclopedia. All kinds of bogus claims are made by unreliable outlets like infowars or the DailyMail, we shouldn't include that here. Mvbaron (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mvbaron: I'm sorry, I think there is some confusion, I do not want to use InfoWars or Daily Mail as a source for factual information, I want to record their use of the conspiracy, to quote them. John Cummings (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

If reliable secondary sources don't mention Hitchens or Jones or their publications as prominent exponents of the conspiracy theory, then there is no reason why this article should mention them. That's based on WP:WEIGHT, rather than WP:RS. Generally, we should not quote primary sources unless they are quoted in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

A quibble: to contribute to WEIGHT, the secondary sources don't have to quote the primary sources, they just have to use them as examples, or discuss/interpret/lend significance to them. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not what I meant. Secondary sources can establish weight whether or not they quote the primary source. But generally I would not quote the primary source unless secondary sources did so. That is because we can determine whether the quote is significant and rely on secondary sources for interpretation and context. We avoid the danger of including information that is ignored in secondary sources or providing a novel interpretation, either implicitly or explicitly. TFD (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

A paraphrase complies better with policy than a quote in almost all cases. So we probably agree in substance. Newimpartial (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism as an Essential Quality

proposal withdrawn

The article presently fails to establish the Cultural Marxist Conspiracy Theory as essentially anti-semitic. A good question to ask before labelling things as anti-semitic is as follows: Is a rock antisemitic if it's thrown at a Jewish person? Many adherents of this Conspiracy Theory see Marxists alone as the guiding force and make no anti-semitic connection whatsoever. It's clear that anti-semitism is not an essential characteristic of the Conspiracy Theory, but rather of some of its adherents. For now I have removed the qualifier "anti-semitic" from the initial definition in line 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.54.139 (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Our IP friend appears not to appreciate the way we determine this sort of issue with reference to the sources in use for the article (not via any wonderful/brilliant ideas we might have about the issue ourselves). The term will need to be restored. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC) With respect, I've been contributing to Wikipedia for 20+ years, and I'm well-versed in the conventions here. You have a place here to make your case as to why the subject-matter is defined primarily as "anti-semitic" in the first statement in the article. Presently, the article fails to establish anti-semitism as an essential characteristic of the Conspiracy Theory. Keep your edits factual. If "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory" is anti-semitic, then establish the factual basis for that claim in body of the article with citations. The existing citations do not make that claim. For the moment, the categorization is misleading at best and potentially disingenuous at worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.54.139 (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC) 20+ years, hahaha -- Wikipedia, "Launched January 15, 2001; 19 years ago". As if your experience was at all verifiable. What's verifiable is what's in the sources that support this point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC) I’m sure we can discuss this without any passive aggression. However, IP editor, two of the four sources in the lead explicitly make the connection to antisemitism, and I hadn’t had the time to read through the other two. It was right to revert your edit, and you should follow the BRD cycle. I’ll reinstate the antisemitic qualifier for now. —Mvbaron (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Certainly. The content of the cited works should be examined, as opposed to just their titles. Citation 9 specifically. Leaving aside the question of whether the source is reliable, the citation attempts to make the case to equate "Cultural Marxism" and "anti-Semitism", but only succeeds in proving the point that anti-Semites co-opt the conspiracy theory for their own purposes. Conflating adherents of the Cultural Marxist Conspiracy Theory with adherents of anti-Semitic movements is misleading. While there is overlap, there are also clearly many adherents of this conspiracy theory who have no interest in or connection to anti-semitism. Painting the entire subject matter as anti-semitic is not accurate, and not supported by the provided sources at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.54.139 (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC) To be honest, I don't think there is much to discuss: (1) "At the core of the far right's concept of cultural Marxism are the Jews." (source no 4), (2) scource 9 (Braune 2019) is a whole published paper on the connection, (3) "Cultural Marxism was eagerly grasped as a way of unifying and euphemising a conspiratorial and anti-semitic political hostory (source 3). Also the lead summarizes the body of the article, and (4) there is a sourced chapter on the connection in the article. Unless you have sources that explicitly dispute the connection between CM and anti-semitism (please bring them forward), it definitley has to stay and any speculation is pure WP:OR. Also please sign your talk page posts. Mvbaron (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC) The genesis of the term "Cultural Marxism" is ignored by this article, but it was in analytical work done by William Lind, on behalf of the US Marine Corps, an overview of which can be referenced here: https://www.academia.edu/19612493/PART_III_THE_FREE_CONGRESS_FOUNDATIONS_POLITICAL_MILITARY_STRATEGY_DOCUMENTS It explains Cultural Marxism in terms that have nothing at all to do with anti-semitism. It seems I'm being asked to prove a negative, here. Again my point is that conflating the Conspiracy Theory with the extreme views of some of its adherents has a chilling effect on free speech and in this case is scholastically dishonest. 47.197.54.139 (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC) It really isnt dishonest at all. The sad reality is that the term Cultural Marxism has been appropiated by anti-semites and the far right and turned into exacty an "extreme view" as you are describing. There is no distinction between the Conspiracy Theory and those extreme views, it *is* an extreme view. Also, it's not proving a negative: If there are any reliable sources that come to the conclusion that everyone has for some reason completely misunderstood the conspiracy theory so far, then we would include it here! But that hasn't happened, and we can't theorize ourselves about it. Mvbaron (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC) IP, the source you cite also makes the point that Lind’s writing of fourth generation warfare being wars waged for tribe or race or religion, or mass immigration being a form of warfare is remarkably similar to the view of White racial nationalists publicly known before Lind’s 1994 U.S. Marine Corps Gazette article: if you want to make the argument that those particular "white racial nationalists" were not necessarily antisemitic that would be an interesting move, but would require somewhat EXTRAORDINARY evidence given what is generally known about US-based racial nationalists, per the sources we have. Newimpartial (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Perhaps you are mistaking the point. Imagine a Venn Diagram. In one circle: Antisemites. In another: "People who believe in the Cultural Marxist Conspiracy Theory". These circles overlap slightly, but not entirely. Therefore calling Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory anti-semitic is inaccurate and also damaging to people. It was not conceived that way per the source I provided. It is not observed that way by the majority of people who make reference to it. The reason we should remove anti-semitic from the lead is that it as such serves to unfairly and imaccurately stigmatize any individual who makes reference to it at a time when the notion of Cultural Marxism is gaining popular traction. Therefore, my provided resource should stand as sufficient evidence that we should rephrase the lead unless we want to unfairly stigmatize anyone with the misfortune of making any serious reference to Cultural Marxism. 