Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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.[1] 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)

Grayfell, I am somewhat surprised that anyone can glean anything from Peterson's writings other than "boy, it sucks that everyone is finally achieving some degree of equality with white men". His writing is full of fifteen-dollar words but when assembled in that specific order they make about ten cents' worth of meaning, most of which is facile. And no, he is not an historian. His historical reputation is actually less than that of David Irving, who still has his defenders as finder of documents. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and Peterson has (or had) a large an audience in part because of his knack for being facile. Peterson technique is to state an uncontroversial fact in a loaded way that strongly implies a controversial claim, and then protest that he's being misrepresented when he's called out for it. His apparent inability to clearly define "postmodern neo-Marxism" is an obvious example of this behavior. Of course ContraPoints made a video on precisely this.

In the article I link above, it mentions that Peterson wanted to buy a church so he could deliver sermons every Sunday. He's academically qualified, but even as a clinical psychologist, his reputation is mediocre at best. His notability comes entirely from his self-created status as a preacher. Grayfell (talk) 22:07, 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)

That particular viewpoint happens to be the one that is accepted in reliable sources. Maybe that's because the universities and mainstream media are controlled by the cultural Marxists. If so you need to get policy changed. Incidentally, not all Klansmen were white supremacists, not all Nazis were anti-Semites, but no one suggests we change those articles because some ex-Nazis and Klansmen might feel offended. TFD (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah why are we having another debate without a single source cited or any useful suggestions for improvements? Just the other day, I spent a good chunk of my time to dig through published papers on this topic and post what the RS have to say about antisemitism and CM. could I ask you to read through what mainstream scholarship has to say and not randomly cast aspersions and accuse editors of bias? Mvbaron (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

To respond, as stated I may return to the topic, though it is clear it will require a large commitment of time.

The comparison the the Nazis and the Klan is disingenuous and misleading. Both are avowedly racist organisations. There is a huge difference between being an active member of such a group (which would imply at the very least sympathy with the groups' racism), and espousing a theory, some of whose other proponents of which are racist.

You also suggest I made no suggestions for improvement. As discussed, this is simply untrue - I made at least 6. You disagree with them - fine. But please do not wilfully misrepresent what I have said.WisDom-UK (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

People who blame Jews (even implicitly, via indirect language) for the world's problems are racists. The comparison is apt, and attempts to obscure the point bring no credit on you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Well some would say Jews are not a race but a religion and/or ethnicity. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

There's a term for people who deny that racial antisemitism exists, somewhere... 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Nobody did that. Pay better attention. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, and others say they are all three - which is probably correct. Actually more than one race (Ashkenazi have higher than average rates of several genetic disorders that are not seen in Sephardic Jews, for example). Guy (help! - typo?) 20:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Well those "some people" are keeping lousy company Emir of Wikipedia. There is only one extant member of the human species, so race is a social construct. That doesn't mean race isn't real in a historic, social and political sense as demonstrated in the Nuremberg Laws for example. Jews have most certainly been considered a subhuman race by many people in many countries and many people still consider Jews to be a sub human race, same applies to most peoples who have been subject to racism. I'm not saying you are a Nazi, nothing of the sort, but the only people I've ever heard claim "but Jews are not a race" have been Nazi's or other far-right racist extremists. It's a boring argument that requires a debilitate denial of well known historic facts and is almost exclusively made by hardcore racists. Bacondrum (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not 'obscuring' the point. I have said repeatedly that I do not know if it is true or not that CM theory was founded by anti-Semites - I am agnostic on the matter, and indeed on the theory itself (overblown in most cases, though left-wing activists with an agenda may be an issue on some campuses and in some departments). I am debating whether the point holds true in all cases i.e. whether all proponents of the theory are anti-Semites. Clearly when the theory is propounded by Jewish Conservatives such as Shapiro and Melanie Philips it cannot be anti-Semitic in all cases. This nuance is recognised on other pages e.g. the 9/11 conspiracy page splits off anti-Semitism into a separate section and does not work it into the intro paragraph, same for the New World Order (conspiracy theory) (for the record I believe in neither and have found conspiracy theorists to be some of the most conceited bores I've come across).

