Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Split proposal[edit]

From the intro, it is unclear what this article is actually about. The title of most iw-linked articles in other languages does not contain the words "conspiracy theory". This article should be split into two articles: One article "Cultural Marxism", defining what that is ("a cultural movement promoting the cultural liberal values of the 1960s counterculture and multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness" per the intro?), and another article "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory", stating on one hand who the alleged conspirators are and what their supposed goal is and on the other hand who are promulgating the theory. A "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" may very well exist and deserve its own article, but "Cultural Marxism" itself is not a conspiracy theory. Separating the two topics will facilitate understanding them both. --Bensin (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source which says that cultural marxism itself is not a conspiracy theory? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that a "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" exists and is a conspiracy theory specifically referring to Cultural Marxism, then from that follows that Cultural Marxism itself is something else. A possible analogy would be that Film theory, which is the study about film, is different from Film itself. --Bensin (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for a source, not your own contorted logic or a loose analogy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Jussim wrote in Psychology Today that "Cultural Marxism is a term mostly used to describe an ideological movement, not a conspiracy theory."[1] --Bensin (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Justin, Ph.D., rabble rouser (as the author appears in the linked article) does not appear to be a reliable source for the claim quoted. As we have had many, well-participated and impartially-closed RfCs and other formal discussions, which have concluded on the basis of the available RS that there is no "Cultural Marxist" movement except as a trope of the conspiracy theory, it would take more than such an opinion piece from a non-specialist to justify reopening this question AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the rather extensive talk archive, this article has evidently been talked about before. But I myself have never been part of any of those talks, and I can't find any reference to Lee Jussim. "Rabble Rouser" is the name of Jussim's blog here, it is not his name or alias. Jussim has an h-index of 55.[2] (The h-index may have its weaknesses, but it means that he has written 55 papers that have been cited 55 times or more, and his papers have a total of 16263 citations). Help me understand why Jussim is not a reliable source. --Bensin (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What peer-reviewed work has he published that has any relevance to Marxist theory (or "movements") or to conspiracy theory?
As far as previous community discussions are concerned, a reasonably concise set of pointers can be found in this recent, albeit archived, Talk section. Newimpartial (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Experts aren't reliable outside their field of expertise, Jussim does not appear to study political theory... He's a social psychologist which isn't even a closely related field. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Psychology Today is not peer reviewed and has an awful reputation. Do you have anything from a real source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what you are suggesting would be better solved by removing conspiracy theory from the title or improving the lead. I am not saying that this article should never be split, just that I think the current proposal is not enough for it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the very first sentence of the page: >"Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For "cultural Marxism" in the context of cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jussim is not an established expert on conspiracism. His analysis is any way confusing. He quotes an article in Tablet: "It is a short step from the Marxist and cultural Marxist premise that ideas are, at their core, expressions of power to rampant, divisive identity politics and the routine judging of people and their cultural contributions based on their race, gender, sexuality and religion." So if someone says that the views expressed in Russian media promote the interests of Russian oligarchs, the next thing they will be getting people fired because they are white. TFD (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New OED definition[edit]

Despite the controversy introduced last time I attempted to talk about this, one useful feature of the new OED entry for cultural Marxism is that it gives us a source for a SYNTHy assertion that was recently removed:

In sense 1, apparently with allusion to English cultural bolshevism (1932 or earlier), itself after German Kulturbolschewismus, denoting any cultural movement or practice perceived (and dismissed) as left-leaning or progressive (1919 or earlier, subsequently often in Nazi use). Compare German Kulturmarxismus (1924, in an attack on a Marxist philosopher, or earlier; rare before the late 20th cent. and in recent use probably after English)

Perhaps someone might like to add this information somewhere.  Tewdar  18:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion as to where? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, wherever it was that this claim was removed. 😁 Perhaps I'll do it myself if there are no objections by tomorrow evening...  Tewdar  22:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps @Mvbaron: has some suggestions as to how we might word this, if they think it should be included... Tewdar  08:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The OED is a dictionary. All it tells us is that a British Fascist used the term cultural Marxism in the 1930s. But there is no evidence it influenced any future writers so there is no reason to include it, unless relevant sources do. It might be worth including in Wiktionary, but that has to be discussed over there. TFD (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The recent RfC removed a long-standing claim about the etymology of 'Cultural Marxism', which was SYNTH, and was there for a long time. We now have a source, from the OED, experts in etymology. But this source cannot be used to support this claim?  Tewdar  10:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been explained to you that all of the OED's references predate the mainstreaming of the conspiracy usage:
Of the non-conspiracy usage, I could not find their first reference (which just reads as 1949 Mod. Q. Autumn 381/2). I assume it's a journal, but it's very old, and I've never heard of it. Their second reference is here - it's from 1979 by a Catholic Theologian who became a Sociologist. So is in the correct field. I doubt it provides a definition of "cultural Marxism" though. Their third reference is here - but according to the author's own webpage, was actually written in 1989... so again that's quite old.
