Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:37, 11 January 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

A warning about certain sources: There are two sources on the subject of "Cultural Marxism" that represent a citogenesis or circular reporting risk to Misplaced Pages as they plagiarize verbatim directly from an outdated draft that came from Misplaced Pages, which can be found here (2006 revision here). The sources are N.D. Arora's Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination (2013) and A.S. Kharbe's English Language And Literary Criticism (2009); both are from publishers located in New Delhi and should be avoided to prevent a citogenesis incident.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Quotation needed template

On my reading of relevant guidelines, the appropriate context for requesting quotation is if the source is in another language. I don't understand why Emir of Misplaced Pages is going around adding the quotation needed template to random English language citations. Is there a reason to do this or is this just disruptive editing? Bacondrum (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What are these guidelines, because the page you linked literally says "This is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, so that it may be verified that the source can verify the statement or that the editor has interpreted the source correctly." Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please undo my self revert to restore my edits? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Could you not send me the edit warring template again. This is beginning to seem like disruptive editing. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No, seems disruptive to me, littering the article with "quotation needed" templates. The sources are in English, you can read. If there's a particular issue with a source you can discuss it here. Don't edit war. Bacondrum (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

An editor is free to put in quotation needed templates. The template says ""This is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, so that it may be verified that the source can verify the statement or that the editor has interpreted the source correctly.", it does not say it can't be used on a source that is English. What seems disruptive is using a deceptive edit summary saying " I see no reason all these citations need quotes", when you are making edits other than just removing those tags. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you seriously just accuse me of edit warring again when you undid my self-revert, even though I came here to discuss? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that was a self revert, restored everything except the excess quotation needed templates. This is why edit warring is a problem, things get messy. I can't see why all those quotation needed templates are warranted. Why not just add the quotes if you think quotes are needed? Bacondrum (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I mixed up the tags. It looks like the page had been reorganised a bit since my last edit. I have corrected my self and put the the failed verification and better source needed tags. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Cool, sorry for the misunderstanding. Bacondrum (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Now I just need to figure out where the quotes were needed or if that is all fixed now. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope we are clear that the "quotation needed" template was not the right one in these cases. As far as the Braune and Kesvani sources are concerned, the Braune shouldn't be cited where it stands in Origins, and I suspect it arrived there out of precious slice and dicing of material characterizing the CT. Meanwhile, I understand that Kesvani is in the "Voices" section and might be understood as an op-ed; however, all the citation is actually doing is pointing to two readily verified primary sources that document what the sentence is saying; I would make the argument that in such an instance it is more elegant to cite the analysis that lends weight to these sources rather than the primary sources themselves, but the statement they are supporting seems quite obviously to have been backed up by this evidence in toto. In general I think editors have a tendency to read op-ed sources without great consistency, regarding them as reliable when the editor agrees with statements in the op-ed and as unreliable when they disagree. In this instance Kesvani is pointing to clear evidence while lending it weight, and I don't think the article is relying on Kesvani's expertise in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The Times and The Spectator

So, User:Bacondrum, I do disagree with the removal of this material here, here and here. Your attempt to make the article "more discerning" actually makes it considerably more US-centric. The fact that major broadsheets in the UK have elaborated the CT within their national context is not "trivial", as you suggest in your edit summaries. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Newimpartial on both comments. Just saying. Davide King (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Those claims are undue, IMO. A social commentator hardly anyone has ever heard of saying this "If I were a cultural Marxist, I would think about giving up" is trivia...I've certainly never heard of the fellow and its a throw away comment in an op ed - we can't list every comment by every opinions writer that mentions the conspiracy theory. We should focus on the most notable proponents, the most prominent proponents and the loudest proponents...those who really carry on about it. Also, the sourcing is poor or simply does not back the claim. The first claim about The Times is not backed by the source at all (I searched the entire paper, The Times does not receive a single mention), so that one must go, obviously. The second is a fleeting mention in a op-ed sourced to an opinions piece...not lede worthy, that's for sure - I'm up for discussing it in the body, though I think it's undue in the body too, even with better sourcing, it'd be undue IMO. With Tim Montgomerie the same applies, he's not a significant figure in the debate, its a throw away comment in a throw away opinions piece in a throw away paper, sourced from a much better paper, but its an opinions piece. You guys have always been fair and reasonable editors in my experience, I hope you can see my intent is purely about due weight and reliable sources. We simply can't make a list of every person who ever used the term. Bacondrum (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

First we cannot use opinion pieces as reliable sources. The phrasing anyway is misleading. The Times does not promote conspiracy theories, like other mainstream publications, they publish a broad range of opinion pieces including those by right-wingers. We don't say that they promote socialism for example just because they also publish opinion pieces by socialists. It's also unfair to single out publications. TFD (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, spot on. Then there's also a question of undue weight. I agree, a paper publishing an editorial does not mean they are advocating the writers position. And none of this meets the standard for sourcing or due weight. Bacondrum (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, The Four Deuces, I hear you. I do not hold strong views on the matter either way, but I would like to hear back from Newimpartial from more input; if they have changed their mind, then there is no longer an issue or dispute. Perhaps it may be removed from the body, but the two individuals may be re-added. Or perhaps, if there are reliable sources discussing this, we may add a sentence discussing how some on the right have turn the cospiracy theory into the mainstream, at least on the right, and that it is no longer relageted to the far-right fringe; this does not imply that it is no longer far-right or antisemitic as the various IPs and users above argued, it just means that a far-right and antisemitic conspiracy theory has been mainstreamed by and on the right and is held by individuals that may not be personally far-right or antisemitic but that, whether they realise it or not, believe in the conspiracy theory. Davide King (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

We are not here to collate some kind of black list of those who espouse the conspiracy theory, a great many people have espoused it. They must be due, those two and their comments are not even close to being due, IMO. Nor are we here to analyze the motivations of people who espouse the theory, we are here to write a nuetrally worded encyclopedic article on the subject. As for "Or perhaps, if there are reliable sources discussing this, we may add a sentence..." Editors should read reliable sources and let the reliable source lead what you write, editors shouldn't be coming up with a position then seeking out sources to affirm that position. Bacondrum (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, where did I argue for a "black list" of those who espouse the conspiracy theory? We should only list those widely discussed in reliable sources and perhaps add move to the body the ones reported by green sources such as this case. Since you asked sources, we have "How the 'cultural Marxism' hoax began, and why it's spreading into the mainstream" by David Neiwert, author of Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump; and "'Cultural Marxism': The Mainstreaming of a Nazi Trope" by Ari Paul, who has covered politics for The Nation, The Guardian, Jacobin, The Forward and In These Times, among other news outlets; both of which are referenced by Joan Braune. We also have "Is 'cultural Marxism' really taking over universities? I crunched some numbers to find out", already in body, by Matthew Sharpe, Associate Professor in Philosophy at Deakin University, stating that "he term 'cultural Marxism' moved into the media mainstream around 2016, when psychologist Jordan Peterson was protesting a Canadian bill prohibiting discrimination based on gender. Peterson blamed cultural Marxism for phenomena like the movement to respect gender-neutral pronouns which, in his view, undermines freedom of speech." Honestly, I have not been surprised at all by the IPs and other users' comments lamenting that "Cultural Marxism" is somehow not a far-right and antisemitic conspiracy theory as it has been disseminated by mainstream media. Those sources referenced by Baune try to explain this. I also think that both you and Newimpartial gave valid arguments and rationales, albeit arguing in opposite directions, so I hope they and other users can reply you back and we get more input for some consensus. Davide King (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi David sorry if I came across as accusing you of arguing for a "black list". It was more a general comment on listing people who have espoused the conspiracy theory, that we need to be discerning and only add really notable instances and promoters. I was really trying to say we are not here to list offenders or expose anyone. Bacondrum (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, cultural marxism moved into the media mainstream the same way that climate change denial did: through motivated reasoning by grifters. Being part of the mainstream doesn't stop it being bullshit. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG Hit the nail on the head. Spot on. I think the issue is that some people are rightly embarrassed to find out they have been regurgitating a Nazi era antisemitic conspiracy, so they get upset about it and make up excuses. Bacondrum (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum and JzG, I do not know if you may have misunderstood what I said, or maybe I did not explain myself clearer, but that is my whole point. That several mainstream media, especially right-wing media, has moved the conspiracy theory in the mainstream (by mainstream, I do not mean at all that it is no longer an antisemitic, far-right conspiracy theory; I simply mean that is now no longer promoted by the far-right but by more mainstream right-wing media). I believe we should discuss this in the article and clarify exactly that "that some people are rightly embarrassed to find out they have been regurgitating a Nazi era antisemitic conspiracy, so they get upset about it and make up excuses", that "Being part of the mainstream doesn't stop it being bullshit." That "cultural marxism moved into the media mainstream the same way that climate change denial did: through motivated reasoning by grifters" should perhaps be mentioned, explaining that the rebranding did not make it any less far-right or antisemitic, that it is, precisely, still bullshit.