I think I may go back to editing geography articles for now. This experience has been amongst the most unpleasant I've had on Wikipedia in 15 years and has done nothing to allay my fear that the site has a bias problem. Even my opening attempt to debate was simply deleted off-hand. I dread to think what the pages covering Trump or abortion or BLM are like and I wouldn't go near them with a barge pole. By hollowing out the middle you will however find yourselves dealing with genuine far-right conspiracists who will be the only ones motivated enough to try and work on articles like this.WisDom-UK (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

"Clearly when the theory is propounded by Jewish Conservatives such as Shapiro and Melanie Philips"? The history of such tokenism goes back as far as Mischling individuals such as Werner Goldberg, but such tokenism does not indicate anything as to whether the core of a conspiracy theory such as described here is rooted in anti-semitism. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

WisDom-UK, seriously? You cite Ben Shapiro and Melanie Phillips? Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia based on mainstream views, we don't take fringe opinions as fact, let alone as fact contradicting reliable sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not citing their views as reliable sourcing (most of which I disagree with btw). I am citing them as Jewish persons who partly support aspects this theory, thereby proving at least in part that though a theory (possibly) rooted in ant-Semitism can later evolve or be altered in a non anti-Semitic direction. Though apparently that too is somehow 'tokenistic' anti-Semitism (?!). Also, re. your Peterson's comments, he has never uttered anything sexist or racist, to suggest so is grossly slanderous. WisDom-UK (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

Stay on topic, this is not a forum

I've just archived two meandering forum style discussions. This is not a forum, we are here to discuss improvements to the article, not what everyone thinks of Jewish people, Nazis etc. I'd urge all editors not to reply to ranting comments about bias. It's one thing to point out bias/issues with specific claims and specific sources to offer solutions and analysis of sources, but if the comment is just a rant about Jews or bias or whatever and does not discuss specific issues or offer improvements, it doesn't belong here, don't respond just remove as per WP:NOTFORUM. Bacondrum (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

But you removed the comment that contained the claim that Jordan Peterson has never uttered anything sexist or racist, to suggest so is grossly slanderous, which is an egregious example of CRYBLP and also the funniest thing I read today (and I was also on Twitter). Newimpartial (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I know right, that discussion contained some seriously wacky crap. :D Bacondrum (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick thing I noticed already before: the OneClick Archiver archives to this/Archive1, which is actually the oldest archive. Instead it should archive to this/Archive6... no idea how to fix that, might be a problem with the bot. Mvbaron (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Curious, probably best with those strange ranting discussions, buried deep in the archive Bacondrum (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure OneClick needs an archive bot to determine the proper subpage.

Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 1 is the only archive for this page, but Talk:Cultural Marxism/Archive 1 is older. It looks like there are a couple of other pages that should be reorganized. Tracking down half-forgotten sock puppets would be the main reason this matters. In this case that seems like a poor use of time even for people like me who enjoy that sort of thing. Grayfell (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

lol. Yeah, I don't think it matters, those conversations contributed nothing to the article anyway. Bacondrum (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh facepalm. I mixed this page’s archives up with the Frankfurt School archives. Nevermind, bot is working correctly. Mvbaron (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like take the time to thank you guys - our 'discussion' (which I see you've mis-labelled as a 'rant' and now hidden away on archive page) has been instrumental in convincing me to finally stop wasting my time contributing to this site after 16 years. I'd known about the site's biases and toxic 'community' culture but never really come face-to-face with it until now. Have fun 'editing' and enjoy it while it lasts. Bye.WisDom-UK (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