Accordingly they all use 'cultural Marxism', which is just and adjective and a pronoun. Not an ideology, plan, or school of thought. They're just Marxist cultural analysis, and that already has a page. You're just trying everything to substantiate the term because you're a believer in the conspiracy. (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how anything I have said, any edits I have done, or any sources I have provided, make you believe that I am trying to substantiate the term because [I'm] a believer in the conspiracy. You won't be able to, because it is a FUCKING LIE. Stop this harassment immediately, Jobrot, or you will be taken to ANI.  Tewdar  11:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, someone else says we need to discuss whether we can add The term is also used depreciatively by proponents of the theory to refer to this purported agenda itself now. We probably do need this info, even if OED cannot be used as a source. Sigh.  Tewdar  15:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion on the inclusion of that sentence but I found the arguments for not using the OED definitions convincing. Kind regards, (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can probably add that without a source in the lede actually, as it is covered by other sources used already in the article.  Tewdar  19:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the first sentence[edit]

The following discussion 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.

Which of the following options should the first sentence be? (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Option A[edit]

  • A When a conspiracy theory is about something real, then we add the term conspiracy theory. When it is about something imaginary, it is optional. I prefer leaving it out because it may mislead readers into believing that that the conspiracy theory is about something real. TFD (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A per Buidhe (talk · contribs) above: This article is the primary topic of "Cultural Marxism". --Mvbaron (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A; that version is more succinct and better worded, and, as mentioned, this article is the primary topic of Cultural Marxism. Furthermore, this is the only significant usage of the term - it is false, as some people below have implied, that there is sufficient significant usage of the term in other contexts sufficient for us to take it into consideration in the lead of the article; no significant usage of the term to refer to Marxist analysis of culture exists, and we should avoid WP:OR that would string together those mostly-unrelated and unconnected usages in a way that would imply that they are a topic in their own right. As the massive discussion above shows, proponents of that argument have repeatedly tried and repeatedly failed to argue that there is significant usage of the term outside the conspiracy theory, finding only a smattering of usages cited to things like PHD theses and other generally low-quality sources. Oppose all the "compromises" suggested below, which to me do not seem like compromises at all, since they flatly side with B on the main point. --Aquillion (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A per the coverage in WP:RS, B appears to be an attempt to do an end run around long standing consensus vis-a-vis topic and title. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A As the better-worded, more suciccint and more accurate option. AusLondonder (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A The main point of the subject is that it is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory, so that should be first. Whatever nonsense the conspiracy theory states should be secondary. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 00:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A per Aquillion's cogent statement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "Cultural Marxism" isn't a set thing or ideology, we shouldn't infer that it is anything other than a conspiracy theory. Sure the words "cultural Marxism" may have been used to mean.... something... but I don't think it was ever a very specific something. So whatever that usage meant has clearly been eclipsed. -- (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC) (talk) has made few orno other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • A Better written and clearly explains how the term is used. - MrOllie (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A There's simply no case to be made that anything other than the conspiracy theory is the primary topic indicated by the words "Cultural Marxism". XOR'easter (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option B[edit]

  • As per the discussion above. I prefer "starting the lede with the actual name of the article instead of a term that is ambiguous (evidenced at minimum by the hatnote). Per WP:DICDEF, articles should be focused on topics, not terms. WP:MOSLEAD and WP:SBE explicitly say that ”an article's title is typically repeated at the opening of the article's first sentence (in bold) usually followed by is or was and a definition”. Even if there was no additional usage of the term "cultural Marxism", it is the generally accepted standard to start an article with the article’s title. Take a look at the example of Chemtrail. The term “chemtrail” has no secondary use and refers strictly to a conspiracy theory. Chemtrail is a redirect to the Chemtrail conspiracy theory article. That article starts with the following sentence: “The chemtrail conspiracy theory posits the erroneous belief that…”." This would be more in line with other similar Wikipedia articles on conspiracy theories (for example 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). As we have discussed previously here there is a secondary, academic usage of the term "cultural Marxism" which has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory (see hatnote and Marxist cultural analysis, a list of some sources, the Oxford English Dictionary definiton), although that is not the only reason why option B would be preferred. The name for the conspiracy theory is somewhat arbitrary, and unfortunately, synonymous with another term that has, for a long time, referred to Marxist cultural analysis and associated schools of thought. The topic of this article is not the phrase "cultural Marxism", it is the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC) (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • B - While both 'Cultural Marxism' and 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory' are used by RS to describe the conspiracy theory itself, 'cultural Marxism' is also used in academic sources to refer to something else - inter alia, Marxist analysis of culture. Using 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory' in the lede is less ambiguous, and also happens to be the title of the article. If you believe adding the words 'conspiracy theory' implies that 'Cultural Marxism' (the conspiracy theory) is somehow real (as suggested below), then perhaps we need an RfC on a page move. (addendum : also, as I am currently attempting to include in the lede, apparently to no avail, 'Cultural Marxism' is also used depreciatively by proponents of the theory to refer to this purported agenda itself; using the extended form 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory' allows us to distinguish the conspiracy theory and the supposed object of the conspiracy.)  