47.197.54.139 (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC) They overlap slightly, eh? This interpretation of the conspiracy theory is WP:OR. One of several problems here is that "People who believe in the Cultural Marxist Conspiracy Theory" are also "people who fell for a hoax" and are therefor inherently unreliable. It is entirely possible that people who fall for this hoax do not realize that it is an intrinsically antisemitic theory. As an encyclopedia, we should summarize reliable sources which explain this, since explaining things which are not obvious is the goal. Per many source, the connection between "cultural Marxism" and antisemitism are recognized well-documented, and the article should explain this in simple terms. Grayfell (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC) I appreciate the IP's point. Versions of the theory may contain no reference to the Jews and people who believe the theory may not be otherwise anti-Semitic. But it's the theory itself that is anti-Semitic, whether Jewish responsibility is mentioned explicitly or implicitly. In that sense it's similar to Holocaust denial. Holocaust deniers need not explicitly blame the Jews for inventing the Holocaust, but the theory is considered anti-Semitic. And we say these theories are anti-Semitic because that is what reliable sources say, not because we have analyzed them and come to that conclusion. TFD (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC) I agree. There may be some versions of the conspiracy theory that are not motivated by antisemitism and that are not explicitly antisemitic. However, all versions support a wider antisemitic belief structure and are therefore antisemitic in their results. The "Venn diagram" proposed above only seems to cover explicit antisemitism, and therefore does not adequately capture the texture of the conceptual fabric. -Newimpartial (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC) I believe in taking a dialectic approach to things. What I see is a common usage of "Cultural Marxism" that makes no attribution to semitic peoples, and a conspiracy theory that is based firmly on work done for the US government (in 1989) on 4th generation warfare. As an encyclopedia we should take care when applying censure to a concept by labelling it with such a strongly negative attribute in the lead. By doing so you condemn every usage that does not conforn to that judgment. Since so many of the referenced sources clearly indicate there are segments of the population of adherents to this Conspiracy Theory who do not hold anti-semitic beliefs, and since the sources I supplied clearly indicate the origin and intention of this theory did not have an anti-semitic agenda, I think the word anti-semitic should be removed from the lead and moved into the body of the opening paragraph. There we can provide aclear explanation of the present popularity of this theory in White Supremicist and Anti-Semitic circles. If necessary I can provide additional sources that counter the narrative of this conspiracy theory being essentially anti-semitic. If we can't come to an agreement it may be possible to compromise with a "controversy" section that explores the question of whether this topic should be labelled anti-semitic. Let me know your thoughts.47.197.54.139 (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC) I’m not sure why you are so hell-bent in trying to remove anti-Semitic from the lead. Once again, there are multiple reliable sources and a whole section in the body that make the connection. If you were to make a RFC Im pretty sure there is zero chance it will be removed (but you can of course try). But we can’t remove the attribution of anti-semitism because of WP:OR reasoning. So, yes you would have to supply multiple reliable sources that explicitly counter the claim already established here. Also, just as Grayfell above said, there is not nearly such a widespread use of the conspiracy theory as you present it - and this who use the term and don’t want to be seen as anti-semites better educate themselves about the character and nature of the conspiracy theory they are peddling. But all this is really moot - there are multiple reliable sources describing CM as anti-Semitic, so it would take an extraordinary amount and quality of reliable sources to counter that. Mvbaron (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Please assume good faith. I'm not "hell-bent" on anything, so no personal attacks either. This article needs to maintain NPOV, and the "anti-semitic" in the lead does not do that properly. No weight at all is given at present to any view of this subject (backed by reliable sources) that presents a more neutral contextual frame to this Conspiracy Theory, when all quoted sources in this document agree that one exists. Notable fact absent at present from this article: it did not start out anti-Semitic, there is no essential characteristic of the Conspiracy Theory that makes it so, and further the term "Cultural Marxism" is widely used outside of anti-semitic circles. All of that said, this article is flagged controversial for a reason. It appears to me that there is some editorial bias in play on the part of people who wish to condemn things associated with racism, anti-semitism and white supremacy. They can hardly be blamed for that. However, based on my review of the available literature on the subject, the label "anti-semitic" is inappropriate, and an overly critical label for this nuanced topic. I think much of the discord can be cleared up if I take the time to present the appropriate sources to support that an alternative view deserves some weight in this article. However, I'm concerned that your comment just previous to this one seems to prejudge that possibility. Please consider whether personal bias may be a factor in your receptivity to my well-intentioned approach to editing this article. In any case I will present my sources over the upcoming weekend. 47.197.54.139 (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC) But an "alternative" (i.e. FRINGE) view does not, per policy, deserve to be presented with FALSEBALANCE alongside reliable scholarship. The reliable source that you have produced on this states that Lind's analysis is remarkably similar to the view of White racial nationalists. This suggests that, in fact, there is no "more neutral conceptual frame" available, but only a weird form of whitewashing that would argue that the views of "White racial nationalists" are not necessarily antisemitic. To show that an "alternative view" should be presented in terms of NPOV, reliable sources would need to be presented that actually state that the Cultural Marxism CT is not antisemitic. Frankly, based on all the sources that have been brought to this discussion so far, I wouldn't be holding my breath. Newimpartial (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC) In 'Who’s Afraid of the Frankfurt School? “Cultural Marxism” as an Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory', which is used as a source in this article, the author, Joan Braune, explains why the conspiracy theory is anti-Semitic and includes a discussion of Lind. While you may think that so long as theorists remove overt references to Jewishness or adherents are unaware of the connection that it is no longer anti-Semitic, that's a fringe interpretation. I suggest you read the article, since it answers the objections you have presented. TFD (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC) With respect, your quoted source is so biased as to strain the credulity of its inclusion on this page. This is an excerpt for the Biography of Joan Braune on her page: "My dissertation (under Dr. Arnold Farr) and early academic work focused on Erich Fromm’s Critical Theory–Fromm’s work has been very influential on me, and I have been at the forefront of an ongoing Fromm renaissance, as scholars rediscovery Fromm’s contributions to socialist humanist theory and practice, psychoanalysis, and the Frankfurt School." And this: "I am currently writing a new book, Paths through the Void: Understanding and Overcoming U.S. Fascist Movements, for Routledge’s series on Fascism and the Far-Right, exploring causes of resurgence of fascist movements and how Critical Theory can help us think through a strategy to push back." Broane is the furthest thing from an objective or reliable source on this matter, is a primary source in the worst way for this topic, and has an avowed interest in causing a chilling effect on any discourse that might be useful to far right movements. I would go so far as to suggest that she might be so biased as to qualify for removal of her as a source for this article.47.197.54.139 (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia also has an avowed interest in causing a chilling effect on any discourse that might be useful to far right movements - see WP:NONAZIS. So perhaps you should take your FALSEBALANCE to WH Smith's some other user-generated online encyclopedia. Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC) That is both incorrect and inappropriate. Wikipedia's clear NPOV policy does not restrict user-generated content for this encyclopedia to moderate-right or left-leaning ideology only. If we end up having to take this to dispute resolution I will request the Arbitration Committee view your comment as an example of a lack of good faith editing. You are creating a false equivalency between all legitimate far-right ideologies and Nazism, and further pushing an editor who doesn't agree with your point of view to leave the site. This isn't a propaganda site. I'm here to build an encyclopedia. I suggest you evaluate your motivations before posting further examples of your personal bias to this page.47.197.54.139 (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC) This conspiracy theory is antisemitic per reliable sources. William S. Lind is a WP:FRINGE source, and this appears to be an attempt to whitewash the article. Grayfell (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC) At this point I think you both may be approaching WP:BLUDGEONING with this repetition. As I indicated above at least one of the "reliable sources" you reference is the furthest thing from reliable. I'd ask that you refrain second-guessing the intent of my edit, and standby for additional source material. I will also present additional references demonstrating the lack of reliability and presence of significant biases on the part of the sources currently used to support the questionable narrative that there is something essentially anti-semitic about Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory.47.197.54.139 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Per AGF then, IP, and for reference, what is included in your category of "legitimate far-right ideologies", and how do they differ from Nazism? Are you trying to describe fascism minus the antisemitism, or something? I am here to learn. And so that we are clear, you have not at all established that Braune's text is "significantly biased" and unfit for use in the article. All you have shown is that Braune did academic work on an important Jewish Marxist intellectual (Fromm), and is situated in opposition to contemporary far-right movements, neither of which is disqualifying per YESPOV. Surely you are not arguing that Braune is a veritable "Cultural Marxist"? Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Think about the idea that you are implying that every far-right ideology is equivalent to Nazism, and that no far-right ideology is legitimate, and then ask yourself why I think there's editorial bias at play in this article.47.197.54.139 (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC) See my response below. She's obviously a poisoned source and an unapologetic activist. Quoting her like she's a reliable source on this subject matter is more than disingenuine.47.197.54.139 (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC) I asked what is included in your category of "legitimate far-right ideologies", and how do they differ from Nazism? That was a question, which by no means implies that every far-right ideology is equivalent to Nazism, and that no far-right ideology is legitimate. If you are aware of "legitimate far-right ideologies", I am most curious what you believe to belong to this category, and why. Newimpartial (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC) I'm not responding to questions of personal ideology. Please stay focused on this article and stop trying to bait me into a debate about the subject. This isn't the place for that. 47.197.54.139 (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC) How preciously convenient. Braune is "a poisoned source" exclusively because you decide she's "far-left", but any discussion of the "legitimate far-right" is suddenly off topic. Dodges like this suggests you are not acting in good faith. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC) IP: I wasn't asking about your "personal ideology"; I was asking for examples of "legitimate far-right ideology"- a phrase you introduced to this discussion - to understand why I should not consider it as a null set, and how I should distinguish it from Nazism. The fact that you have responded to this now as a question about your "personal ideology" is quite mistaken, but also highly revealing. Newimpartial (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC) IP, the bias of a writer is separate from their reliability. The reason we don't find academic papers defending the views of far right conspiracy theorists is that conspiracy theories cannot be rationally defended. That's what makes them conspiracy theories. We don't say for example that a book written by someone who believes that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon is biased and needs to be balanced by someone who says he didn't. We don't particularly care either about the political beliefs of the author. All we care about is that their facts are considered accurate. There are plenty of scholars across the political spectrum and I never pay any attention to it when selecting reliable sources. Wikipedia takes modern scholarship in science, social sciences, the arts, etc., as a given and they are accorded the status of reliable sources. Mythology, conspiracy theories, racism, etc., and other widely held irrational beliefs lie outside scholarship and are given little if any credence. Now it could be that modern scholarship is wrong. Perhaps it has been hijacked by Marxists. But if that is true, you need to get policy changed. TFD (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC) In this case it's not bias alone that disqualifies her. Braune is a self-avowed Frankfurt-school adherent publishing in the "Journal of Social Justice." Neither she nor the quoted publication (which are both positioned against Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory as a matter of their foundational mission) should be considered reliable sources for information about a topic they have an avowed vendetta against. It would be like quoting a KKK grand wizard in the biography pf MLK. Framing the theory as anti-semitic works to undermine its legitimacy. Her article is activism, not academia.47.197.54.139 (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Um, IP, you should give a bit more thought to the moon landing example. Is someone who goes to the trouble of debunking moon landing conspiracy theories "positioned against moon landing conspiracy theories"? Sure they are. Does that make them less than a reliable source on the moon landing CT? No, it doesn't. It isn't necessary to "underline the legitimacy" of a conspiracy theory, because it's a bloody conspiracy theory. Its illegitimacy as scholarship or a description of reality is right in the name. And I don't think you understand WP policy on what constitutes reliably sourced scholarship - having a POV (like being opposed to antisemitism) doesn't discredit a source in any way, per WP:V. In fact, IP, your obliviousness to this is bordering on WP:SEALION territory now, particularly if you are arguing that being a student of Frankfurt School Marxism is somehow equivalent to being a KKK grand wizard. That takes WHATABOUTISM to a whole new level, IME. In actual history, MLK read Marx and Lenin and the KKK spread antisemitic conspiracy theories, and MLK's views on the KKK would be absolutely DUE for inclusion in a WP article, in spite of any avowed vendetta Dr. King might have against the KKK. Newimpartial (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC) It's not Braune's POV that disqualifies her as a source. Any reasonable person would share her POV regarding racism and anti-semitism. What disqualifies her is that she is an anti-conservative activist who makes no bones about her intention of waging cultural warfare against far-right ideology. It's not just bias, it's an attempt at character assassination of any far right ideologue who espouses globalist conspiracy theories or calls out leftist cultural warfare, using the commonly-understood phrase "Cultural Marxism". People in far-right ideological circles know what is meant by that phrase, and it has nothing to do with anti-semitism. Labelling it as such is a smear designed to delegitimize Braune's political opposition. Edit to add: in all the years I've been contributing I've never heard of a SEALION guideline. I am aware of WP:WL, however and I think you need to step back from attacking my intent as an editor. This article is biased. I'm trying to correct that.47.197.54.139 (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC) You say People in far-right ideological circles know what is meant by that phrase, and it has nothing to do with anti-semitism. However, "people in far-right ideological circles" don't admit that "Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory, but Reliable Sources say that it is one, which is why this article exists. So "people in far-right ideological circles" are not necessary trustworthy sources about their own beliefs. As noted above, their beliefs can have antisemitic origins and antisemitic consequences, without those holding the beliefs realizing that the beliefs are antisemitic. Or at least, that's what reliable sources tell us. Newimpartial (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC) In this specific case the narrative about Cultural Marxist Conspiracy Theory is being shaped by a person who self-ascribes as a modern Frankfurt School Marxist (Braune). Calling her as a reliable source is willful disregard for her self-declared personal vendettas against far right ideologues. 