As noted by The Four Deuces below, the conspiracy theory is also framed and rebranded as 'political correctness' (this rebrand does not make it any less far-right or antisemitic). The sources I gave above may not hold weight on themselves, but both were referenced by Braune, so I believe they can be used and properly attributed. Not only Ron Paul and Jordan Peterson rebranded the far-right, antisemitic theory, but in one of the sources I listed above it is stated even The New York Times and The Wahington Post are guilty of that, not for the rebranding, but for not explaining clearly that it is a far-right, antisemitic conspiracy theory and letting a few opinion pieces by people using the rebranding.

Some relevant quotes include how "columnist David Brooks (New York Times, 11/26/18) lamented that today's youths 'tend to have been influenced by the cultural Marxism that is now the lingua franca in the elite academy,' giving them a 'clash of oppressed and oppressor groups' worldview. Also in the Times, contributor Molly Worthen (4/20/19) quoted the phrase 'cultural Marxism'—not approvingly, but not explaining what it meant, either, just offering it as an example of what 'conservatives' were complaining about. A Times story in 2017 (8/11/17) about a former White House aide reported that the aide believed 'globalists' would 'impose cultural Marxism in the United States'—again, without defining for the layperson what that might mean. The Washington Post (like other newspapers) invoked the phrase in its reports on Bolsonaro’s rise to power last year, and even on the hipster styles of the new wave of American white nationalists: In November 2016, the Post (11/30/16) reported that the style of shaved sides with long hair combed back is 'worn by men who feel their whiteness has been infringed upon by the ‘cultural Marxism’ of the Americas.' And opinion-haver Andrew Sullivan took to New York (2/9/18) to denounce 'cultural Marxists' for inspiring social justice movements on campuses.

Like others on the right, the National Review (8/9/18) saw proof of the plot in the Frankfurt School . It's far from a cultural grappling with the Frankfurt School's actual ideas, which live mostly in academia. As Spencer Sunshine, an associate fellow at Political Research Associates, points out, the focus on the Frankfurt School by the right serves to highlight its inherent Jewishness. 'A piece stands in for the whole,' he said. This isn’t one of those 'yeah, it could be interpreted as antisemitic' things—it's straight from Nazi ideology, with just enough cosmetic changes to make it acceptable for the modern right. What should be shocking is the cavalier way some traditional media, like the Times and the Post, are allowing it to live on their pages. Brooks rebrands cultural Marxism as mere political correctness, giving the Nazi-inspired phrase legitimacy for the American right. It is dropped in or quoted in other stories—some of them lighthearted, like the fashion cues of the alt-right—without describing how fringe this notion is. It's akin to letting conspiracy theories about chem trails or vaccines get unearned space in mainstream press. And it's not as if the Times doesn’t know this. In 2018, Columbia University historian Samuel Moyn wrote in a Times blog post (11/13/18) . It would be sensible, when the term is invoked by far-right extremists, to provide readers with a definition of the phrase and its origin. And unless it is invoked in a quote, writers like Brooks should be encouraged not to use it all. 'They should define it as an antisemitic conspiracy theory with no basis in fact,' Sunshine said of mainstream news editors. Failure to do that, as places like the Times and Post are guilty of, has bitter consequences. 'It is legitimizing the use of that framework, and therefore it’s coded antisemitism,' Sunshine said."

The other source I gave cites Fox News, Jordan Peterson, The Daily Caller, Pajamas Media, The Federalist and Spectator USA, among others, for moving the conspiracy theory in the mainstream, resulting in this 'political correctness' rebranding used as cover to hide what is essentially something "straight from Nazi ideology." Davide King (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lists#Embedded lists says they "should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose." In general I would avoid lists except when dealing with a short finite one, for example list of elements. Otherwise we get into issues of of who to include. If they're not mentioned in the text, then they're not important enough to add to the list.

Also, lists are supposed to be helpful as navigation tools. Someone might click on William S. Lind to find out more about the topic, since Lind was the creator of the theory. But not everyone who has ever used the term is significant to the topic. Nonetheless I think that the current list is informative. I just think that it would be better to incorporate it into the article.

Incidentally, I found an article, "Ron Paul Tweets Out Racist Message While Denigrating Marxism". In a tweet he asked if people knew what Cultural Marxism meant and included racist caricatures of a Jew, an Oriental, a brown skinned person and a black man. He later replaced the tweet where he replaced the symbols with political correctness. it might be a useful illustration.

TFD (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I agree that some of those in the list may well be incorporated in the article (hence why I opposed the removal of those in The Times and The Spectator promoting the conspiracy theory from the article; if not worthy for the list, they may be appropriate for the lead and attributed) while we list only the ones most significant and move to the body those that may still be worth mentioning. I knew about that tweet and I agree it is a useful illustration to make and point out, hence the whole point of my comment above. Davide King (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The first issue is sourcing, The Times was not mentioned at all in the source citing that claim, and The Spectator claim is from an opinion piece. Then there's due weight, using the term cultural Marxism is not in and of itself noteworthy, the use by whomever we are including needs to have recieved widespread coverage, it needs to be a notable event. For example, Fraser Anning made national headlines here in Australia for days, his promotion of the conspiracy theory received widespread coverage, that makes it due. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=fraser+anning+cultural+marxism Bacondrum (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, you have a point. What do you think of "Cultural Marxism: far-right conspiracy theory in Australia’s culture wars" saying that "hrough the lens of the Cultural Marxist conspiracy, however, it is possible to discern a relationship of empowerment between mainstream and fringe, whereby certain talking points and tropes are able to be transmitted, taken up and adapted by 'mainstream' figures, thus giving credence and visibility to ideologies that would have previously been constrained to the margins." We already state that "he conspiracy theory of Marxist culture war is promoted by right-wing politicians, fundamentalist religious leaders, political commentators in mainstream print and television media and white supremacist terrorists." I believe we should clarify and expand a bit on the bolded part in body rather than in the list; I provided a few sources that discuss this, both of which are referenced by Braune. I also agree with your points below that it would be better to incorporate the list in the body and have a smaller list (I think the current one is mostly fine) with only the most 'famous' or noted proponents that are due, but do you also think that expanding a bit or clarifying on the bolded part is undue? Or am I missing something? Davide King (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that makes sense and works with those sources. Bacondrum (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Another good journal paper

An interesting read about media and the conspiracy: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335680303_The_Alt-Right%27s_Discourse_of_%27Cultural_Marxism%27_-_A_Political_Instrument_of_Intersectional_Hate Bacondrum (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe try disambiguation?

I have been thinking about the constant attacks on this page, and I occurs to me that an attempt to disambiguate between reality and conspiracy theory might be worth trying. So in the domain of things that actually happen, we have Critical Theory and Postmodernism as academic movements originating in the Marxist and Post-Marxist left, and we have Identity politics and Intersectionality that Venn more into the domain of political strategy, I'm not saying it would have to be exactly these that are used, but disambiguating e.g. those four topics from the Cultural Marxism CT article, in the usual way, might at least cut down the flow rate of abuse of Talk page guidelines while pointing some readers to where they actually want to go. And disambiguation doesn't imply any actual connection between the reality and the CT, which is somewhat important in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, the risk there is that we end up with a POV fork where the IDW theory of "cultural marxism" (i.e. "I am not getting the adulation I deserve, must be all those marxists") is reflected as if it were anything other than the self-serving bollocks it is. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that I wasn't clear. I am not suggesting a disambiguation page for Cultural Marxism (which would indeed be a magnet for further hijinx) but rather disambiguation notices at the top of the CT page. Newimpartial (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should take the feelings of conspiracy theorists into account. TFD (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I tend to lean towards TFD's view, but I guess we could, there's something similar at Jewish Bolshevism. Bacondrum (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Listing promoters

I don't think we should list individuals who promote the CT. Look at other similar CT's like Blood libel. The list is problematic for a number of reasons. Who do we include? Where does it end? The list could be endless. And the list starts making the article look like a black list of people being shamed for espousing the CT rather than an encyclopedic article - it's inviting tendentious editing. I think notable proponents should be included in the article and the history of the CT rather than listed the way we do and some are probably not due for inclusion. What do others think? Bacondrum (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

My general preference is to avoid lists in non-list articles, so my tendency is to agree. However, the list is currently the main treatment in the article of the spread of the conspiracy theory in the 21st century, so I would like to see that treatment developed in another format. Newimpartial (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think most of it is due and should be kept, just developed in prose rather than a list. A subsection about its 21st century proponents in the history section? I'm happy to do the work if others agree to treating that content that way. Bacondrum (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the article I think we should create a history section drawn from and including most the info in the lists. Bacondrum (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Verification tags

Bacondrum, The Four Deuces, Newimpartial et al., could any of you help me verify the tags added by Emir of Misplaced Pages? Thank you. Davide King (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like drive by tagging by the user. I looked at the first one which asked for a quotation which isn't necessary and doesn't make sense. In the other cases, editors should add the necessary cites or raise the issue on the talk page. Give them some time to explain themselves or just remove them all. If the first objection made no sense, why should we spend time investigating the others? TFD (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I agree. I have done so and actually verified them. The only tag remaining is a better source needed for Kesvani, Hussein (March 27, 2019). "Opinion: 'cultural Marxism' is a far-right conspiracy in murky internet forums – so why is a Tory MP now using it?". The Independent. Retrieved October 6, 2020. This source is used to verify that "uring the Brexit debate, a number of Conservatives and Brexiteers espoused the conspiracy theory." This is already supported by the other sources in the section anyway, so there is no need to tag it there too. And to verify that "Tim Montgomerie wrote about the conspiracy in "The 20th Century was Far from an Overwhelming Victory for the Right: Though Revolutionary Marxism Died, its Fellow Traveller, Cultural Marxism, Prospered" (2013) in The Times. Similarly, Toby Young asked the whereabouts of the theory in "Are the cultural Marxists in Retreat, or Lying Low?" (2015) in The Spectator. Writing for The Independent, Hussein Kesvani cited those as examples that the conspiracy theory entered mainstream discourse." It is properly attributed and it is more a matter of weight. Still, I think Newimpartial gave a valid rationale and that now it is not used to support a list of conspiracy promoters as it was before but the aferomentioned sentence.