Tewdar  08:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC) edited  Tewdar  18:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC) - WITHDRAWN  Tewdar  09:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • B Strong arguments already made. Agree with both the point that similar articles re-state the title of the article in the lede, and that the term 'cultural Marxism' is also used outside of the conspiracy theory, making its use in the lede ambiguous. Quetosfh2489 (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • B' Option B should be used, as Cultural Marxism is frequently used to refer to Marxist cultural analysis, and would highlight the fact that this is an article about a conspiracy theory related to cultural Marxism or Marxist cultural analysis, rather than its current iteration's implication that cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory in and of itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerfdart (talkcontribs) 02:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see my reply in the second discussion section, below. Newimpartial (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral, mixed, or other[edit]

Since the sources use several alternative names to refer to the conspiracy theory, I think I'd prefer to change my preference to my suggestion below: The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, also known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy or simply 'Cultural Marxism', is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that Western Marxism is the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture. I honestly don't see how this would in any way suggest that the conspiracy theory is real, but then perhaps I am a poor useful idiot, blinded by all this far-right propaganda that's all over the place here on the moor down in Cornwall...  Tewdar  09:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (first sentence)[edit]

  • Newipartial, I did not include the status quo ante option because I believe we all felt like your change to that previous version was an improvement. That being said, if you would like to add that option (or any other alternative options that may satisfy the consensus) and have a good argument for it, I would not be against expanding the list of available options. (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am fine without the status quo ante, but thanks for asking. Newimpartial (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chemtrails The difference is that there really are contrails, the vapor you see following some planes in the sky which conspiracy theorists misinterpret as chemtrails. IOW they think they are seeing chemicals rather than vapor. We want to clarify that we are not referring to what they see (which is real), but to their interpretation. Similarly, we talk about JFK assassination conspiracy theories because his assassination was an actual event. Some CM conspiracy theorists use the disingenuous argument that although there is a CM conspiracy theory, there is also a real CM. By implying that there is a real CM, the article would be advancing the their version of the conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that omitting (i) adding the words 'conspiracy theory' implies that the object of the conspiracy theory actually exists or that (ii) omitting the words 'conspiracy theory' helps to clarify that the object of the conspiracy theory does not exist.  Tewdar  08:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, does the lede of this article imply that 'white genocide' is real? Of course not!  Tewdar  08:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you seem to have it the wrong way round. Adding (not omitting) the words "conspiracy theory" implies that the object of the conspiracy actually exists. In this case, you believe that the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is about something that actually exists, which is why you want the words conspiracy added - to distinguish it from actual cultural Marxism. My view is that is that the cultural Marxism exists only in the imagination. The fact that some writers have used the expression cultural Marxism to discuss an entirely different topic doesn't mean that the object of the far right's conspiracy theory actually exists.
In your example, calling the article White Genocide Conspiracy Theory might imply that it was a conspiracy theory about an actually genocide of white people.
TFD (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know where to begin replying to this...
(i) The article title contains the words 'conspiracy theory'. According to what you have just written, you believe this implies that 'Cultural Marxism' (as described by conspiracy theorists) actually exists (I do not believe the title implies this, and I do not believe that CM as described by conspiracy theorists exists)
(ii) The lede does not have the words 'conspiracy theory' attached to 'Cultural Marxism', which according to what you have just written, helps us to demonstrate that 'Cultural Marxism' (as described by conspiracy theorists) is Not a Real Thing (which I agree with, but I do not agree with your logic)
(iii) I want the words 'conspiracy theory' added to maximally distinguish the conspiracy theory from Marxist cultural analysis aka 'cultural Marxism' (NOT as described by the conspiracy theorists)
(iv) The article IS called White genocide conspiracy theory!!! White genocide conspiracy theory has a title which, according to what you have just written above, implies that there REALLY IS a white genocide, which is false. There isn't a white genocide, nor does the title imply this
(v) You seem to be suggesting, despite all evidence to the contrary (please check my contributions to this article), that I am a believer in the conspiracy. This is false. I believe that Marxist cultural analysis is a Thing, and that 'cultural Marxism' is a valid synonym for this (but wouldn't be a good article name, which is why the article is called Marxist cultural analysis...) However, 'Cultural Marxism' (the object of the conspiracy theory, ie Marxists run the universe using drugs and Beatles songs) is most definitely not a Thing, and does not exist...