47.197.54.139 (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC) This is multiple flavors of wrong, and is basically nonsense. Many sources (not just Braune) document the antisemitism which is baked in to this half-baked theory. Nothing about Braune's academic history disqualifies this work as a reliable source, and your obvious personal dislike of an ideology totally, completely, utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Opposing far-right extremism is perfectly acceptable both in real life, and on Wikipedia. To pretend otherwise is just false equivalence. Grayfell (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Please do not project biases on to me. Please also do not equate far right ideologies with extremism. Braune's "academic" work is actually far-left activism. I don't label her an extremist for her views, but by your measuring stick, she would be. I certainly consider her statements about the Cultural Marxist Conspiracy Theory to be steeped in her self-avowed agenda of undermining far-right ideologies. It's a fact that labelling this conspiracy theory with the blanket term "anti-semitic" despite the reality that it is not exclusively, and not esentially anti-semitic (or racist whatsoever) is an attempted coup de grace to it's legitimacy. What's more it's exactly the sort of tactic you'd expect from a self-avowed adherent to the "renaissance" of the Frankfurt School. She unabashedly tells us her agenda in her latest book. That you suggest we should persist in imagining that someone steeped in hatred for an entire spectrum of political ideologies can or should be considered a reliable source for an article on them borders on bizarre. It's not bias On My apart, that's in play here.47.197.54.139 (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC) IP, that's circular reasoning. Anyone who considers Cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory must be part of the conspiracy, hence cannot be believed. That's why conspiracy theories cannot be persuaded by rational argument and why conspiracy theorists are rejected by reliable sources. Anyway, you need to change Wikipedia content policies and guidelines rather than argue against them, since we are obligated to follow them, whatever they are. TFD (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory, no question. Braune is a far-left political activist seeking to undermine legitimate far-right ideologies. No question - it's in her biography. In the case of "Cultural Marxism" she does this by labelling any criticism of her particular brand of Frankfurt School Critical Theory as anti-semitic. This results in the impugning of the character of anyone who ascribes to Cultural Marxism Conspiracy (by labelling them racist). It's not circular reasoning to call her out as an unreliable resource. Using her as an academic resource when she's a far-left activist is, however, the intellectual equivalent of having the fox guard the hen-house. It's absurd.47.197.54.139 (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC) I ask again, what are the legitimate far-right ideologies of which you speak? And what do they have to do with the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory? Also, the statement that Braube does this (impugns character) by labelling any criticism of her particular brand of Frankfurt School Critical Theory as anti-semitic is (i) devoid of evidence and (ii) probably a BLP violation, even on this Talk page. Finally, if you want to make the argument that activism and reliable scholarship are mutually exclusive, I'd suggest you take that argument to Talk:Frankfurt School. It certainly doesn't belong here. Newimpartial (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC) It's not devoid of evidence. Your BLP concern is absurd. The things I stated are literally clearly articulated in her autobiography on her website. She's unapologetic about it, and your continued WP:WL is blatant and needs to stop. I will present my relevant sources and arguments in the near future. I'm not swallowing the nonsensical reasoning you are shovelling my way about why we should rely on militant anti-conservatives to define conservative ideas. In any case, I'll get to it later on this weekend. At present I judge this article biased and POV due to inclusion of improper sources and the strong anti-right wing bias present here. DO NOT remove the POV tag without addressing the fundamental lack of neutrality in this article and finding consensus with me and the three other editors who have raised concerned about neutrality in the last 3-4 weeks.47.197.54.139 (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC) IP, one policy on WP that actually does apply, and is enforced, is WP:3RR, which you have violated in your insistence on tag-bombing. Please don't do that. Also, in spite of your having placed the goalposts in novel locations, NPOV issues and the idea that "Cultural Marxism" deserves FALSEBALANCE, "both sides" treatment have already been addressed at great length in the 2014 RfC on the original Cultural Marxism article, last year's RfC on splitting the Frankfurt School article, and this year's revisiting the same topic. The consensus of each of these discussions was that the NPOV treatment of this topic was as a conspiracy theory, not a conservative idea, and a single IP editor tag-bombing the article and BLUDGEONing the Talk page is not going to change that. Nor is any one editor likely to change wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy so that, for example, sources "biased against" QAnon are excluded from articles dealing with it. But I invite you to try. Newimpartial (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC) IP, any academic who does not believe in the cultural Marxist conspiracy theory is by their definition part of the conspiracy. Since no one defends the conspiracy theory in academic writing, that leaves no one who meets your standards. As I explained, you are demonstrating circular reasoning. Do you think for example that Jewish writers cannot be relied upon for articles on anti-Semitism because they have a bias? TFD (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC) The article lacks neutrality because the sources lack neutrality. I'll grant you that point. Where things break down to reflect strong liberal bias is the injudicious usage of the word "Fringe" to villify and discredit any academic on the right who addresses this conspiracy theory. I presented a source that took an unbiased look at the genesis of the theory and it was dismissed out of hand. Nevertheless it demonstrates that the Conspiracy Theory is not anti-semitic. It seems a more rigorous presentation of source materials and defense of the sources will be in order. So I am going to take the time to produce those things, even though that level of oversight is not applied to sources that suit the narratives that are favored here.47.197.54.139 (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Your "unbiased" source also stated that Lind’s writing of fourth generation warfare being wars waged for tribe or race or religion, or mass immigration being a form of warfare is remarkably similar to the view of White racial nationalists publicly known before Lind’s 1994 U.S. Marine Corps Gazette article - if you want to argue that "the views of White racial nationalists" in the U.S are incompatible with antisemitism, you're going to need, ahem, other sources. Newimpartial (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict)Editing Wikipedia has led me to dislike the word "activist". It's one of those words that never seems to actually mean anything concrete, but is used a lot to try and prove a point. That said, academics are "activists" for knowledge and against misinformation. Wikipedia editors are also "activists" against misinformation, such as hoaxes like this one. Opposing misinformation, even if for ideological reasons, doesn't inherently make a source any less reliable. Grayfell (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC) That you prejudge Marxist Conspiracy Theory a "hoax" is problematic. I disagree with you entirely. The seminal work on the subject was produced earnestly and paid for by the US Military, and produced without intent to deceive or defraud. Yes it happens to be riddled with issues, but it's certainly not a hoax. Dismissing the subject matter like that is further evidence that this article is suffering from strong bias. In this case the biggest problem is the application of "anti-semitic" to the theory. That's utter nonsense designed to defame anyone who gives it any credence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.54.139 (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC) WP:STICK , Wp:FORUM. This is completely ridiculous and has been going on for far too long. This talk page is not a venue to air your personal opinions about a topic but to make concrete suggestions for improving teh article. IP, a paper by an expert in the field, published in a peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source WP:RS. If you don't like that, take it up with the relevant policiy pages. Unless you present reliable sources disputing the claim that CM is anti-semitic, there is nothing to discuss here. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing this talk page over and over again with the same points adressed thousands of characters above. --Mvbaron (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC) IP, the 4GW article produced by the military doesn't refer to Cultural Marxism. TFD (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC) After a week there isn't the slightest support in this section for my proposed removal of anti-semitism as an essential quality of Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theorists. I suggest we archive this section, as the consensus clearly favors leaving it as is, and this section scrolls for days. 47.197.54.139 (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Since obviously you didn't let it go IP, I collected a few more quotes from published, peer-reviewed sources all being clear that the conspiracy theory is antisemitic, in addition to the already reliable examples in the article. (and yes, of course, a theory can be antisemitic and not "just" it's proponents - how is that even a question?) If I have time, I'll work these into the section on antisemitism.