Newimpartial stated that "all the citation is actually doing is pointing to two readily verified primary sources that document what the sentence is saying; I would make the argument that in such an instance it is more elegant to cite the analysis that lends weight to these sources rather than the primary sources themselves, but the statement they are supporting seems quite obviously to have been backed up by this evidence in toto. In general I think editors have a tendency to read op-ed sources without great consistency, regarding them as reliable when the editor agrees with statements in the op-ed and as unreliable when they disagree. In this instance Kesvani is pointing to clear evidence while lending it weight." Emir of Misplaced Pages tagged sources because they failed to mention Cultural Marxism, when in most cases they are used to verify quotes. In this case, Cultural Marxism is actually used in both primary and secondary given sources. Davide King (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not drive by tagging. I have made multiple edits to this article, and contributed to discussions as per above the above discussion. Also I am not sure why 3 other editors were tagged and not me, almost seems like someone just wants to remove them with any excuse and not chance for me to offer any explanatio needed. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Misplaced Pages, make up your mind. First, you complain that we ping you too much and now that I have not pinged you. Since you complained about getting pinged and that you were editing the page, I simply assumed you would see this talk and there was no need to ping you; there was no grand plan from "someone" to "remove them with any excuse and not chance for me to offer any explanatio needed."

Anyway, you removed several sources such as you have done here with Copsey, Nigel; Richardson, John E., eds. (2015). "'Cultural-Marxism' and the British National Party: a transnational discourse". Cultures of Post-War British Fascism. ISBN 9781317539360. Archived from the original on September 29, 2020. Retrieved September 11, 2020 regarding Weiyrich.

You also removed this image which is relevant because Cultural Bolshevism is its forerunner and it is supported in the body. You again removed this source even though it does not disqualify that and it is more a matter of weight than better source needed; and Newimpartial gave a valid argument about it, but we can discuss it more. However, several of the edits you did were unjustified.

You even removed this when I literally provided the quote in my edit summary here. "Spencer, who co-edits Altright.com and Radix, promulgates stories such as 'Ghostbustersand the Suicide of Cultural Marxism' (Forney 2016), '#3 -Sweden: The World Capital of Cultural Marxism' (Right on Radio 2016), and 'Beta Leftists, Cultural Marxism and Self-Entitlement' (Follin 2015)." Davide King (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I tried to start some sections below, but there was technical difficulties something might have got mixed out. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think the Emir's "drive by tagging" can and should stop, this isn't the first time objections to this odd way of contributing has been brought up. I also think there's no malice evident, but it is disruptive - please stop with the wanton tagging, Emir of Misplaced Pages. Bacondrum (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  Bacondrum, they have removed "Tim Montgomerie wrote about the conspiracy theory in 'The 20th Century was Far from an Overwhelming Victory for the Right: Though Revolutionary Marxism Died, its Fellow Traveller, Cultural Marxism, Prospered' (2013) in The Times. Similarly, Toby Young asked the whereabouts of the theory in 'Are the cultural Marxists in Retreat, or Lying Low?' (2015) in The Spectator. Writing for The Independent, Hussein Kesvani cited those as examples that the conspiracy theory entered mainstream discourse." I believe the issue was bigger when the same ref was used as part of the list, but I do not see the issue if it is worded like this and I agree with Newimpartial's comment that "all the citation is actually doing is pointing to two readily verified primary sources that document what the sentence is saying" and that this avoids the issue of using this ref to verify them as part of a list, which I would agree it was more problematic to use. Davide King (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removing Tim Montgomerie and Toby Young claims. Poorly cited IMO, but that's besides the point - they are undue, I can't see any reason to include them, unless we are attempting to complile a list of everyone who ever uttered the words. Bacondrum (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not an attempt to compile "a list of everyone who ever uttered the words" but that the conspiracy theory has been proposed or in some cases re-branded by political commentators in mainstream print press. Davide King (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Not saying you are wrong, I just can't see how they are due, they are not significant players and their actions are not significant, as far as I can see. Bacondrum (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I wish Newimpartial could weight in their thoughts too (as far as I can see, they have not replied back to some objections raised and I would be open-minded to see their response), but I can understand if they are undue. However, Toby Young has published at least three articles about it ("Are the cultural Marxists in retreat, or lying low?", "If I were a cultural Marxist, I might be thinking about giving up" and "The neo-Marxist takeover of our universities"), so he may not be an insignificant player; and while this is an opinion piece by The Guardian, it says: "Or consider the Times, supposedly a paper of record, which has published Tim Montgomerie bemoaning the prospering of 'cultural Marxism'. Or Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times, who believes young Britons are brainwashed by the 'delusions of cultural Marxism'. It’s not clear whether these people were aware of the phrase’s loaded nature – they surely should have been more careful – but many readers would certainly have heard a dog whistle. As Britain’s own counter-terrorism chief said last week, mainstream newspapers are helping to radicalise the far right with irresponsible reporting." This latter part is cited to a non-opinion piece by The Guardian entitled "Newspapers help to radicalise far right, says UK anti-terror chief". Davide King (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what I am being asked here - I stand by my previous comment, which is that while we can't use opinion pieces (for facts), we can certainly use them for commentary, and they can lend weight to observations that are documented in primary sources. The idea that we "can't use" opinion pieces is simply false - we just can't source facts to them. Newimpartial (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC), amended Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I am moved by your comment. While I can understand why it is undue (that would be a better tag rather than better source needed), I believe you have point and I still lean for inclusion exactly for the reasons you outlined. I would argue the fact Toby Young has written at least three articles about Cultural Marxism means he is notable and not a non-significant player. Tim Montgomerie is also relevant because, as noted by The Guardian and other sources which "lend weight to observations that are documented in primary sources", The Times is one of the most mainstream newspapers in Britain. The propagation, or re-branding, of the conspiracy theory so that now is held also by more mainstream, or otherwise non-fringe, people, is supported by scholarly sources. Davide King (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• I also have to disagree - I find Emir has generally removed poor references in my opinion (opinion pieces, a questionably OR picture) and certainly nothing disruptive here. The passages have also been brought to the talk page here for discussion, I think this is productive. Mvbaron (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It's the "drive by tagging" that is disruptive, objections to this behavior have been raised before, it should stop. Bacondrum (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Ausstellung entartete kunst 1937.jpg

Should this page include the file file:Ausstellung entartete kunst 1937.jpg? with the captioning and sourcing below? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I see no issue in pointing this out or using this image. I believe sources show enough weight that this is relevant and that "the etymology of the term Cultural Marxism derived from the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism)." Davide King (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the picture is borderline OR and I dont' think it particularly helps the article, but I saw one source that made the connection at least indirectly... Mvbaron (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it's borderline OR, although it makes sense on reading the sources. It's borderline. We could use an image to illustrate the Nazi connection that's less debatable? Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/File:German_antisemitic_and_anti-Soviet_poster.JPG or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Wochenspruch_der_NSDAP_28_September_1941.jpg perhaps? Bacondrum (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

Sources "'Degenerate' Art". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Archived from the original on September 11, 2020. Retrieved September 11, 2020. Woods, Andrew (2019). "Cultural Marxism and the Cathedral: Two Alt-Right Perspectives on Critical Theory". Critical Theory and the Humanities in the Age of the Alt-Right. Springer International Publishing. pp. 39–59. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-18753-8_3. ISBN 978-3-030-18753-8. Matthew, Feldman; Griffin, Roger (Ed.) (2003). Fascism: Fascism and Culture (1. publ. ed.). New York: Routledge. p. 343. ISBN 978-0-415-29018-0. Archived from the original on December 20, 2019. Retrieved October 28, 2015.

Civitas Institute speech and republication

Should this page include the Civitas Institute speech and republication with the sourcing below? No quote has been provided from the source "Red Pill, Blue Pill: How to Counteract the Conspiracy Theories That Are Killing Us". "Death of the Moral Majority?" does not even mention Cultural Marxism. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I have clarified the primary source is for the speech; the secondary source, which is verified and again one does no need to provide always a quote (it just needs to be verified), is that he promoted the conspiracy theory. I see no reason to exclude this. Davide King (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Davide, this speech is mentioned in a lot of the cited material, Like Breivik's manifesto it seems to be one of the most widely discussed efforts to promote the CT. If there's an issue i's about selecting the best source/sources. Bacondrum (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

That does not clarify how a source that does not even mention Cultural Marxism should be included. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism is in the primary source by Weyrich; I see the Moonves reference as adding weight to the Weyrich quote, and for that purpose I don't see why it has to use the term "Cultural Marxism"

What are you talking about, it uses the term Cultural Marxism multiple times:

Those who came up with Political Correctness, which we more accurately call "Cultural Marxism," did so in a deliberate fashion. I'm not going to go into the whole history of the Frankfurt School and Herbert Marcuse and the other people responsible for this.