Hope that clarifies matters, but somehow I doubt it.  Tewdar  08:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also you are right, I mixed it up a bit above there. Hopefully it now says what I was trying to say.  Tewdar  09:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Including the bolded words "conspiracy theory" does not validate the veracity of the conspiracy theory (there is a reason it is included in the title and namespace of this article). If anything, it puts emphasis on it being just that, a conspiracy theory. As far as the current and previous versions are concerned, they, to some degree, invalidate the use of "cultural Marxism" as synonym for Marxist cultural analysis and its academic topic, which has nothing to do with the conspiratorial usage or this article.
Yes, contrails exist and chemtrails are a direct misinterpretation of them. Marxist cultural analysis and scholars that use Marxist methods to analyze and interpret culture exist. The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory indirectly and grossly misinterprets the term by equating it with the Frankfurt School and by fabricating a narrative around it that has no basis on reality whatsoever. This is the same way conspiracy theorists misinterpret the Frankfurt School as a conspiracy, although in a more direct and conspicuous manner. (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As repeatedly explained above, the conspiracy theory is not about cultural analysis. It is an update of the international conspiracy theory. the origin of the term as used by the far right either comes from cultural Bolshevism or cultural liberalism but definitely does not come from any usage by Marxist writers. TFD (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have never claimed that the conspiracy theory is about cultural analysis or that the origin of this sense of the term as used by the far right comes from Marxist writers. (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence The believers of the far-right, antisemitic conspiracy theory posit that an elite of Marxist theorists... is a bit clunky, but I still prefer option B. Perhaps this sentence can be reworded a bit?  Tewdar  08:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead, edit, and improve the prose of that sentence (or those sentences) if you feel like it is clunky. It is a first draft. Also, I am not a native English speaker. (talk)
I'd actually be reasonably happy with something like, The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, also known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy or simply 'Cultural Marxism', is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that Western Marxism is the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture. Perhaps that breaks up the consecutive 'conspiracy theory' usage so that it no longer reminds Newimpartial of some songwriter I've never heard of a song by a member of Monty Python?  Tewdar  19:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The description would also have to explain what was the cultural Marxism that was the object of the conspiracy theory. How would you do that? TFD (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something like 'Cultural Marxism' is also a term used depreciatively by proponents (who are very probably far-right and anti-Semitic) of the theory to refer to the totally false and utterly discredited purported political agenda (which remember, doesn't exist, children!) which according to them (they are wrong, remember!) has ruined 'Merika, caused Gay, created Obama, made everyone take drugs, and does the work of Satan himself.
How about that?  Tewdar  08:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why is material which is currently not part of the the lede, which I only recently suggested we should add, then tried to add, and was reverted, now suddenly something we urgently have to explain? Why not re-add my recently reverted change, right now, if this is something we have to explain?  Tewdar  09:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestions are not encyclopedic writing because they show an exaggerated lack of neutral tone. Do you have any serious suggestions? TFD (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why suggestions (plural)? My first suggestion is encyclopaedic writing, and indeed differs very little from the current lede. My second suggestion is indeed not meant to be taken entirely seriously. 'Cultural Marxism' is also used depreciatively by proponents of the theory to refer to this purported agenda itself would seem to fit the bill. Again, why is information that is not currently part of the lede suddenly deemed to be essential?  Tewdar  13:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Tewdar’s first suggestion (about the first sentence of the lede) would be a good compromise. Those of us who support Option B, or think that the current wording invalidates Marxist cultural analysis as an academic field, could accept it as long as the title of the article is included and the term “Cultural Marxism” remains capitalized. The new sentence would leave the phrase “Cultural Marxism” as is in the status quo, which (I believe) would be acceptable to supporters of option A.