WisDom-UK, here you wrote that "I have said repeatedly that I do not know if it is true or not that CM theory was founded by anti-Semites - I am agnostic on the matter, and indeed on the theory itself (overblown in most cases, though left-wing activists with an agenda may be an issue on some campuses and in some departments)." In other words, and I could be wrong, you, like the IP, actually believe the theory is true; like the IP, you just think that since you are not an antisemitic, then the theory itself is not antisemitic just because a few of its proponents may not be antisemitic themselves. I am agnostic about whether it should have been archived, but it is true neither you nor the IP were providing anything productive. Ranting about "the site's biases and toxic 'community' culture" is not going to produce anything productive either, especially if you mean 'left-wing' bias when Wikipedia merely reflects the centrist bourgeois bias of reliable sources and mainstream media (left-leaning on socio-cultural issues and right-leaning on economic-class issues). That sounds just like neoliberalism. Anyway, unless someone actually provide some reliable sources to back up their claims, or provide a better wording as reflected in reliable sources, it is a waste of time and is not a discussion to improve the article. Davide King (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the article

I'm going to strongly back the dissenters here. This is like redirecting an article on "Neo-conservativism" to an article titled "Neo-conservativism conspiracy theory" just because a lot of people on the left have repeated conspiracy theories about neo-conservativism.

No, its true "cultural Marxism" is not a formal name by which any academic movement identified itself, but then there are a lot of examples where academic movements and trends within the academic environment have been given names by observers, either contemporaneously or in hindsight. There are tons of examples of this. In particular, cultural Marxism was originally used to refer to a group of efforts to expand Marxist theories of power and class consciousness from economic class to other social and cultural groups; ie. certain streams of feminism, race theory, and so on. Of course, politics being politics, this was later extended from its originally purely descriptive use to conspiracy theories.

For some evidence of how it was originally used, you can simply go on Google Books for books from the 80s and 90s to see sources from both right-wing and left-wing professors working within legitimate academic environments. For example, "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain" (Dworkin, 1997), "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" (Weiner, 1981). You can even find an essay by Edward Said reprinted in several books dealing with Postmodern thought in which he refers to "American cultural Marxism", titled "Opponents, Audiences, Constituencies, and Community", 1985. A section called "Literal and cultural Marxist theory" in The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory by Irene Rima Makaryk, 1993, a reference to British cultural Marxism again in "Critical Theory and Methodology", by Morrow and Brown, 1994, in "Social Theory and Education" again by Morrow, 1995, an essay by Henry Giroux "Racial pedagogy as cultural politics", 1995, A discussion of how cultural Marxists reject classical Marxism in "Liberal Justice and the Marxist Critique of Education" (Kenneth Strike, 1989). A reference is in the Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1981, African Studies Review - Volumes 32-33, 1989. A reference in Italian Quarterly, 1984, speaking of Gramsci as "the cultural marxist." A reference in International review of social history, 1999. "Cultural Studies as Critical Theory" (Agger, 1992), "Learning Capitalist Culture" (Foley, 1990). And, importantly, an essay titled "Cultural Marxism: Nonsynchrony and Feminist Practice" by Emily Hicks (1981) which advocates for cultural Marxism and is referenced by many sources. Way, too many legitimate academic references to "cultural Marxism" too all list here.

There are of course also academic sources past the 90s that mention cultural Marxism, including "Critical Theory Now", 2003, "Cultural Studies and Beyond", 2005, "Globalizing Cultural Studies", 2007, and "Handbook of Cultural Sociology", 2010. I'm focusing on the 80s and 90s, because that's when the subject was fresh in academia.

But in any case, these are all *primary sources* one could use for writing an article about the history of the use of the term, and they contradict some of the suggestions in this article. Right off the start, the idea that this began with a 1992 conspiracy theory by LaRouche is shown to be wrong. References to cultural Marxism go back to 1981. Then, just going over the sources, its apparent the term is used not just by the right, but by the left, in a lot of formal journals on critical theory. So it isn't just a term invented by the right. No, Edward Said wasn't roped into a right-wing conspiracy theory that didn't exist until 1992 back when he was writing in 1985.