Cultural Marxism is succeeding in its war against our culture. The question becomes, if we are unable to escape the cultural disintegration that is gripping society, then what hope can we have?

Here is another page it's on: https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/1999/02/16/letter-to-conservatives-by-paul-m-weyrich/ - here it is in SLATE: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1999/02/weyrich-goes-off-the-grid.html

I don't think anyone denies the text. Google that second statements with quote marks around it and you'll see how many references there are for it.

Weyrich quote

Should this page include the below quote on Weyrich with the sourcing below? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not see why not. We also do not need every ref to have a quote. The term Cultural Marxism is used in the book and Weiyrich is mentioned, so it is verified and I see no reason to remove this. You should assume more good faith that the user or users who added did verify it first. Davide King (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Can't see any issue really, there are a number of sources for this throughout the article. Bacondrum (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see the term Cultural Marxism at all in the 3rd reference. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism is in the primary source by Weyrich; I see the third reference as adding weight to the Weyrich quote, and for that purpose I don't see why it has to use the term "Cultural Marxism". Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Excessive citations for Breivik quote

Should this page include the excessive citations for Breivik quote with the sourcing (not defined here) below? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I think that 4 cites for 1 quote is excessive, I've removed two and left one each of the strongest news and academic sources, bundled them also. Bacondrum (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  I agree, especially if those same sources are already used elsewhere, so no source would be lost. However, I disagree with the bundling; it is only two refs now and I do not see the need to bundle, especially if at least one of the sources is also already used elsewhere in the article. Davide King (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Daily Kos

What makes Daily Kos a WP:RS to use here despite what it says at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that non-green sources may be used if an expert has written from it and that exception may be for authors. In this case, the author is David Neiwart, also author of Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump; and the piece was cited by Braune. Davide King (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Unsupported claims regarding Peterson and Farage

Suella Braverman and the Board of Deputies of British Jews

@Davide King: You have deleted the inf about the Board of Deputies of British Jews apologising to Suella Braverman for accusing her of antisemitism, whilst keeping the reference. Is this your intention? We now have a statement in the article that the Board condemned Ms Braverman as antisemitic, when in fact they withdrew this. This is a BLP issue. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sweet6970, that is more relevant for her own article. The Board of Deputies of British Jews does not contradict what other sources have reported, i.e. that she used or referred to the conspiracy theory. The theory is antisemitic but since it has been 'mainstreamised', people who may not be personally antisemitic, unconsciously or not, whether they realise it or not, are believing in the conspiracy theory. Davide King (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

That same source notes "Mrs Braverman, the MP for Fareham, was alerted to this connection by journalist Dawn Foster but defended using the term." Davide King (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not the point. This is a BLP issue, and we should not be misinforming readers by saying that the Board condemned Ms Braverman, when in fact they apologised to her. You thanked me for this edit when I originally added the inf about the apology. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not a BLP issue because we are not saying she is antisemitic, we are saying she promoted the conspiracy theory, which the article about the Board's apology is not; it is about her being antisemitic but sources and text do not say she is antisemitic, just that she promoted the conspiracy theory, which is true and she knew about it. The Board's apology only says that she is not antisemitic, not that she did not promoted the conspiracy theory, which they note it is antisemitic. That same source notes "Mrs Braverman, the MP for Fareham, was alerted to this connection by journalist Dawn Foster but defended using the term." In addition, it is not Jewish groups and MPs are saying Farage has promoted the conspiracy theory as an antisemitic dog-whistle, they are condemning for it; that he has used antisemitic dog-whistle is stated as 'fact', with The Guardian explaining it is "a term originating in a conspiracy theory based on a supposed plot against national governments, which is closely linked to the far right and antisemitism." So it makes no sense to say "he Board of Deputies of British Jews has said that Nigel Farage has promoted the cultural Marxist conspiracy as dog-whistle code for antisemitism in the United Kingdom" when the source does not support this wording; the Board is condemning him over antisemitic dog-whistles. Davide King (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The article says ‘Her use of the conspiracy theory was condemned as hate speech…’ This means she has been accused of antisemitism. Therefore, it is important to show that the Board does not consider her to be antisemitic.

(See the separate section below about the Guardian article and Nigel Farage.) Sweet6970 (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Since when hate speech is synonym with antisemitism? Islamophobia, among others, is hate speech too. Since we are not saying she is antisemitic, just that she has promoted the conspiracy theory, which even the Board did not dispute, it is not relevant to this article but to her. The Board is retracting that she is antisemitic but we never wrote she is antisemitic, just that she has promoted the conspiracy theory, so I see no issue or BLP violations. Davide King (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Same thing for Farage, Peterson et al. We are not saying they are antisemites, we are saying they have promoted the conspiracy theory. Whether that makes them antisemites is a matter to be discussed at their own articles, if it is something notable, not here, which is about the conspiracy theory. Davide King (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Re Suella Braverman only:

The only possible ‘hate speech’ in this context is antisemitism. If you accuse someone of hate speech, you are accusing them of trying to stir up hatred against the group in question. The only possible interpretation of the statement Her usage of the conspiracy theory was condemned as hate speech by other MPs, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the anti-racist organization Hope Not Hate. is that she has been accused of antisemitism. This is a very serious allegation. If this allegation is not intended, then the statement should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it says "er usage of the conspiracy theory was condemned as hate speech." So that still means her usage of the conspiracy theory was antisemitic, not that she was antisemitic herself, hence why I felt there was no need for it and that the same source could be instead used to report "Mrs Braverman, the MP for Fareham, was alerted to this connection by journalist Dawn Foster but defended using the term." It would be helpful if more users could weight in rather than going back and forth between you and I. Davide King (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: If we say that a theory is being used in an antisemitic way, this is an accusation of antisemitism by the person concerned. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure that is the case. Sources are not saying she is antisemitic but that she promoted the conspiracy theory; and scholarly analysis discusses how the conspiracy theory is propagated by people who are not antisemites or Nazis themselves, yet the conspiracy theory remains antisemitic and an antisemitic dog whistle. The Board's apology is more about her alleged antisemitism than the conspiracy theory, hence why I think that is for her own article since here we are not saying she is antisemite or that she was accused of being one; we are saying she promoted the conspiracy theory and she was aware of the term, that is all. Davide King (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sweet6970, if you want other editors to respond then you should consider providing a link to the edit you are arguing against. TFD (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces: As far as I am concerned, this matter has been resolved. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Minor grammatical issue

@Davide King: The actual Moyn quote began with “That”. If you look at it more closely you’ll see that it is ungrammatical without the “That” within the quotation, and this is why the original editor had to add an into the mix, which didn’t quite solve the problem.

— Swood100 (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sealioning around antisemitism needs to stop

Anti-semetic = "hostile to or prejudiced against Jewish people", Cultural Marxism originated as an attack on The Frankfurt School, which the fabricators of this theory specifically noted "were, to a man, Jewish" -William S. Lind.

Likewise, it falls into a category of conspiracy theory - namely it's the "Systemic conspiracy theory" type according to Barkun. It is so common, as to be given as the first example on the Conspiracy Theory page (eg Conspiracies about: "Jews, Freemasons, Communism, or the Catholic Church").

Early proponents attended holocaust denial conferences specifically to promote the theory among the far-right.

It parallels, and has even been noted to extend from the Nazi theories of Cultural Bolshevism and Judeo Bolshivism (easy conceptual links to make, and specifically in the (Paul Renner, a German typographer was the first to take umbrage at being called a Cultural Bolshevist by the Nazis directly, who singled him out as a modernist in the style of Apollinaire). He responded with an essay titled "Cultural BOlshevism?").

The Frankfurt School were specifically anti-fascists from Germany, they escaped the Nazis in the 1930s. Although one of their number: Walter Benjamin (a poet), did not make it.

Ben Shapiro's Jewish heritage does not excuse him from anything. Just as black people can hold racist and erroneous views about OTHER black people, so can White people be racist to other white people, and yes - so Jews can both be Jewish, and hold negative and stereotyped opinions about Jewish people.

Some ideas of the alt-right do overlap with some of Jordon Peterson's. "Fourth Turning" theory for instances, is promoted occasionally at the Jordan Peterson sub-reddit, as are man traditionalist and conservative ideas. He and Shapiro appear on similar podcasts open to these ideas, and are associates. The phrase "Cultural Marxism" can be found in many posts there by searching that subreddit.

The problem with all your arguments is that they show an utter ignorance of Misplaced Pages's purpose and policies. There's a policy page for what makes a source authoritive WP:RS - there's one for how to argue correctly on wikipedia WP:talk and many for what NOT to do on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is here to REPORT on sources, not to make arguments, but to state facts and report on sources. If the majority of sources from experts agree - it goes in. If a minority disagree, it might get a brief mention, but doesn't actually have to be covered at all (encyclopedias are generalist documents with specific and imperfect information, as all databases).