As for the second suggestion, 1) That topic is outside of the scope of the current RfC and should be discussed as a new topic somewhere else (the RfC is about the first sentence of the status quo), 2) I personally do not believe it is necessary as the current lede does explain the object of the conspiracy theory (that being said, I am not necessarily opposed to adding something along those lines as suggested by TFD or proposed by Tewdar). (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support my compromise suggestion above as a first choice, followed by option B. Unfortunately the constant goalpost-moving, baseless implications, repeated strawman-responses to stuff nobody ever said, and, at this point, I'm even beginning to suspect possible intentional gaslighting, has left me mentally unable to continue this ridiculous discussion about a very minor change and so hopefully I will not be tempted to continue this discussion any further.  Tewdar  14:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you re-read your suggestion at 08:53, 10 April 2022. If that was meant seriously, then you need to learn to use a neutral tone. If it is meant sarcastically, please note that humor does not translate well and is not constructive. TFD (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am almost certain that Tewdar meant it as a joke. I have noticed that both Tewdar and Newimpartial use humor on the talk page occasionally. So far, I have not had a problem with those instances of light humor, which sometimes added a lighter tone to discussions. That being said, I agree that humor, especially in the crass form used by Tewdar here (08:53, 10 April 2022), does not always translate well over text, can be unconstructive, and could be offputting to editors who are not familiar with the style of certain other editors. (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was a reasonable parody of both the existing article and the conspiracy theory, myself. Anyway, I'm really not joining in anymore after this. 🤐  Tewdar  15:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Tewdar, we do have at least one source for the role of Satan, a source that has previously been proposed for use in this article (just look for "Satan" or "magic helmet" in the Talk archives). Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Straight from current article: In Timothy Matthews' version of the conspiracy, originally published in The Wanderer in December 2008, the Frankfurt School came to America to carry out "Satan's work". According to Matthews, the Frankfurt School, under the influence of Satan, seek to destroy the traditional Christian family by starting a culture war, using critical theory and Marcuse's polymorphous perversity to encourage women's rights, homosexuality, and the breakdown of patriarchy by creating a female-centered culture. (please, someone, ban me...)  Tewdar  15:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, would you support moving closer to a compromise of this wording of the first sentence "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, also known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy, or simply Cultural Marxism, is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that Western Marxism is the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture.”, or something along these lines? (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet, reliable sources may refer to this topic as Cultural Marxism, Frankfurt School conspiracy, or Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Even if you don't want to agree with the arguments that 'Cultural Marxism' also means something else to an arbitrary level of so-called "significance", per MOS:LEADALT, When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" is a significant alternative name for the topic, found in the sources already used, and is the title of the article.  Tewdar  08:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, unless you think that the SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Theory should be included under things like PHD theses and other generally low-quality sources, take a look at the entry "CULTURAL MARXISM AND BRITISH CULTURAL STUDIES" (Volume 1, pp 171-177) (which I suppose I'd better add to the sandbox - edit: I realise that this is the same content as the pdf on Kellner's website, but people keep callling this "self-published", so...)  Tewdar  11:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you are still trying to hammer that one source to justify your opinion that there is some meaningful non-conspiratorial use of the term only shows how weak your arguments are. This discussion has occurred again and again since 2014 and nobody, at any point, in all that time, has ever been able to produce even a mildly convincing argument for the position you're taking; most of these sources have been discussed again and again as the same tiny list of things that come up when people plug "Cultural Marxism" into Google Scholar, and they still fall woefully short of even beginning to justify your repeated efforts to reopen the long-settled discussion on that point. Actual focuses of academic discussion, and actual terms with meaningful widely-agreed-upon use, have more orders of magnitude more use than this. It is long past time to WP:DROPTHESTICK, accept that you've failed to make a convincing argument, and move on to a different article. --Aquillion (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made more improvements to this article than anybody this year. Goodbye.  Tewdar  08:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NewImpartial is in pretty blatant violation of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV on this article, and many others that may offer potentially negative views of current pop-culture leftism(including Marxist cultural analysis's article). There is a documented history of the use of "Cultural Marxism" when referring to the application of Marxist economic views in social and cultural contexts, which many people have provided here. The mere fact that "Cultural Marxism" existed as a legitimate article for nearly a decade containing what are essentially the contents of the current Marxist cultural analysis article until 2020 when they started their efforts to separate any connection between both the term under discussion here, the conspiracy theories related to it, and the rebranded moniker Marxist cultural analysis is very telling, and seems to be an attempt to write off any criticism of Marxist cultural analysis as a conspiracy, and surprise, the person most resistant to this change is one of the people responsible for this. "Cultural Marxism", regardless of capitalization, does not refer to a conspiracy theory, but a very real application of Marxism outside of economics. There are conspiracy theories based on the exaggerated application of that school of thought, but the term itself refers to a very real academic concept. "Cultural Marxism" is synonymous with "Marxist cultural analysis"(which is a term that I can't really find anywhere?). This is not an article on Cultural Marxism but an article on a conspiracy theory that uses Cultural Marxism as supporting evidence, and a distinction needs to be made. Even more telling is that going through the sources on Marxist cultural analysis nearly all of them refer to Marxist cultural analysis as "Cultural Marxism" directly, and most of those that don't directly call it "cultural Marxism" cite a source that does. Nerfdart (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost nothing the IP now identified as Nerfdart has said here is true. To begin with, the former Cultural Marxism article went to AfD in 2014, and I had nothing to do with that discussion or its (very careful) closure by an Admin panel. I also did not !vote in most of the discussions over the Conspiracy Theory content, including Split and Move discussions that resulted in the current title gaining consensus.