If I have the time, and if there are no objections, I might try to put together something for a primary "cultural Marxism" article describing cultural Marxism as its been used as a term starting from the beginning -- as far back as at least the 80s -- backed by primary sources like those listed above. My personal feeling is the conspiracy theories on the subject would best be a subsection, not a separate article. But my time to do that and engage with the other editors on that might be limited, so as things stand now, I would just encourage interested people here to look up the references I mentioned on Google Books. All the information is there, it just needs to be collated. Some understanding to the context of some of these discussions is useful. I was a philosophy student in the 90s, around the time some of these discussions were taking place, so I think I could do a good job of it. But I'm sure other editors would also be able to do a good job as well.

Brianshapiro (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Brianshapiro, please bring specific suggestions for changes based on reliable independent secondary sources in the form change x to y based on z source. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

That wouldn't make sense, because the problems in the article are not minor issues; meaning the the whole text would need to be written from the ground up and presented as a draft for consideration as a new article. Brianshapiro (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Just so you don't waste your effort, please note that a primary "cultural Marxism" article describing cultural Marxism as its been used as a term starting from the beginning -- as far back as at least the 80s -- backed by primary sources like those listed above faces two presumably fatal objections - (1) "an article based on primary sources" is not generally allowed by WP policy, and (2) a very large RfC discussion in 2014 roundly rejected the idea of any treatment of "Cultural Marxism" as other than a conspiracy theory. I can't see how anything has changed in the last six years that would change that consensus. Also note that the Hicks (1981) piece is advocating for "a cultural Marxism", and doesn't refer to "Cultural Marxism" at all. Newimpartial (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of independent secondary sources on Google Books as well, if one wanted to rely on them. Though, over the years I've done edits for Wikipedia I've never seen a ban on primary sources when used appropriately. Of course, I haven't engaged in RfCs, or in the editing of contentious articles, so the rules might be applied stricter there, but it seems strange that if there's a reliable primary source which can be used appropriately without controversy, that it be disallowed. I'm unaware of the RfC discussion you're mentioning, and if true, that's unfortunate, because the opinion that its only a conspiracy theory goes contrary to readily available information on the Internet. What I might do is write a draft article, and either put it on a subpage or a subpage of my personal page, and then editors may consider its merits and possibly discuss it in future RfC sessions. Brianshapiro (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Yea, the point of referencing the Hicks piece is that what she describes as "a cultural Marxism" is precisely, in the exact words she used, what people later came to describe as "Cultural Marxism", in the efforts of various other academics. The term around that time starts to grow in popularity by both left-leaning and right-leaning authors. The main difference is one use of the term is prospective, while the other is retrospective, although other authors around that time discuss cultural Marxism as a phenomenon that was already growing in the 60s and 70s. Brianshapiro (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem with that is that in say 1990, neither "cultural Marxism" nor "Cultural Marxism" was a term. Putting one word in front of the other does not make it even a "term", much less a "phenomenon". What you are describing is the object of the conspiracy theory, but if you have reliable sources describing "cultural Marxism" (outside the The Birmingham school (cultural studies) "as a phenomenon that was already growing in the 60s and 70s", I would love to see them. Newimpartial (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

If an expression doesn't have any consistent use, its not a term. But if it has a consistent use over a long period of time, isn't it a term, meaning it references something? And yes, I am very confident I can sketch a history of a consistent use of the expression dating back to the late 60s, with good sources. And if its possible to do this, isn't it pretty much misleading to readers of this site make it sound as if the use of the expression as a term just popped up in 1992? (By the way, on this matter, I've figured out why the Emily Hicks essay is prospective about cultural Marxism. I found a reference to the essay in a 1974 book).