Relevant expertise in this case would require someone to be from the academic humanities most likely. Perhaps a historical expert on leftwing cultural movements in those countries (Germany & America), of that era (1910s - 1980s). Preferably someone with a background in Cultural Studies, or the history of Western Marxism... So yeah, basically that's who holds the facts of the matter. They know The Frankfurt School best, and so can either verify or invalidate the claims of the (unqualified) conspiracy theorists. There is a consensus that due to it's anti-semitic origins, usage, history, and promotion, it is entirely fair for Misplaced Pages to state "Cultural Marxism, is a far-right, anti-semitic, conspiracy theory." Perhaps if you disagree with that, you should get an academic education in what The Frankfurt School were ACTUALLY SAYING, so that you can compare it to the ambient claims you see as incorrect around the Cultural Marxism conspiracy. 123.243.234.154 (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the sealioning around antisemitism needs to stop. We've heard quite enough now, it's going nowhere, never was going anywhere to begin with. Bacondrum (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Peterson Confusion.

"In the 2010s, Jordan Peterson popularized Cultural Marxism as a term by moving it into mainstream discourse. Peterson blamed the conspiracy for demanding the use of gender-neutral pronouns as a threat to free speech, often misusing postmodernism as a stand in term for the conspiracy" - how do I know all words aren't "stand in terms" for other words. What is this brain rot? 203.129.53.19 (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh sorry BTW, "brain rot" is a stand in term for something else. 203.129.53.19 (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Original Research / Telepathy?

The text "Peterson blamed the conspiracy for demanding the use of gender-neutral pronouns as a threat to free speech, often misusing postmodernism as a stand in term for the conspiracy." This seems to rely on some sort of telepathy. How can the wiki editor know what Peterson meant when he discusses postmodernism? - Antiquark (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

We write what the reliable sources tell us. The sources say he is misusing "postmodernism", so that's what the article says. We wiki editors tend to reserve our telepathic powers for when we interpret comments on Talk pages. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The actual wording of the source is given in the edit of 23:27 9 November 2020 Sweet6970 (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

What are the wiki standards for youtube references? Some of the Peterson references in the page eventually point to the following three videos of Peterson talking, none of which refer to Cultural Marxism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ - Peterson never mentions Cultural Marxism or Postmodern Neo-Marxism in this video, contrary to the title.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI - Peterson never mentions Postmodern Neo-Marxism or Cultural Marxism in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofmuCXRMoSA - Peterson never mentions Cultural Marxism in this video.

Antiquark (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I've altered the text to reflect that it is a single authors opinion, rather than anything Peterson has explicitly stated. Thank you for your help. -- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 15:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

What are the wiki standards for youtube references? You can't use it. Youtube is unusable for anything, ever. User generates, no editorial over site what-so-ever. It's a cesspool. Bacondrum (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted) here is the content you're asking about: WP:Youtube.121.45.240.191 (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't respond to rude editors. Don't be rude, personal attacks are prohibited here, insult me again and I'll take you to ANI. Bacondrum (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

National Review interview of Michael Walsh

Hi, there are some choice quotes by Michael Walsh, a conservative author of the book "The Devil’s Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West". The quotes can be sourced from this interview . I'm just not sure which ones to use (some demonstrate real WP:FRINGE thinking), or where to put them into the article. Does anyone have any suggestions? -- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 15:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

What are your suggestions? That article you linked to doesn't mention cultural Marxism. Can't discuss proposed additions if you don't put any forward. Bacondrum (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted)

"Critical Theory was the notion, promulgated by the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School, that simply states there is nothing — no custom, institution, or moral precept — that is beyond criticizing, and destroying."

121.45.240.191 (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Since Michael Walsh isn't an expert there is no reason to quote him. TFD (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

What is required to establish expertise? For example, why does Chip Berlet qualify but Michael Walsh does not?

In "Collectivists, Communists, Labor Bosses, and Treason: The Tea Parties as Right-Wing, Populist Counter-Subversion Panic'" (2012), the journalist Chip Berlet identified the culture war conspiracy theory as basic ideology of the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party. — Swood100 (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would like nothing better than to insert "Magic Helmet" theory into the present article. Deception is critical to the success of Satan’s war on God and on God’s creatures; thus most Leftist schemes come cloaked in false virtues, such as “tolerance.” These certainly are the tropes of the conspiracy theory (Schoenberg as a culture warrior - lol - so Judeo-Bolshevik). I'm just not sure exactly where they fit in. Newimpartial (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that a person who expresses a religious belief cannot have expertise in the nature of Critical Theory? Is it that since the expression by a person of his religious belief would not be appropriate for this article, no assertion by that person, even if on a secular subject and intended to be factual or historical, qualifies either? Religious people are disqualified as experts on any subject? Could you point me to the part of WP:RELIABLE that expounds on that? Also, how is the expertise of Chip Berlet established? — Swood100 (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that, no. However, I am unaware of any reliable sources that Critical Theorists are, in fact, participants in Satan's war on God - though I am aware of the Blood libel, which may be relevant here. Newimpartial (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that, no. However, I am unaware of any reliable sources that Critical Theorists are, in fact, participants in Satan's war on God

But nobody proposed Walsh as a reliable source to establish the truth of one of his religious beliefs. He was above suggested as a reliable source for this statement: "Critical Theory was the notion, promulgated by the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School, that simply states there is nothing — no custom, institution, or moral precept — that is beyond criticizing, and destroying." TFD proposed that since Walsh has no relevant expertise his quote cannot be used. I then asked how such expertise is demonstrated, and how we know that Berlet possesses it but Walsh does not. You then raised a point about Walsh’s religious beliefs. If you are not claiming that Walsh’s expression of his religious beliefs has some bearing on Walsh’s reliability or expertise with respect to the above statement, then why did you raise that issue? — Swood100 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid you may not have understood what I was saying. The statement I quoted from the interview is at least potentially relevant to this article, by illustrating the Culture war logic of the conspiracy theory, and would be reliable as a statement of Walsh's own beliefs about this - if they were DUE for inclusion as an illustration of the conspiracy theory.

On the other hand, the statement you are quoting is not presented as illustrating Walsh's (conspiratorial) beliefs but as a description of what Critical Theory is about. Even if a description of Critical Theory were in scope for this article (which seems unlikely to me), I am unaware of any publications that would make Walsh a reliable source about Critical Theory, or about Marxist cultural analysis, or about anything relevant to the topic of this article except, as noted above, for his personal beliefs that could illustrate the conspiracy theory. As far as I can tell, his published book simply elaborates his belief in the conspiracy theory in relation to his theistic (and apparently Manichaean) world view, and would be reliable within similar parameters to the interview. Have I now made myself understood? Newimpartial (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I am unaware of any publications that would make Walsh a reliable source about Critical Theory

Well, he published a book in which he apparently provides some analysis of Critical Theory. What disqualifies him?

Tell me this: do you think that the purpose of Marxist cultural analysis has been to bring about massive and fundamental changes to western culture? — Swood100 (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If Walsh has any other publications or qualifications besides the Magic Helmet book that make him an expert in Critical theory, I would like to be told what those are. Otherwise, he is no more of an expert on that and relates topics than is Jordan Peterson - and it has been established on this Talk page that he is no expert. Newimpartial (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Berlet meets the standards of Self-published sources (online and paper) as an expert because his "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." However, we are not using a self-published work by or interview of Berlet, but an article he wrote for Critical Sociology, which is a peer-reviewed publication. In other words, experts have reviewed his article before publication. If Walsh or anyone else for that matter gets an article published in a peer-reviewed publication then we can use it as a source. TFD (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, but plenty of acceptable references come from sources that are not peer-reviewed. So we need a quote from Walsh’s book? — Swood100 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok I'm confused. Why is someone trying to use quotes from a clearly WP:FRINGE individual who helped found a subsite of Breitbart News which is so completely unreliable it's on the spam blocklist? IHateAccounts (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The question really goes to how we know that Walsh lacks expertise or is WP:FRINGE. This has to be demonstrated through WP:RS right? — Swood100 (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody needs to demonstrate a negative, here. The onus is to establish expertise, and publishing a book of theology re-inscribed with the conspiracy theory narrative does the opposite of establishing expertise. Newimpartial (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You are arguing with someone who thinks COVID-19 is a hoax. TFD (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Where are the helpful souls who like to tidy up this page by "redacting" gratuitous unsupported personal attacks made by others? — Swood100 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think the sealioning around fringe claims here is drawing close to warranting an ANI report, it's wasting everyone's time and as such it is disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 04:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the quote should be included, and Walsh should be made to sit along site his coworker Andrew Brietbart, as they've both pushed the conspiracy (and both formed BigJournalism.com together. Bacondrum, you need to stop viewing every comment on the talk page as a personal attack you have to rally against. The inclusion of the Walsh quotes as coming from the Conspiracy Theorist camp is fine. 194.223.46.197 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I, for one, would like to see Satan properly credited for his/her role in the conspiracy. (Also, can I please have my Magic Helmet? Pretty please?) Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Frankfurt School a synonym for Cultural Marxism?

The sole Ben Shapiro reference in the article ultimately ends up at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Ngy2aU_QY

He says Frankfurt School about 100 times, but never mentions Cultural Marxism.