The conspiracy additionally has potent antisemitic connotations, leading some to frame it within the antisemitic ‘conspiratorial tradition'.
— (Busbridge 2020)

The term Cultural Marxism is indeed reminiscent of Kulturbolshewismus(Cultural Bolshevism), an antisemitic epithet used by Nazi Germany to denote the degeneracy of German society.
— (Busbridge 2020)

In post-Cold War America, paleo-conservative think-tanks and white nationalist organizations resurrected the Nazi idea of “cultural Bolshevism” but renamed it “cultural Marxism”.
— (Mirrlees 2016)

Many of the academics of the critical theory movement were Jewish, and the idea of cultural Marxism is closely associated with antisemitic conspiracy theories.
— https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/26/tory-mp-criticised-for-using-antisemitic-term-cultural-marxism

The conspiratorial tradition has long been linked with antisemitism as conspiracy theorists have often identified Jews as secretly plotting world domination.
— (Billig 2001)

Cultural Marxims is pretty unanimously described as an antisemitic conspiracy theory. All these sources (with the exception of Billig) are in the article, so maybe we can put this to rest now? I don't even see the point in insisting it isn't antisemitic, pretty much all sources about CM (there aren't that many) mention it one way or another. --Mvbaron (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Hi Dimadick, I see you reinstated links to Wikiprojects Skepticism and Alternative views. Maybe I am not understanding something about WikiPorjects, but neither seems to be fitting here. For Alternative views, I don't see how this conspiracy theory is an "alternative view" to anything really. (what's the alternative?) For Skepticism, I don't see a rationale at all. This has nothing to do with Skepticism? Also relatedly, I don't see how this Conspiracy Theory has anything to do with Judaism - yes, it is antisemitic, but certainly not everything that is antisemitic, is related to Judiasm? Maybe you can explain your reasoning here? Thanks --Mvbaron (talk)

The main article conspiracy theory is covered by Wikiprojects Skepticism and Alternative views, which also cover most conspiracy theories. Antisemitic canards such as this are covered by either WikiProject Judaism or WikiProject Jewish history. Dimadick (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah interesting! So by default, all other CTs should also be in Skepticism and Alternative views? Okay then, fair enough. Thank you! Mvbaron (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly analysis section

I object to the creation of a "scholarly analysis" section as if the rest of the article shouldn't contain scholarly analysis; obviously, the entire article consists of scholarly analysis (this is a similar problem to one of the issues with WP:CSECTIONs, in that the implication of creating a section of this nature is to confine to one section something that ought to be worked throughout the the article.) The material there is better covered elsewhere, such as in the origins or aspects section. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec)I agree, there should be a section "Overview", or no section at all after the ToC, or the material in question culd be part of the "Origins" section, but we have to rely on high quality sources anyway, so a "scholarly analysis" makes no sense unless it is significantly different from just a normal descrition of the conspiracy theory. --Mvbaron (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason I proposed such a section in the first place is that there was no obvious section in which to include the kind of high-level overview analysis for which the Braune piece was cited in the lede, and the previous situation - in which the lede made claims that were not substantiated in the article body, using a source that was not cited in the article body - was not compliant with policy.

I am not wedded to this solution - much less the section heading text - but I have noticed that some of the subsections preceding the "Analysis" (in current placement) move quite awkwardly from more or less thick description to high level analysis as they move from claim to claim. It is my view that - using the best sources available at all times - the article would work best for readers if the high-level analysis were all gathered into the one section, which could then inform the lede. The relationship between lede and body on previous drafts of the article (since the split) has not been close to ideal. Newimpartial (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the solution for now is to keep analysis in the appropriate parts of the body (adding new, more specific subsections if we have analysis that doesn't fit squarely into an existing subsection) and to rewrite the second paragraph of the lead to broadly summarize high-quality sources discussing the conspiracy theory rather than focusing on just one such source. See the section I created below for discussion about that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Please see my reply under your new Talk section heading - why you have insisted on splitting this discussion into three locations on the Talk page, I have no real idea. Good thing I have some practice with WAC-a-mole. :p

Also, in addition to what I say below, my sense is that adding new, more specific subsections would tend to make the article worse, rather than better, in terms of my sense of ENCyclopaedic treatment. What we have is already both choppier and more pointillist than it could be, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Braune and Braune2

What is the difference between the source Braune and Braune2? They look identical, but obviously someone else must have seen this if they numbered one of them as 2. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

no difference, just someone working further down the article not realizing that it was already used up top? Can just be unified. Ill do it. Mvbaron (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Second-paragraph lead summary.