    Many editors have come to this Talk page (and others) to say that Cultural Marxism does not refer to a conspiracy theory, but a very real application of Marxism outside of economics, and yet mysteriously no RS supporting this position (that "Cultural Marxism" is not a conspiracy theory) have ever been presented. We are apparently supposed to believe the impassioned pleas of editors whose perspective is supported only by SPS and RSOPINION writing by people outside their fields of expertise - Jordan Peterson being one obvious example.
    Also the claim (off-topic for this page) that going through the sources on Marxist cultural analysis nearly all of them refer to Marxist cultural analysis as "Cultural Marxism" directly is blatantly false, but I expect nothing else from editors who regard the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as an exaggeration of something real, rather than what the sources say it is: an antisemitic conspiracy theory comme less autres. Whether these editors realize it or not, they are in effect subscribing to the conspiracy theory themselves, as the IP's off-hand reference to pop-culture leftism (hilarious in the context of Adorno and Benjamin) inadvertently reveals. Newimpartial (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC) interpolation added by Newimpartial (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I disagree with Newimpartial on many issues, I have found them to be surprisingly pleasant to work with when attempting to improve this article (which was obviously much worse before I got here 😁). Also, looking through the academic sources, I'd estimate that the terms "Marxist cultural analysis" and "cultural Marxism" probably occur in roughly a 2:1 ratio (when used to refer to, er, Marxist cultural analysis, not the conspiracy theory...)  Tewdar  07:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    [3] - screenshot taken from Marxist cultural analysis. Nearly half of the sources on that page contain the term "Cultural Marxism". Of the sources on that page, about ~30 of the 45 of them are cited solely in the conspiracy section that links to this article, and that article's sole purpose seems to separate Marxist cultural analysis from Cultural Marxism. Many links to RS have been posted on this talk page as well which use it in talking about Marxist concepts outside of economics, and many of them are essentially deleted due to WP:OWN sentiment using reasoning that would be in violation of WP:LAWYER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerfdart (talkcontribs)
    So nearly half counts for you as equivalent to nearly all? I shouldn't be surprised, really; that level of accuracy is consistent with the rest of what you have posted here, either as Nerfdart or as IP (contribs talk) Newimpartial (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nerfdart, what is the criticism of Marxist cultural analysis you think should be in this article that other editors refuse to include? TFD (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural Marxism and Marxist cultural analysis are synonomous terms, and that the . The extent of my argument does not extend beyond the RfC discussion, and believe that we should go with option B. I'm not suggesting any changes beyond that. Nerfdart (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote, Marxist cultural analysis "seems to be an attempt to write off any criticism of Marxist cultural analysis as a conspiracy." [00:51, 23 April 2022] But there isn't any criticism of it as a conspiracy. There is of course a conspiracy theory about its pioneers, but its not about their analysis, but about an imaginary activity they coined "cultural Marxism." The fact they were later able to find scattered use of the expression "cultural Marxism" as a synonym for Marxist cultural analysis does not mean that the two uses of the expression have the same meaning or origin. TFD (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B should be used, as Cultural Marxism is frequently used to refer to Marxist cultural analysis, and would highlight the fact that this is an article about a conspiracy related to Cultural Marxism or Marxist cultural analysis, rather than it's current implication that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory in and of itself.Nerfdart (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the conspiracy theory isn't related to Cultural Marxism or Marxist cultural analysis. This is kind of the key point here. Newimpartial (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So you agree that Cultural Marxism and the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory are two different things? Nerfdart (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      As I have said before, "cultural Marxism" is a minority synonym for "Marxist cultural analysis". The proper noun, "Cultural Marxism", refers either to the conspiracy theory itself, or the object constructed within the conspiracy theory. So the conspiracy theory is related to "Cultural Marxism" (which it basically made up) but not to "cultural Marxism"/"Marxist cultural analysis". Makes sense? Newimpartial (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you have any reliable sources that make a distinction between the proper noun Cultural Marxism and the common noun of cultural Marxism? Any that say that they refer to different things? Or is this your own subjective assessment based on original research? It seems as though you're putting undue importance of the letter case of the 'c' in the term which is some arbitrary distinction that I have not seen any evidence for. It seems as though you're using your own interpretation of the term rather than it's actual documented usage, which like "cultural Marxism" and "Marxist cultural analysis", uses 'C' and 'c' to refer to each interchangeably regardless of context. Nerfdart (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Please look at the Talk page archives. Vanishingly few sources use "Cultural Marxism" to refer to Marxist cultural analysis (and none of the 20th-century sources do so). Meanwhile, essentially no sources use "cultural Marxism" for the object of the conspiracy theory. The sources on this speak for themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Where is the distinction between the capitalization of the first letter's relevance shown? Is this just your subjective observation, or do you have a source that shows this distinction? You say essentially no sources use "cultural Marxism" to refer to the conspiracy theory, but yet....