But I have to say, I'm just confused by your general argument about this. Expressions are coined as terms retrospectively all the time, so even if someone couldn't trace a contemporaneous history of the term, why couldn't a retrospective description be allowed as a term? Why must any retrospective description of a group of thinkers be an "object of a conspiracy theory"? So for example, the term "scientific racism" didn't exist until very recently -- in fact the term "racism" didn't even exist until the 20th century -- but "scientific racism" used to describe theories going back to the 1600s. Why? It seems simple, because its a descriptive term used in modern discourse. Applying the same rule used for "scientific racism" to "cultural Marxism", would analyze whether its a descriptive term used in modern discourse, independent of conspiracy theories.

So, either way, it seems to me there's mainly two things to look at: 1. is it a term that has some purely descriptive use in some contexts that has some degree of consistency, and 2. does the descriptive use of this term have some history behind it? Brianshapiro (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Those are indeed two of the relevant questions. So far, no editors have previously offered any reliable, secondary sources documenting either 1. or 2. If such sources were to use the term "Cultural Marxism" retrospectively, then of course WP could do so as well, but so far only the conspiracy theorists do that. I was responding to your invocation of 20th century primary sources to pre-emptively label a phenomenon that did not exist at the time. It's not that all retrospective terms belong to conspiracy theories, it is that this particular retrospective term was coined by and belongs to an (antisemitic) conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe if actually I sat down and did the work, I could provide sources that back #1, that it is used retrospectively by some people without elements of conspiracy theory, and I could also demonstrate #2, that it has a history of being used that way that its used retrospectively, both explicitly and implicitly, and the retrospective use of the term can be connected to a history of its use over decades. Brianshapiro (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You might want to present your independent, secondary sources before drafting any text. Similar claims were made frequently at Talk:Frankfurt school, when the conspiracy theory was discussed within that article, and none of that sourcing ever picked up any traction.Newimpartial (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, Do you happen to have a link lying around for that RFC? I'm always on the look out for more rabbit holes to dig myself into :). Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It was actually an AfD rather than an RfC (but reads more like the latter format). here is the link for the discussion, whereas the detail of the close (by a panel of three uninvolved administrators, which is unusual for an AfD but less so for an RfC) is here. Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively. There is no movement called cultural Marxism outside the minds of conspiracy theorists. The expression in the sources provided was a reference to historical and cultural studies by Marxist academics of various hues. But so few writers actually used the term that every single use had already been presented. And it's not unusual for professional historians and social scientists to study history and culture and provide interpretations based on their views of the world. TFD (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

So, it might be true that some editors here have discussed this. However, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I'd argue "cultural Marxism" has had a consistent use over time as a term to refer to something real, versus referring to something purely imaginary (and thus, by refering to something imaginary, simply a "conspiracy theory"), and think I could write a well sourced article establishing that. I'm not going to repeat the discussion I'm having above, but you can reply to previous comments if you'd like. Brianshapiro (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It is absolutely true that other editors have discussed this, no "might" about it. Sorry to be blunt, but so far you are not introducing anything new. This article is about the "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". It seems you are arguing to change the article into something different, but this would not fairly summarize the article's current sources. The other obvious option would be creating a new article about "cultural Marxism" as a separate topic. This would not benefit the project, per past discussions. These words have been used together, occasionally, but that's not enough for an article. Many knowledgeable and experienced editors have reviewed sources and failed to find enough consistent usage to build a definition for this term beyond of the conspiracy theory. If you have specific sources for this usage, propose them, but please check to make sure they haven't already been discussed. Grayfell (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Then its absolutely true that other editors have discussed this. But I'm also confident that I'm knowledgeable myself and am fairly familiar with past uses of the term. To put it bluntly myself, it sounds like a "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory conspiracy theory" to claim any and all consistent uses of the term are only in the realm of conspiracy theory. If I do decide to put something together on the subject, then I'll probably do as I suggested, write a draft on a non-public subpage. And then people can "take it or leave it" and decide for themselves whether its well-sourced and persuasive or all bunk and whether it would or wouldn't benefit the project. Brianshapiro (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a definition from one of the many sources you claim exist? Note that we can only create articles about defined topics. TFD (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've come across sources with specific definitions, as I said, generally referring to strategies which shift Marxist theories of power and class consciousness from economic to cultural contexts, but I'd have to look for them again. I do think if you look across all sources you'll find broad understandings of what "cultural Marxism" refers to, but also more specific understandings, which become more common as time goes on.