I don't disagree that the second paragraph of the lead shouldn't focus exclusively on Braun; but we do need a paragraph focused on the fundamentally inaccurate and invented nature of the conspiracy theory as described by reliable sources, since that makes up basically the entire body and almost all reliable coverage. Other sources from the body that I would summarize in that lead paragraph are Martin Jay ("demagogic propaganda") and Matthew Feldman (especially describing it as a reiteration of the Nazi-era charge of "Cultural Bolshevism"); Andrew Woods and Samuel Moyn describing it as an antisemitic; Jérôme Jamin describing it as something invented by American ultraconservatives after the fall of the Berlin Wall to replace the "red menace" of communism and as a way for racist authors to avoid racist statements, and probably a few others. These can reasonably be summarized into a paragraph in the lead summarizing the conspiracy theory's fundamental focus as described by the highest quality sources in order to avoid putting so much weight on Braun. (Of course, this would be in addition to Braun, not excluding her, though we'd probably summarize her much more briefly.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of this, but I do think that putting together a better "Scholarly analysis" section first, then editing the Lede, would be less likely to produce SYNTH than trying to edit this on the Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

But most of the things I mentioned are already in the body in more appropriate sections. Are you suggesting we pull all the analysis out of each section (leaving much of the article just a reiteration of the conspiracy theory in the words of the people promoting it?) Or are you suggesting we duplicate all the existing analysis, which comprises most of the article, into a second section? My point is that there's already supposed to be a part of an article that summarizes all the scholarly analysis in the article, and that is the lead, since it summarizes the article and most of the article should already be scholarly analysis. We could add headers to individual sections summarizing them, perhaps but - what do you see the "origins of the conspiracy theory" and "aspects of the conspiracy theory" sections containing, in your proposed rewrite? Since it feels like the only source we're having trouble placing is Braun, rather than drastically restructuring the article to move all the scholarly analysis to one section, I think it would make more sense to create a subsection in "aspects of the conspiracy theory" for "Relationship to the Frankfurt School" or the like, and put Braun there. --Aquillion (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I do not think we should pull all the analysis out of each section (leaving much of the article just a reiteration of the conspiracy theory in the words of the people promoting it?) For one thing, we should be using PRIMARY sources as little as possible, and sourcing descriptive claims from secondary sources. Secondly, I am distinguishing between "high level" analysis dealing with the CT as a whole, and more thick description or mid-level analysis that is more specific to the CT's aims, typical moves, tropes etc. To me this distinction seems quite clear, and that the article would be less of a dog's breakfast if we tried to maintain such a distinction - both the "origins" and the "aspects" can be described without high-level analysis, and they mostly are already.

And I really do think SYNTH can better be avoided by making the distinction I'm talking about and writing a new section than by editors performing their own high-level summary, especially in this politically charged topic.

It might be possible to separate the high level analysis into "origins" and "aspects", but I'm not sure how much credence I'd give that distinction, to be honest. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it is important to capture the current consensus (on WP, which I disagree with) that the Conspiracy Theory is anti-semitic. Further I think we should include an up-front indication that the Conspiracy Theory is widely refuted by Academia. Consequently I am proposing the following language for the first two lead paragraphs:

Paragraph 1: Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory with strong ties to anti-semitic and far-right groups which claim that Western Marxism is the basis for an on-going academic and intellectual conspiracy to subvert Western Culture. Conspiracists claim that Marxist theorists and Frankfurt school intellectuals are subverting western society with a culture war intent on undermining Christian values and traditionalist conservatism. They further claim that conspirators work to promote the cultural liberal values of the 1960s counterculture, that multiculturalism, progressive politics and identity politics are part of the conspiracy, and that political correctness was created by critical theory.

Paragraph 2: The conspiracy theory originated in the United States in the early 1990s and though widely-debunked by academia as steeped in implicit racism, anti-semitic tropes, and misinformation, the conspiracy theory is nevertheless a frequent talking point of alt-right, far-right and neo-nazi groups. 47.197.54.139 (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a conspiracy theory which is false, or a hoax. This theory is refuted by many reliable sources, not just academia, so Wikipedia treats it as wrong. The article must be based on reliable sources. Moving "widely-debunked" to the second paragraph would be missing the point. This theory is covered by reliable sources exclusively because it's a conspiracy theory. The theory does not merely have strong ties to antisemitic groups, it is antisemitic. Some groups which push this theory are not inherently antisemitic, but the theory itself is an almost naked antisemitic canard. Since pretty much everything proposed by this conspiracy theory is wrong, or at least strongly contested by more qualified sources, it would be a bad mistake to present it on its own terms. Per WP:FRINGE, we need to spell-out that this theory is wrong. We cannot presume that readers who only browse the first paragraph will realize just how batshit this theory is on its own merits. Sources are clear, and so we should be clear as well.

As an additional note, the paragraph 2 proposal is editorializing. Nevertheless is an editorializing term which implies that it is somehow unexpected that "alt-right, far-right and neo-nazi groups" would push an antisemitic conspiracy theory. It's completely expected. alt-right, far-right and neo-nazi groups are not known for their academic rigor, they are known for antisemitic conspiracy theories. Grayfell (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"With strong ties to anti-Semitic and far-right groups" is weasel-wording, because it doesn't specify what those ties are. The tie is that the theory is anti-Semitic, so that is what we should say. It's not a consensus on WP, it's the consensus in reliable sources. We should not argue about the merits of the conspiracy theory, but about how to accurately report how it is perceived in reliable sources. If they say it's true, the article should say it's true, if they say it's an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, that's what the article should say. TFD (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Your suggested language just doesn't read properly.. This is an article on a conspiracy theory. It is an abstraction that does not hold any political or other beliefs. Only the behaviors and actions of its adherents can be anti-semitic. Also it's not weasel-wording to summarize. I've suggested before that we explore those ties in greater depth in an anti-semitism section. This objection to creating a clean separation between the theory and it's adherant appears to be a desire to enforce a POV phrasing that makes using the phrase "Cultural Marxism" verboten, to make it synonymous with holding anti-semitic beliefs. It's a certainty that there are those who adhere to it who hold no such beliefs, and a couple already-referenced source make mention of that, so such a treatment of the subject would be wrong. Let's avoid speaking from a place of personal bias and political agenda and help write a neutral article. I think we strike a good balance by calling it out as rhetorical favorite of anti-semites and neo-nazis. We are not, after all, proposing to explore any other usage. 47.197.54.139 (talk) 05:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

IP, it has already been pointed out to you repeatedly (mostly in the section titled Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#Anti-semitism as an Essential Quality - which sounds a lot like an undergraduate essay about Aquinas) that Anti-semitism is not always a term labeling conscious beliefs; it is also an appropriate label for unconscious motives, and also for the results of actions that were not necessarily based on anti-semitic motives. Think of that last point as parallel to Systemic racism and maybe you will get it. By insisting that every use of the term "anti-semitic" relate to "beliefs", you are running counter to the way the reliable sources use the term and thereby engaging in STRAWMAN argumentation, which is not recommended on Wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an essay "debunking" topics. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding my comment back in after user Greyfell reverted it. See their talk page for other examples of people complaining about biased reverts wherever "antisemitism" is at issue. I think it's important for editors of this article to understand the impact of their behaviors. My original reply to Emir is follows:

It's reasonable to think that way. However, nothing short of a hit piece vilifying this topic and anyone who may have the temerity to address it in a neutral way is accepted here. You see this all over WP with far-left activists using "anti-semitic" to stigmatize subject matter that calls into question progressive ideology. The Co-Founder of Wikipedia has declared NPOV "dead" because of agenda-ridden tripe like that. Imagine asserting "anti-semitism" as a descriptor for "unconscious motives" as mentioned above! Literally using Critical Theory as the framework to attack criticism of Critical Theory. The absurd disregard for NPOV in this article is being defended as right and necessary. That's not what makes an encyclopedia, it's propaganda. In my recent experience with this article, should you succeed in pointing out the implicit bias in phrasing here, you will be inundated with personal attacks, harassment, and appeals to the authority of academia. All the while you may anticipate the far-left bias to manifest as precious promotion of Fringe SELF-STYLED radical left academic activists as "expert sources". At the same you can anticipate the fact that academic publishing is the purview of wildly left-leaning University professors to be utterly ignored. Further, should you present a dissenting opinion, any source which contradicts the approved leftist narratives will be decried as "Fringe" or "Questionable" because it is not in a peer-reviewed, leftist-currated journal. It's all so tiresome. I'm here to build an encyclopedia. They are here to control a narrative.47.197.54.139 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"The absurd disregard for NPOV in this article is being defended as right and necessary." I doubt that your approach adheres to NPOV. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:" 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. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." Those "leftist currated journals which you reject represent academic scholarship. Dimadick (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

IP, the concept of "unconscious motives" isn't specific to Critical theory; it is a basic psychological concept. And as Consolidated (band) once so wisely said, "crusading rap guys are a real downer". Maybe it's time to let the windmills be. As I have said before, you might be more comfortable contributing to some other user-generated encyclopedia, where you can claim. that academic publishing is the purview of wildly left-leaning University professors without coming across as a conspiracy theorist yourself. In fact, I sense a Global warming conspiracy theory coming on. Newimpartial (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed theories can be anti-Semitic and can express beliefs or political views. TFD (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe they can be. But this one isn't. This conspiracy theory has nothing to do with Jewish people. Aside from sources already proved to be unreliable and radical leftist FRINGE no one out there is really claiming this Conspiracy Theory is intended to defame Jewish people. Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory is about MARXISM. So unless you are making the extraordinary claim that all Marxists are Jewish, this whole anti-semitism thing is an anti-conservative "canard." In any case I'm adding this link back. Here is the definitive "antisemitism" definition from the organization most qualified to describe it (ADL): https://www.adl.org/anti-semitism There's no way starting from that definition that you can label this Conspiravy Theory antisemitic.47.197.54.139 (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"Aside from sources already proved to be unreliable and radical leftist FRINGE" You have not actually proved anything of the sort. You have just made unsubstantiated accusations to dismiss sources that you disagree with. That you do not like what they say does not make them unreliable. Dimadick (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, IP, please read WP:OR and stop doing it. Newimpartial (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

What you call "radical leftist FRINGE" is what Wikipedia calls reliable sources. I'll assume good faith that you have a reason for saying that the ADL is most qualified to define anti-Semitism. However note that they classify the term cultural Marxism as a "lean negative" label used against Jews. The ADL uses it as a keyword in identifying anti-Semitic postings on social media. Indeed I do not identify Jews with Marxism, which is why I voted to delete Jews and Communism at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination). The identification of Jews and Communists is however a popular view on the Right, it's called Jewish Bolshevism and is the foundation of the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Serious NPOV and BLP issues with this article

It is with a heavy heart that yet again I come across a 'culture war'-related article on Wikipedia that is so POV. The opening line states that the theory is far-right and anti-Semitic, which whilst I'm sure is true of some adherents but not all. I don't know about the detailed origins of the theory, but it should made absolutely clear that not all proponents are necessarily anti-Semitic, just as an article on, say, pro-immigration restriction proponents should make it clear that some but by no means all such people are motivated by racism.

The list of 'promoters' (itself a loaded word) is troubling - we have Jordan Peterson and Nigel Farage listed along with Anders Brevik as if they are one and the same. To be frank I'm staggered that such anti-BLP slander can sit here unchallenged. To accuse (directly, or indirectly by association) a living person of racism is an extremely serious accusation that should be backed up by a raft of references from reputable sources, not one reference from a left-wing paper like the Guardian.

I don't know all of the people listed here, but Peterson for example has spent huge amounts of time analysing and attacking the foundations of Nazi and far-right ideology. He has even stated on several occasions his admiration for Jewish culture. The list also include Ben Shapiro, but conveniently overlooks the fact that he is Jewish. Is the reader supposed to know this and to assume that he's a 'self-hating Jew'? This list should be split either into proponents who have been proven to be anti-Semites and those who have not, or each entry should make it crystal clear whether the proponent also espouses anti-Semitism or not.

I really do wonder what's happening to Wikipedia as I have come across several articles now which break POV yet stay up. I am sincerely hoping that the issues raised above are simply the result of sloppy editing. I don't have the time or energy right now to get stuck into a debate over this article, as I can see that any editing on it will be contested. I may come back at some point and give it a go. WisDom-UK (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The above comment does not include any concrete or actionable suggestions for the article; I therefore propose that it is a FORUM violation and should be collapsed. Also, the author has clearly not read the previous discussion on this Talk page in which all of these points have been addressed. The split of this page from Frankfurt school has clearly turned into a major time sink and POV drive-by (and SPA) contributor magnet, as predicted. Newimpartial (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: Well I am shocked that my edit comments and suggestions can just be deleted. Challenged and refuted, yes. But just deleted?! This is the first time I've had edits to a talk page just plain deleted in 15 years of using this site. Having now reinstated my comments, I see that they have now been kept on and responded to (recommending they be hidden).

To clarify, I made several concrete proposals to improve the article e.g. 1. clearly stating that not all proponents are also anti-Semites in the intro line, 2. carrying this into the List of proponents (or 3. splitting said list), 4. adding the fact that Shapiro is Jewish, 5. adding multiple reverences from neutral sources for anyone listed. Here's another - 6. adding Melanie Philips, a British proponent (who also happens to be Jewish).

Also to clarify, I do not engage in 'POV drive-by'. I'm a political centrist with some concerns at the way hot button topics are covered on his site. I have raised the same issues with other areas on this site where I see POV issues e.g. the Abkhaz/Ossetian-Georgian territorial dispute. And I am certainly not a SPA - I have edited mainly geography and history articles on here for 15 years with no substantive complaints from anyone. I do not edit controversial political/cultural articles as as a rule as I have only a passing interest in such issues, and also I do not wish to get bogged down in unconstructive editing disputes like this.