      Two of these decry "cultural Marxism" as a conspiracy theory, the other two "warn" of the "conspiracy" of "cultural Marxism", each with no regard for the capitalization of the first letter, using it as a common noun. Plenty more to be found. I have yet to see any source that claims a distinction based on the capitalization of the 'c'. So where is the source that says cultural Marxism and Cultural Marxism refer to two distinctly different things? Again, you're arbitrarily putting undue importance on the capitalization of the first letter.
      You've already acknowledged that C/cultural Marxism can refer to both Marxist cultural analysis or Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, but I have yet to see a single source that distinguishes between cultural Marxism and Cultural Marxism, which again seems to be a subjective determination that you're trying to enforce here without any evidence that there is a distinction. Nerfdart (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you have any sources for "C/cultural Marxism" or for "the Cultural Marxism of the conspiracy theory is the same as cultural Marxism or Marxist cultural analysis"? I'll wait.
      And of course I meant reliable sources. You can find op-eds that say anything you like - you have just linked four sources, three of which are unreliable, comprising op-ed and self-published material. The Sharpe piece you cite is, perhaps, one half-level above that, and it does use "cultural Marxism" to designate the trope of the conspiracy, but that leaves my key point intact. All reliable sources distinguish the trope of the conspiracy theory from actual Marxist thought. The vast majority do that using capitalization (or not), as I indicated, but all RS make the distinction. In the time this page has existed, no reliable sources have yet been produced denying the distinction, or claiming that the conspiracy theory is based on an actual Marxist tendency or school of thought. Who knows: perhaps you will be the one to find this elusive source. Newimpartial (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So you have no reason to claim that my comments are outside of the scope of this RfC and no reason to consistently remove my comments from the discussion regarding it beyond your own personal subjective opinion.Nerfdart (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Placing this dialogue in a subsection, as I did most recently here, still leaves it in the discussion regarding the RfC - just as a subsection. But OK, whatevs. Newimpartial (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Again my comments were only made to support option B, which was initially separated because of "IP Intervention" because I was not logged in, rather than for actually being a separate discussion, and by the time I was able to sign it, the replies were steering my initial points into an unrelated topic, and I apologize for entertaining them, but I'd like to get back to the point at hand. Does Cultural Marxism unambiguously refer to a conspiracy theory? Do sources who use the term actually distinguish between the letter case of the 'C'? You say that "You can find op-eds that say anything you like" yet many of sources for this article are op-eds. Even (reliable?) sources from this article use the lower-case "c", making no distinction: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] and these are just from the first column of sources that aren't behind a pay-wall(1-21). The case of the first letter is irrelevant, and without context the meaning of the term is ambiguous and in the abscence of a disambiguation page for "C/cultural Marxism", a= distinction should be made in the lead sentence. Nerfdart (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nerfdart, how do you define "frequently?" There are several examples of cultural Marxism used as a synonym for cultural Marxism and they are routinely cited in articles by conspiracy theorists and again in these discussions. But several times does not mean frequently. How many examples are there? TFD (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a number of sources that would satisfy your semantic disagreement with my use of the word "frequently"? From the sources I've looked through, even using Tewdar's estimate of a 2:1 ratio of sources on both this page and the Marxist cultural analysis page (which admittedly is less than I've found, but I digress) of using it to refer to the conspiracy theory versus as a synonym for Marxist cultural analaysis, I believe that there is enough ambiguity in the term to make the distinction in the lead sentence. What is the threshold to demonstrate to you that there is some ambiguity in its use? Nerfdart (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is in reality a much simpler question than you make it out to be. Most sources about Marxist cultural analysis - in its various forms and schools - don't refer to either "cultural Marxism" or "Cultural Marxism". The ones that do, usually refer to "cultural Marxism".
Meanwhile, most of the sources on the conspiracy theory - particularly the recent, academic sources - use "Cultural Marxism" in relation to the conspiracy theory. This distinction is clear among sources themselves.
Most importantly, all of the reliable sources agree that the object of the conspiracy theory is something very different - obviously different - from the actual activity of Marxists.