I think a comparable situation might be the use of the term "academic art." By end of the 19th century, it came to be used as a term by critics of the art establishment, and in time since then became associated with what is specifically post-romantic art, art that came between the romantic movement and the avant-garde and was derisively seen by its avant-garde critics as too conservative and establishment-oriented. However, broadly, it just refers to all art created under the influence of art academies and as far back as the 1600s. The usefulness of the term is still disputed in art history discussions, because which artist is and isn't "academic" is debatable, and you see those debates about it. The term primarily persists because of the critics of the artists of that period. But, nonetheless, the term has broad currency to refer to a certain milieu in the period of art, and artists associated with that milieu.

Yes, you're right, in some contexts "cultural Marxism" is a broad expression, referring to cultural studies by Marxists of different types and you see these kinds of references to "cultural Marxism" even before the 60s. But within time, you begin to see it more specific to the cultural Marxist output since the 60s, associated with the New Left and influenced by trends within the postmodern academic environment at the time. So like with "academic art", it's originally a broad term that eventually gains a more specific reference. In some cases, by proponents, in many cases by critics, though I've also seen it used neutrally. This understanding of cultural Marxism then eventually filters into popular culture, and gets picked up by conspiracy theorists, and spun into conspiracy theories, like I think is pretty well understood here. Like with "academic art", the usefulness of the term can be debated, but I think its objective to say that there are many specific uses have nothing to do with conspiracy theories, and, like with "academic art", the right way to go about an article is to talk about the terms cultural currency over time. Brianshapiro (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Differing uses are not consistent. If reliable sources say that some of these search results overlap with each other in meaning, let's discuss them. For an editor to say this would be WP:OR.

I assume by non-public you mean outside of WP:MAINSPACE. WP:USERPAGEs and sandboxes are public and must still follow Wikipedia's policies. For example WP:UP#NOT should be deleted. Grayfell (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, the point would only be to be a draft to put up for discussion. Its either that or point you to links of sources with side comments on the point of the sources. It ends up being the same thing. I'm not sure why that would bother anyone enough to muck around and delete it. Brianshapiro (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

And that's fine, but please, look at the archives of Talk:Frankfurt school where this was discussed again, and again, and again before the split that produced this article. Perhaps you are in fact the knowledgeable one who will find the reliable, secondary sources that will shift consensus and convince the WP community that "Cultural Marxism" is a real thing as well as a conspiracy theory. This is 2020, so my sense of the possible has been duly extended. I do remain skeptical, however.