If you disagree with these suggestions or what I have said, fine, but do please do not just delete them because you have bad experiences in the past.WisDom-UK (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposals 1. through 6. might make sense if this were the article List of Cultural Marxist anti-semites but alas, it is not. Reliable sources pretty uniformly characterise the conspiracy theory as antisemitic, but it by no means follows that those employing the conspiracy theory are all antisemitic in motivation or in their other views. Clearly stating that not all proponents are also anti-Semites in the intro line is no more necessary than stating that not all Qanon proponents hold other far right views. This page discusses what is reliably documented as an antisemitic conspiracy, and Qanon is reliably sourced as a far-right conspiracy. That some followers of each might be blameless in the rest of their political or intellectual lives is rather beside the point. Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, FALSEBALANCE is a form of POV issue, as is whitewashing, and this topic already since the split from Frankfurt school last month has seen more than its share of both (which is why it is page-protected at the moment). And I simply do not see any justification in the WP:TPG for creating a new, long heading on a specific topic that has already been discussed to death in discussions currently visible on the Talk page. Your comment that you do not wish to get bogged down in unconstructive editing disputes like this documents perfectly why I described your comment as a "drive-by". Newimpartial (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

As stated, I do not know enough about the specific origins of the theory to state whether it is anti-Semitic in origin or not. Clearly if so many of its modern proponents are unaware of the fact, or else have kept the concept but ditched the anti-Semitism, hence why Jews like Ben Shapiro and Melanie Philips can champion it. This crucial point is nowhere addressed on the page. My main issue is that this should be clearly and categorically stated, in the intro or if not in the list of individual proponents, so as to not unfairly slander living persons on line with BLP. At present the casual reader would read the intro, glance through the list and assume they are all anti-Semitic, which is simply unacceptable. It is not 'false balance' to clearly and accurately state living people's views on controversial and potentially character-damaging topics on a popular website, in fact it is Wikipedia policy, which is why I was surprised to see the list presented in the way it is.

Also 'drive-by' is a loaded term unsuitable for civil discussion and is hardly assuming good faith. As said I may come back to the page, in which case these points could form the basis for further discussion. As evidenced by the fact I had my comments straight-up deleted from the talk page I can see I would have a fight on my hands. Not too mention I would have familiarise myself with the contents of this vast talk page, brush up on Wiki guidelines, conduct hours of research into the cultural Marxism concept, its history and proponents, then almost certainly fight it out at an Admin arbitration, all for a topic I only half care about. As stated, I generally avoid such disputes here, as in real life, except for topics I am super passionate about as it is simply too exhausting and time-consuming. Not everyone has hours of spare time to devote to internet disputes. I simply no longer trust Wikipedia as a neutral source on current political topics or controversies, whereas it used to be my go to.WisDom-UK (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

To address the substantive part of the above, the idea that a page about a Conspiracy Theory could produce BLP violations by following the reliable sources about the conspiracy theory seems absurd to me. I hope it is not true that the casual reader would read the intro, glance through the list and assume they are all anti-Semitic, which is simply unacceptable - but if they read the article sloppily and interpret it in ways that are inconsistent with what it actually says, there is no way in which that would be a BLP violation. The idea that WP would be responsible for the casual attention of some of its readers has to be the oddest form of CRYBLP I have seen this year. The policy relevant questions are: how do the reliable sources characterize the conspiracy theory, and, if proponents are mentioned, who do reliable sources (satisfying BLP requirements) report as promoting the conspiracy theory. Errors made by readers are not BLP issues. Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The fact that the subject of this article is antisemitic does not imply that its followers are themselves antisemitic, only that they are followers. Readers might infer that a person following an antisemitic conspiracy theory might themselves be antisemitic, but Wikipedia can neither confirm nor deny such an inference (per WP:SYNTH). None of the three individuals you named are referred to as antisemitic anywhere in this article as far as I can tell, though their own biographies are varied, and so I don't see how it can be a BLP violation. In order to make this article say something like "cultural marxism has antisemitic origins but in modern interpretation is not antisemitic", you will need to find that in a reliable source, and until someone does so, any discussion on the matter can only be theoretical, and this is no forum for it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

"Not everyone has hours of spare time to devote to internet disputes." Yes. It is unreasonable and uncivil to expect us to rehash these exact same disputes over and over again. You have incorrectly presumed that the burden falls on us to refute your position. This is backwards. We have already refuted this multiple times, so the burden is now on you to do the hard work of changing consensus. You will need to rely on something more substantial than anything you've said so far.

As for Peterson specifically, I will repeat what I said earlier on this talk page: Peterson is not a historian. Although a self-described expert on totalitarianism, he is not recognized as an expert by reliable sources, and is frequently challenged for misrepresenting or even fabricating important historical information. Regarding Peterson's targeting of "postmodern neo-Marxists", Bernard Schiff said I do think Jordan believes what he says, but it’s not clear from the language he uses whether he is being manipulative and trying to induce fear, or whether he is walking a fine line between concern and paranoia.[12] Schiff was one of Peterson's academic mentors. Peterson's belief in this conspiracy theory doesn't make it any less of a conspiracy theory.

I will add that it also doesn't make it any less antisemitic. The same goes for Ben Shapiro. BLP is not a magical totem which insulates people from the consequences of their statements. Grayfell (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It is simply disingenuous to imply that no inference is to be made by the inclusion of a list of names on page for a theory defined as 'far-right' and anti-Semitic' in the opening line. As stated, I do not know if the theory is anti-Semitic in origin or not. Even if so, the theory has since developed, with one version of it at least not being anti-Semitic. The fact that some 9-11 conspiracy theorists believe it was a Jewish plot, does not ipso facto mean that all 9-11 conspiracy theorists are anti-Semites. You are simply defining the terms in a way that suits a particular viewpoint, whereby anyone who makes the rather banal (and well-evidenced claim) that some professors are Marxist and that they may seek to push their views on students and the wider public, can be defined as 'anti-Semitic'.

As for Peterson, it is true he is not a historian but he has never as far I am aware 'fabricated historical information', and nothing of the sort is mentioned on his Wiki page. That is simply a slur.

This page typifies so much that is wrong with Wikipedia nowadays, especially with controversial topics. A small group of highly motivated individuals staking out a page and aggressively patrolling it against anyone one else who dares to touch it, forcing anyone who wishes to make changes into a gruelling and lengthy edit war and/or arbitration. It is one of the main reasons the numbers of active editors continues to fall and why Wikipedia is increasingly no longer trusted as a neutral source. I have seen this become more and more common in the past few years and it is one of the main reasons I am seriously thinking of quitting the site for good. WisDom-UK (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)