Given this sourcing situation, I see no real ambiguity to deal with in the lede, that has not already been preempted in the disambiguation hatnote. Newimpartial (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you are in fact saying that your assumption of the distinction between the terms cultural Marxism and Cultural Marxism are based entirely on your own original research, and that you have no sources that delineate them and any distinction is made based on your own interpretation of the authors' style of writing? The distinction is not clear among the sources themselves. You're right, it is a very simple question. Is "C/cultural Marxism" used to refer to two different concepts in documented reliable sources? And there is a very simple answer, which is "yes". Nerfdart (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you present any sources in response to my questions above? Perhaps I missed it. Newimpartial (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just a few comments up, though I did do two separate replies in a single edit, so perhaps you missed it, the one you're replied to here to was directed at TFD, my reply to your request for sources is above. I'll try to avoid doing that in the future as I was unaware of the confusion it may cause. I'm not sure how to link to comments here, so I'll re-post the sources: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Again, these sources are directly from the article(the first ~21), and refer to the conspiracy theory using a lowercase 'c', and some of which use it to refer to both the conspiracy theory and the school of thought interchangeably, and I'm positive that if go through the remaining 50 sources, all of which should be considered reliable since they are currently used as sources here, that I would find many more examples, except for maybe a couple of (in your words) "op-eds that say anything you like" where the capitalization is used as a form of scare quotes. There's no definitive determination that came be made outside of subjective interpretation(original research) of the authors' styles on the relevance of the capitalization. Nerfdart (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by refer to both the conspiracy theory and the school of thought interchangeably - do you mean within a single source? Because I haven't seen that.
Just to be clear, the question above was, Do you have any sources for "C/cultural Marxism" or for "the Cultural Marxism of the conspiracy theory is the same as cultural Marxism or Marxist cultural analysis"? Your use of "C/cultural Marxism" seems to be another way you are making the latter claim, but I don't see sources to support that. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're obfuscating my words. You're claiming that "Cultural Marxism" refers unambiguously to a conspiracy theory. I'm saying that it is used to refer to either this conspiracy theory, or to "Marxist cultural analysis", which you have admitted yourself, but then you're also claiming some distinction between the casing of the first letter as justification for not appending "conspiracy theory" to the term in the lead sentence, but haven't provided any sources that state that "Culutral Marxism" refers unambiguously to a conspiracy theory, and yet you're using your subjective observation of the author's capitalization(and not the content of their work) to block any change to the lead sentence. Nerfdart (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that I haven't even voted in the RfC on the lead sentence, your allegation that I am using (my) subjective observation ... to block any change to the lead sentence is, well, just as factual and reality-based as pretty much every other statement you have made on this Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"Counter opinion" cancelled[edit]

I’m just going to link up [[16]] my talk page in reference to recent edits that have been reverted using the same tired old excuses and by denigrating the author directly, regards.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An author who makes his name promoting BBC mind control conspiracy theories doesn't need denigrating - he has discredited himself already, all on his own.
And while you may live in a world of opinions and "counter opinions", Wikipedia relies on verifiability for factual claims. Newimpartial (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you haven’t read either of the two books otherwise you wouldn’t be writing things like “BBC mind control conspiracy theories“. Also, editors are doing it again, denigrating respected authors whose work has been peer-reviewed and published.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm The people of Britain are under attack. We are being brainwashed. We are being brainwashed, completely, ceaselessly and cynically ... So just who is doing the brainwashing ? How are they doing it and for what purposes ? - how much of the book do you expect me to read, before accepting on face value its claim to promote a conspiracy theory about the BBC? Newimpartial (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policies require us to accept sources such as the BBC as reliable. Sources that contradict the mainstream perspective, such as the ones on which you rely, are therefore treated as fringe. We can't make exceptions for this article, you would have to get the policy changed first. TFD (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC as a source for the antisemitism section[edit]

I recall there used to be mention in the article of William S. Lind using the term at a holocaust denial conference. The source was this article:

I noticed this mention is now gone, and was just wondering whether it was a BLP issue, or whether it's an issue with SPLC as a source? Has anyone found any other text of Lind deny the holocaust? (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC is fine - it's already used as a source , but not that particular page it seems. Go ahead and add it - Lind's anthology has his own subsection in the "Development of the conspiracy theory" section, perhaps you could put it there? Or the "Origins" section, perhaps?  Tewdar  15:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you probably can't edit the article, can you? Why not log in to your user account, then you can edit the article yourself.  Tewdar  17:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That particular page is used already (source 34 right now). Some editors have opposed the use of SPLC as a source, or insisted that it be used only with attribution. I'm not one of them, and I say go for it. I wouldn't use it to say that Lind himself is a Holocaust denier. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We only need in text attribution when we are citing an opinion. Mostly in the case of the SPLC this occurs when they classify groups, for example as hate groups. TFD (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I presume we'd be citing here to describe the conference, or host Barnes Review, as antisemitic and/or Holocaust denialist. The facts are, as far as I know, not in dispute by RS, so I'm not pushing for attribution, but some might. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could always use Martin Jay's 'Splinters in Your Eye' for this claim instead of SPLC...  Tewdar  17:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that article, Lind is quoted as saying, "I do want to make it clear for the foundation and myself that we are not among those who question whether the Holocaust occurred", but then, I suppose that might not be his actual viewpoint...  Tewdar  15:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]