Oh, and if the opinion that its only a conspiracy theory goes contrary to readily available information on the Internet - as you suggested above - that would be a good example presumptively of why WP requires reliable sources, and does not rely on "information readily available on the Internet", which may not be reliable. Newimpartial (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, yup. And let's not forget that the right-wing think tanks excel at policy-based evidence making, so the lack of any credible evidence that "cultural marxism" is a thing might be obscured by a walled garden of dark money funded GMU faculty writing faux-scholarly tomes referencing each other and discussing in great detail how "cultural marxism" is a threat to oil moneyFreedom™. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oh for gods sake WP:NOTFORUM. Can we delete or archive this now? An editor pretty much comes along and says the article is just crap and so are those that contribute to it, presents a bunch of rubbish primary sources and a novel interpretation of the articles subject based on them (and that editors personal opinion), then says they can provide good secondary sources, but can’t be bothered contributing to the article, but now it’s all a "conspiracy theory conspiracy theory" to stop them publishing random OR based on internet searches. Jesus wept. How does this conversation contribute to improving the article? I feel like this talk page is becoming a 4chan supplementary forum. Bacondrum (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  For the record, I think it best to leave the new section for a few days against the return of the current knight errant, rather than closing to soon and provoking a revert war over a NOTFORUM issue. But yes, obviously, this should be archived or collapsed sooner rather than later. The presence of the conversation does serve the purpose of setting out to 4channers what the bar would be for the changes they desire to take place, which might actually discourage any of them who make rational calculations about their time and energy. Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  Newimpartial, I agree that he's errant, but am unconvinced on the knight part... Guy (help! - typo?) 11:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Before considering an article we would need to do several things. First we would need a clear and concise definition of cultural Marxism that is reliably sourced. Then we would have to identify reliable secondary sources that discussed the topic. Then we would have to determine if there were sufficient sources to establish notability. Finally, we would have to determine whether Cultural Marxism was the common name for the topic and if not check to see if it is already covered in an article with a different name. From we participation in these discussions, I doubt that any let alone all of these hurdles can be met. TFD (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism" is certainly not the term used in reliable sources for The long march through the institutions, much as the conspiracy theorists would wish it so. Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think this is a waste of all of our time, it's just a a spurious rant. Bacondrum (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's a waste of our time. I predicted this outcome in the split discussion. But people felt that just because the CT was and is a notable topic, that it should have its own article. Newimpartial (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The policy is that if a topic is notable, it can have its own article. The challenge is to discourage reality challenged editors from thinking that this is the place to challenge accepted views of reality. How many times do we have to say yes we know the moon landing was faked but we can't say that because the cultural Marxists control the textbooks? And if you want the article to say that, you have to get policy changed. TFD (talk) 05:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

"Can"? Yes. "Should"? Errrrr... But now it does, and we deal with the results of that as best we are able. Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article. I'm really interested in this kind of conspiracy theory. What is a waste of time is Brianshapiro's rant. Bacondrum (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Article missing the real story

This is like one of those Wikipedia articles about an academically contested topic, where just one side of the debate controls the page. Except that here it's about significant political and cultural transformations of the past fifty years, and how they are to be viewed. There is obviously a story to be told e.g. about how people from the Old Left played a role in the New Left, how progressivism came to be what it is now, how identity politics of race and gender drew inspiration from class politics, etc. This article doesn't tell it. Mporter (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, eh? Not so obvious, it turns out, but regardless, this is far, far too vague to be helpful. Why would this "story" need to be told on this page of all places? This article isn't about Marxism or the New Left, or identity politics, or progressiveness in academia, or anything of the sort. So this story would need new reliable sources about the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, or at least sources which haven't already been discussed. Grayfell (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

What about political and cultural transformations more than 50 years ago? Was that the illuminati? Or do you just think that 1970 was the point when the transformations had gone as far as wanted? TFD (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Mporter, what content would you add or change, and based on what sources? This is a well-sourced article. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I think conversations like this that offer no specific sources, no specific claims, no specific issues to discuss, nothing but vague complaints, should not be here. This is not a forum and these conversations should be deleted. This is a contentious subject, anything outside verifiable and reliably sourced content should not be discussed here. This talk page is going to end up being a rambling and endless battleground otherwise. Bacondrum (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

"The Four Deuces" asked "why 1970?" More precisely, it's 1968 which is widely regarded as the moment when a new kind of leftism strode onto the historical stage.

I am not going to be the person to bring balance to this page. Anyone who wants to see the other side can resort to Conservapedia[2], I guess. Though it would be nice to see someone talk about "cultural Marxism", not as a plot by Marxists to soften up society for revolution, but rather as a divide-and-rule ploy by the ruling class meant to prevent revolution. Mporter (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, our Marxist ruling class... in any case, please cite reliable sources for the changes you want to make to the article and do not use the talk page for [WP:Forum] like posts. Mvbaron (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)