I checked the wiki page for Frankfurt School and it doesn't actually have the term Cultural Marxism in the main body of the article, only as some side links.

If Frankfurt School is now a synonym, it should be mentioned somewhere in Frankfurt School. - Antiquark (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The statement about Shapiro is sourced to the two reliable secondary sources cited, not his YooTubez. Newimpartial (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably the Merion West reference should be removed, because it's not in wikipedia's list of reliable sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources - Antiquark (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not a comprehensive list, Antiquark. In fact, it says so in the first sentence: "non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Misplaced Pages are frequently discussed". So you can't expect every source to be listed there, and if a source is not listed there that would not make it a priori unreliable. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a synonym in the minds of conspiracy theorists. TFD (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead is contradicted by new source

A Happy New Year to all our readers!

The quote from Jerome Jamin added today by Swood100 seems to deny that the conspiracy theory is inherently anti-Semitic, or even necessarily right wing, since Buchanan is said to believe that the threat comes from ‘hard capitalism’ . This contradicts the first sentence of the lead. So I suggest that the first sentence be amended to read: ‘Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory which is generally far-right and antisemitic and which claims Western Marxism as the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture.’ Sweet6970 (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it merely says that the anti-Semitic and right-wing nature are subtle. See the NYT article about Buchanan: " say Mr. Buchanan is speaking in code, using xenophobic images like those or anti-Semitic references to excite bigots without alienating mainstream voters." "Why does he specifically invoke the term "America first," when it is so intimately tied to anti-Semitism? Why, similarly, does he repeatedly attack "New York banks," often Goldman Sachs, when promoting his trade ideas?" TFD (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I see your point, but the article in the NY Times is about Mr Buchanan, not about Cultural Marxism, which is never mentioned. The J Jamin source denies that the use of the term ‘Cultural Marxism’ is necessarily racist, or antisemitic, and, in its comment about Mr Buchanan, it implicitly denies that it is right-wing, since opposition to capitalism is generally regarded as left-wing.

My general point is that ‘Cultural Marxism’ is not a well-defined and logically consistent ideology. It’s a conspiracy theory. The people who espouse it have completely different ideas about what the term means. But the lead to this article treats it as if it is an ideology i.e. the lead treats Cultural Marxism as if it exists. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, Buchanan is pro-capitalist, he just has a problem with some capitalists, many of whom happen to be Jews. As the noted right-winger Willi Schlamm once said, "The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists." His boss, William F. Buckley Jr., another non-leftist, criticized American capitalists for being too left-wing. I mentioned Buchanan because he is included in the text: "For Lind, Buchanan and Breivik, the threat does not come from the migrant or the Jew because he is a migrant or a Jew...For Buchanan, the threat comes from atheism, relativism and hard capitalism."

The advocates of the theory often soft-pedal the inherent anti-Semitism by using coded language. That brings in people who otherwise are not anti-Semitic. At some point they realize that the main conspirators are Jews.

Anyway I don't think you have read the exert correctly. It does not say that the conspiracy theory is not necessarily anti-Semitic or right-wing.

TFD (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

in its comment about Mr Buchanan, it implicitly denies that it is right-wing, since opposition to capitalism is generally regarded as left-wing

In his paper Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right, Jamin definitely includes Buchanan in the group that he is lumping together as the radical right, though I don't think that term has a well-defined meaning. Jamin also wrote:

“Buchanan has also been notable for presenting hard-line attitudes towards migrants, homosexual people and secularists. This has led to him being seen by some as an extremist (even far-right), while others have even viewed his positions against globalisation as ones that mark him out as being on the left, at times causing potential confusion.”

Also, his opposition is not to capitalism but to the combination of atheism, relativism and capitalism. — Swood100 (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

While the term radical right can have different meanings, the main meaning is clearly described in Radical right (United States). Basically it means to be to the right of the mainstream right, such as people like George H.W. Bush, whom Buchanan challenged. Anyway Donald Trump claims to be a friend of the working man, complains about certain capitalists, says he opposes war and wants to give everyone $2,000, but is never considered left-wing. While I think that criticism of him has been exaggerated, his rhetoric at least tends to the radical right. TFD (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

All the replies to my comment seem to be about Mr Buchanan’s political position. That is not what I was talking about. My point is that there is no consistency in the viewpoints of people who espouse the conspiracy theory. They use the term to mean what they want it to mean. Yet the article gives the impression that they all think the same. This is misleading. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

There is as much consistency among supporters of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as there is among supporters of other conspiracy theories, AFAICT. And there is nothing in the Jamin piece that contradicts the statement that Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory. "Avoiding overt racism" does not exclude the underlying theory being antisemitic, and attacking "hard capitalism" does not place anyone on the left. Hell, Hitler attacked hard capitalism. Newimpartial (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. I see we’ve now reached Godwin’s law territory. Please correct me if I am wrong, Newimpartial, but you seem to agree that there is no consistency among the people who espouse the conspiracy theory, yet you also seem to consider that there is a definite theory which they all share. As far as I can see, these 2 views are incompatible. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I said "as much consistency" as "among supporters of other conspiracy theories". WP doesn't have any difficulty characterizing those, either. Newimpartial (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sweet6970 Please stop wasting everyone's time here. Yours and Swood100's sealioning on this talk page is repetitive and disruptive, it's not going anywhere other than to ANI, if you keep it up. At best it's a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but either way I think the repetitive nature of these blatant POV pushing attempts is disruptive enough for admins to act, so I'd strongly advise you both to stop. I'd also urge other editors to stop responding to this repetitive and tedious crap. Bacondrum (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: You should take your own advice: Don't be rude, personal attacks are prohibited here… If you are not interested in the discussion, stay out of it. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm very interested in this subject, just not editors disrupting Misplaced Pages endlessly pushing a line that is not going anywhere (otherwise known as Sealioning). Keep it up if you want, the more evidence the stronger the case if/when it goes to the admins. The antisemitic and far-right nature of this conspiracy theory is extremely well established, cherrypicking as many fringe essays as you can isn't going to change that, drop the stick and back slowly away. You and Swood100 are quite blatantly POV pushing here. Your repeated and longwinded attempts to push that POV are disruptive. Bacondrum (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that reliable sources call it a far-right anti-Semitic conspiracy theory is sufficient for us to do so. We can't change that through argument about how to interpret the conspiracy theory. I would point out however that people who promote anti-Semitic and racist views are not always aware they are doing so and major proponents of far right views tend to disguise their inherent anti-Semitism. Note too that cultural Marxism is not a belief that its proponents hold in isolation, but it comes attached with conspiracy theories about socialism, Hollywood, the media, bankers, neoconservatives, etc., all of which are also anti-Semitic theories.

In any case, I am unlikely to persuade you. It's like getting someone to see a pattern that they don't recognize. The only way they will do so is by looking until eventually it becomes clear. The link between cultural Marxism and anti-Semitism only becomes clear after studying the far right, anti-Semitism and conspiracism.

TFD (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

they’ve both had this all pointed out many times now. Bacondrum (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Thank you for your courteous reply. It seems that I am unlikely to be able to convince you that from the reader’s point of view, this article is self-contradictory and does not make sense. Perhaps we have to wait for the sources to catch up with the vague way the term is currently being used. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Buchanan is not a reliable source. On page 80 of his book "Death of the West" he completely fabricated quotes claiming they were from Herbert Marcuse. This misinformation was later republished in various places, including in right wing documentaries. Here is an extract of one such example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgzp9vGx01o "Death of the West" thus fails Misplaced Pages's editorial standards, and can only be used to prove Buchanan's specific POV (which is thoroughly part of the WP:FRINGE conspiracy theorist camp). 194.223.46.197 (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

How can you make such a claim without checking? The quote in question was attributed, on page 80, to “the cultural Marxist” not to Marcuse. Go to https://books.google.com/ , type in “The death of the west”, search it for the phrase “west is guilty” and click on page 80. Don’t believe everything you find in reader comments on YouTube. — Swood100 (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The quote on p.80 is actually from William S. Lind, so Buchanan's attribution of it to "a student of Critical Theory" is as good as fabrication. Newimpartial (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that the source of the quote was not Marcuse, nor “the cultural Marxist”, but is actually attributable to Lind, as an expression of his viewpoint? Lind "repeats and repeats the charge that the West is guilty of genocidal crimes against every civilization and culture that is has encountered"? That seems unlikely. What reference are you relying on? — Swood100 (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is tedious. I am talking about the quotation on p. 80 of Buchanan, introduced by "One student of critical theory defined it as...". The quotation that follows is from William S. Lind "Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology", p. 11. The passage you are taking about isn't a quotation at all, and is clearly something that Buchanan made up on his own. Newimpartial (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see. Lind doesn’t qualify as "a student of Critical Theory" so by referring to him as such Buchanan showed himself to be a liar. Actually, the attribution is to Raymond V. Raehn, not Lind, but I agree that this is tedious, and I would add, inane. — Swood100 (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Usage of the term 'cultural Marxism'

Interesting graphs on the Google Books Ngram Viewer showing the usage of “cultural Marxism” (variously spelled) from 1940 to 1970 and from 1960 to 2019. Big drop in the early 1950s. Maybe something to do with the McCarthy era. — Swood100 (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

How does this inform our understanding of the meaning of the term? Swood100 (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It backs up a statement made in Marxist cultural analysis, but otherwise I don't see the relevance TBH. Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

POV pushing

Swood100 has now tried to just shove their view into the article despite their claims failing to gain any traction here at talk, in fact their claims were almost universally refuted, but they've just gone ahead and tried to add them anyway. I think the POV pushing should probably go to ANI now? They've had plenty of warnings. Bacondrum (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I also contest the changes, especially the changes to the "Scholarly analysis" section. They are just a list of quotes featuring the term "cultural" and "marxism". Nothing in it does in fact contradict the claims made in the article, viz. that cultural marxism is not a school of thought. Mvbaron (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The article does not claim that "cultural marxism is not a school of thought". See the top line of the article: "For cultural Marxism in the context of cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis. If you go to that page you will find it said: "The tradition of Marxist cultural analysis since the 1930s has been referred to as 'cultural Marxism'". The point is that this article is about the conspiracy theory cultural Marxism and that article is about cultural Marxism in the context of cultural studies, a legitimate field of study since the 1930s.

Joan Braune made the statement that not only is there no cultural Marxism conspiracy, neither is it the name of a legitimate academic school of thought. I provided a number of references to reliable sources who contradicted the second part of this. Please provide specific reasons for reversion.

OK, so Bacondrum and Mvbaron insist that every one of my last 11 edits has been improper and should be reverted. "This has all been discussed and refuted at talk, you are going against consensus. Googling "cultural Marxism" and finding it in a few books is not a refution of the antisemtic nature of this theory, it's just people using the term in a sentence." Let’s take a look at the first four reversions:

• The first one added a dash into "stand-in", which needs a dash. Reason for reversion?
• The second one corrected an erroneous quote and supplied the remainder of the quote. Reason for Reversion?
• The third one by Sweet6970 corrected grammar: person1 and person2 "write" not "writes". Reason for reversion?
• The fourth one added the view of Jérôme Jamin, a reliable source who had already been referenced in this article, as to the nature of the conspiracy and how it developed. Reason for reversion? — Swood100 (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The main proposed addition is not supported by its supposed sources. The key claim is Braune's assertion that Cultural Marxism is not an academic school of thought is contradicted by a number of sources, but it isn't. All of the sources cited are referring to Marxist cultural analysis -- and none of them refer to it as a school of thought (nor does the WP article, as I recall, and if it does this is an error that crept in somewhere). As Misplaced Pages editors, we simply don't have the luxury of pretending that our sources say what we would have wanted them to say.

For the record, not all of the edits from Swood preceding the one that provided the addition I quoted are POV edits, in my view, but I trust that those minor points can be sttled calmly and without edit-warring, and also without inserting nonsense into the article. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Braune said that cultural Marxism is not an “academic school of thought” and that there is “no intellectual movement by that name”. Does the phrase “cultural Marxism in the context of cultural studies” not refer to an intellectual movement? Why is it not an academic school of thought, given the statements made by the sources? Should I have put the statements in the text of the article rather than just in the text of the reference? — Swood100 (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not an academic school of thought. The Frankfurt School is an academic school of thought. The Birmingham School of Cultural Studies is an academic school of thought. Marxist cultural analysis is a field of inquiry, and that is true even for the (small) minority of sources that refer to this field as "cultural Marxism". And no, you should not have put the quotations into the article, since they are not about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which is the topic of the article. I feel that this has been discussed and settled literally scores of times, on this Talk page and Talk:Frankfurt School (which is one reason, Bacondrum, that I like to see discussions archived rather than deleted if they have received any substantive contributions: we need to be able to see the corpse). Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial: Also, see the definition of school of thought, as well as school of thought. — Swood100 (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

When Dworkin writes a book titled Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain, and says in it that "British cultural Marxism grew out of an effort to create a socialist understanding of Britain which took into consideration postwar transformations that seemed to undermine traditional Marxist assumptions about the working class and that questioned the traditional Left's exclusive reliance on political and economic categories" that seems to contradict what Braune said. The same when Nelson & Grossberg say: "While cultural Marxists did accept the ideological bases of their own theoretical and political positions, and consequently had begun to recognize the problematic, contingent nature of their own interpretive activities, it was poststructuralism that gave Marxists the vocabulary with which to begin theorizing their own determination." — Swood100 (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

None of these quotations present "cultural Marxists" as a School of thought. This should be clear from the phrase about poststructuralism, which refers to Marxists rather than "cultural Marxists" (much less "Cultural Marxists"). No school is implied, only a broad domain of inquiry by Marxists interested in culture. Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Seeing they're refusing to listen, I see no hope of this stopping, I'm going to take it to ANI. Bacondrum (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain your refusal to explain your specific reasoning as to even the first four reversions listed above?Swood100 (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Trying to mix in tiny edits along with WP:POVPUSHING so that the problem edits can't be easily reverted is a bad tactic. Don't do it. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Please explain which of my reverted edits was not written from a neutral point of view, and what rule of neutrality is violated. — Swood100 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a months worth of discussions above where editors have repeatedly dismissed your claims about antisemitism and this conspiracy theory, you've been told no more times than I can count. Now you just try and force the content in. Bacondrum (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll answer the question about which edits violated NPOV. The passage I quoted above violated NPOV, because it creates a false parallel between the reliably sourced view and another view that is based on a misinterpretation of the sources cited. Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial: Let’s put the Braune quote aside. Your position appears to be that cultural Marxism, as a type of Marxist cultural analysis, is neither a school of thought nor an intellectual movement. OK, let’s drop that one. The rest of the edits only concern the conspiracy theory. Do you find fault with any of those? — Swood100 (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've opened and ANI report about Swood100's POV pushing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Sealioning/bludgeoning I don't know what else to do to stop this disruptive behaviour. Bacondrum (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I just want to say, I have reverted you, Swood100, because you labelled Bacon's edit as "vandalism", which it wasn't. Of all the edits that were made, only the minor change writes -> write, and the incorrect insertion of "racist authors" I think are uncontroversially good. You mostly added a quotes by Jamin, and I believe the article has enough of that already (especially if they are not in blockquote format). --Mvbaron (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)]

You mostly added a quotes by Jamin, and I believe the article has enough of that already

Are you saying that the quotes were repetitive, or discussed something that had already been discussed? Could you clarify? — Swood100 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

has any one requested a sock puppet check yet? same shit being recycled, remarkably similar in tone, across a range of user names and IP accounts, it's disruptive at this point. Acousmana (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Acousmana: did you intend this to go in the section below? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

nope, fine here, could be in any number of sections at this point. Acousmana (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

How is Jérôme Jamin’s view of the origin, development and nature of the conspiracy theory "disruptive"? — Swood100 (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Mate, have you noticed no one is really responding to you anymore? You repeatedly ask a series of frivolous and time-wasting questions in an attempt to wear down other editors - a well known POV pushing technique. You've been asked to stop pushing your POV, please just stop. Bacondrum (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to give it enough time. So, please explain either (a) why the quotes by Jérôme Jamin are unsuitable for this article, or (b) where the previous discussion of his quotes can be found. Is WP:DISCUSSFAIL a valid tactic when no other justification is available? I seem to remember something about continuing to revert while refusing to discuss. I'll have to look that up. — Swood100 (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum: Maybe I should make sure that you know of my request to discuss your revert.

Mvbaron: You also reverted me. Could you explain why the Jérôme Jamin quotes are unsuitable for this article? Thanks. — Swood100 (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Swood100, hello! Like I said above, the two edits you made ( and ), included long direct quotes by Jamin - at least they should be properly formatted with blockquotes or, better, summarized and not quoted. I also don't see a direct benefit from including the longer Jamin quote in the first diff. Likewise for the second diff, I think the text becomes much less readable by having so many direct quotes. If these were converted from direct quotes into prose, it would me much better imo. Cheers Mvbaron (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the congenial tone of your response.

For those who have not followed this talk page closely, there is consensus that ‘cultural Marxism’ in the context of cultural studies belongs in the article Marxist cultural analysis and may not be presented in this article to refute the existence of cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory. One of my edits concerned Joan Braune’s assertion that cultural Marxism is neither a school of thought nor an intellectual movement, which I believe to be an incorrect statement. To rebut this I supplied references to reliable sources discussing cultural Marxism in the context of cultural studies. Newimpartial argues that Braune's remarks do not contradict the proposition that cultural Marxism might be a type of Marxist cultural analysis and so my edit is not called for. I disagree, but Braune’s mention of this is so limited that perhaps it does not require rebuttal, so I withdraw that edit.

The quotes by Jérôme Jamin that I added concern only the origin and character of the conspiracy theory and so are not excluded from this article. Jamin is well-respected and has published numerous journal articles on this subject which examine the nature of the conspiracy theory and how it was influenced. He has been cited as a WP:RS in this article since 2015. One of his conclusions is that the conspiracy theory has a number of different versions, and that they are not all anti-Semitic. This, I think, is the aspect that Bacondrum (who reverted me) finds objectionable. His comment upon reverting all my edits was: “This has all been discussed and refuted at talk, you are going against consensus. Googling "cultural Marxism" and finding it in a few books is not a refution of the antisemtic nature of this theory, it's just people using the term in a sentence.”

Apparently, Bacondrum’s position is that there is consensus that no WP:RS may be presented to dispute the proposition that there is only one version of the conspiracy theory and it is anti-Semitic. But if one looks back it will be seen that sources were excluded not because they disputed that the conspiracy theory was anti-Semitic but because either (a) they did not qualify as reliable sources, or (b) they were actually arguing for the existence of cultural Marxism in the context of cultural studies (off topic in this article). Consensus in an article cannot exclude a WP:RS simply because consensus doesn’t want the article to contain that viewpoint.

Mvbaron:

The edit is the one concerning Braune, which I have withdrawn.

I included the direct quotes for precise accuracy and to avoid any objection that I was misinterpreting Jamin, which I think is a very real danger given the fiery confrontations that have been common here. Furthermore, the quotes can perhaps be interpreted in different ways and I don’t think that an attempt to convert them into my prose would result in less text or increase their lucidity or result in a net benefit to this article.

The edit was initially to correct an error in the existing Jamin quote. The original quote, supplied in 2015, accurately said: “lets its authors avoid racist discourses.” This was changed on 5/4/2019 by Chas. Caltrop (now blocked) to: “lets its authors avoid racist discourses.” This then was changed on 11/29/19 by Symes2017 (now blocked) to “lets its racist authors avoid racist discourses.” I added the remainder of Jamin’s original quote because he distinguished this conspiracy theory from “old styled theories of a similar nature”, and he briefly summarized the differences in the theories of Lind, Buchanan and Breivik, who he said were the three principal originators of the conspiracy theory. It demonstrates some of the variety that the theory has taken, according to Jamin. This quote does not explain why Jamin is talking about these three and perhaps I should find a way to include that. Maybe the individual theories of Lind, Buchanan and Breivik should be summarized, and their relevance explained, in the Origins section instead of here.

The other Jamin quote I added was this one, which explains the gist of his analysis including, as succinctly as possible, the origin and development of the conspiracy theory; that it began with three main versions but has proven highly adaptable and has been modified to suit the purposes of groups who stress different threats, including being taken up by the Stormfront.org crowd and others like them; and that it owes its current success to websites concerned with demonizing Islam. I realize that some of this appears to be at odds with the views of other sources, but maybe some of them have not studied it in as much depth. It's also possible that Jamin is mistaken.

My remaining reverted edits, excluding the one that has already been restored, were as follows: This one removed assertions that were not supported by the supplied references. In this one, the speaker who said "three of the main proponents" was misquoted as saying "the three main proponents". Also I specifically attributed the quote to the speaker. In this one the reference to Jamin was removed from the statement that the conspiracy is always anti-Semitic. In this one a broken link to an archive-url was removed in the hope that some bot would supply a good one when it comes around.

What specific comments do people have and what objections or disagreements remain? — Swood100 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything to add more than what I said above: (1) that ideally long quotes should be in blockquote format MOS:BLOCKQUOTE , (2) that direct quotes should be avoided in favor of summarized prose. WP:QUOTEFARM (3) that I only object to including even more direct quotes about unrelated texts just featuring the words "cultural" and "marxism" (ad 'edits concerning Braune'). (4) no WP:OR. happy editing Mvbaron (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Swood, I wish you would stop misinterpreting your sources. Jamin does not say that the conspiracy theory has a number of different versions, and that they are not all anti-Semitic. Rather, he is arguing that the Cultural Marxism CT "lets its authors avoid racist discourses" - which doesn't deny the underlying antisemitism of the theory. It is "overt racism" - not racism as such - that according to Jamin "is studiously avoided". One would need a considerably more direct statement from a reliable source to insert text into the article implying that there is a difference of opinion about whether or not the theory is antisemitic. What we have in your edits on this topic is a (conscious or unconscious) selective citation of passages from Jamin that would reference him as supporting something he does not in fact say. That isn't cool, bro. Newimpartial (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Let’s just deal with the edits I made. What specific objections do you have to them, if any? Please identify specific text and tell me what the issue is with it. — Swood100 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Having demonstrated that the interpretation animating your edits ("the conspiracy theory is not necessarily antisemitic") is unsupported by the Jasmin source, it isn't my job to explain how your edits support your own point of view. That would be a great example of moving the goalposts. Newimpartial (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m not asking you to explain how my edits support my point of view. I am asking if you are aware of any Misplaced Pages policy that is violated by my edits. Are you saying that quoting a reliable source can be prevented if you suspect that the editor’s interpretation of the quote is unsupported? — Swood100 (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

When the editor's POV is provided as the rationale for the edits, yes. The policies concerned are WP:NPOV (violated through selective quotation), WP:DUE (violated through over dependency on one source) and WP:V (since the underlying claim fails verification). Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Let’s get down to specifics so that we can make some progress. Please make your objection in a form similar to this: “X text in the proposed edit” violates because . — Swood100 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

No. That form of reverse onus is discussed at length at WP:SEALION and WP:TEND. Don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Swood100, I would rather say, it is up to you to propose a new edit, or be WP:BOLD and make a new edit to the article, and then we can discuss that edit. Mvbaron (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

At what point do you get an article block for POV pushing and bludgeoning debate with the same frivolous claim over and over again?

Could you clarify what specifically you are referring to by the term "frivolous claim"? — Swood100 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

IHateAccounts: Please explain why you reverted these three edits, or what objection anybody could have:

edit 1 : Attribute the statement to Braune; quote her exactly "three of the main"; remove second sentence, neither assertion of which is supported by the references supplied.

edit 2: archive-url was broken; if there is a bot doing this maybe it can try again

edit 3: Cited source does not say that all variations of the conspiracy theory are anti-Semitic. Moved citation body down to next reference to it. — Swood100 (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I personally think these are fine (thought I comment, since I encouraged you to be BOLD above...) Mvbaron (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

If there is no response I will reinstate them. — Swood100 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial: How should we handle the two conflicts below, involving statements by Braune in the article vs. statements by other reliable sources:

1. Cultural Marxism is not an academic school of thought; "Cultural Marxism does not exist — not only is the conspiracy theory version false, but there is no intellectual movement by that name." Current WP article

• "If Cultural Marxism, as a school of thought, dates from the 1930s, Cultural Marxism, as a conspiracy theory, has appeared in conservative and radical American literature from the beginning of the 1990s." Jamin, Cultural Marxism: A Survey (Wiley, 2018)

2. Frankfurt School scholars are "critical theorists", not "Cultural Marxists"; current WP article

• “Cultural Marxism, and Critical Theory more generally with which it has a close signification, have both a direct link with the Frankfurt School and its Marxian theorists." Jamin, Cultural Marxism: A Survey (Wiley, 2018)
• "These post World War I conditions were the social context for the emergence of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, the foundations of cultural Marxism." Langman, Bringing the Critical back in: Toward the resurrection of the Frankfurt School — Swood100 (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I see no conflict, except for a terminological one about what is or isn't a "school of thought" or "intellectual movement", which is not germane to this article. Jamin discusses "cultural Marxism", using it as a label for Marxist cultural analysis, and any discussion thereof belongs in that article, not this one. And to posit that there is any meaningful disagreement about whether "cultural Marxism" is a "school of thought" (say, in the context of that other article), more than one source should be presented saying that it is one, particularly (and I want to emphasise this) since Jamin's relevant argument concerns the Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory, not whether "cultural Marxism" is an "intellectual movement". I hope this clarification has been helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

a terminological one about what is or isn't a "school of thought" or "intellectual movement", which is not germane to this article.

If it’s not germane to this article then what business does this article have talking about whether it is or it isn’t one of these? Why shouldn't we take it out of the article, including the one in the second paragraph?. Why wouldn’t the same go for whether Frankfurt School scholars are or are not either "critical theorists" or "Cultural Marxists"? — Swood100 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the conspiracy theory is premised on there being such a thing as "Cultural Marxism", it is DUE to point out that the CT is not based on reality. Neither Braune nor Jamin nor any other RS has suggested that there is a movement of "Cultural Marxists" that corresponds to what the conspiracy theory talks about; I have made a clarification to the second paragraph so that it adheres closely to the scholarly consensus.

On the other hand, since the Frankfurt School (notably Adorno and Marcuse) are constantly set up by conspiracy theorists as a major bugaboo, I think the comments concerning the Frankfurt School currently in the article are entirely relevant and DUE. But the disagreement you posit between Braune and the other sources does not actually exist, since Braune is talking about "Cultural Marxists" (the object of the conspiracy theory) and Jamin and Langman are both taking about "cultural Marxists" (as in Marxist cultural analysis). Newimpartial (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

But the disagreement you posit between Braune and the other sources does not actually exist, since Braune is talking about "Cultural Marxists" (the object of the conspiracy theory) and Jamin and Langman are both taking about "cultural Marxists" (as in Marxist cultural analysis).

• Braune is quoted as saying: "Cultural Marxism does not exist — not only is the conspiracy theory version false, but there is no intellectual movement by that name." Here she is denying the existence of both a conspiracy and of cultural Marxism as in Marxist cultural analysis. Do you read it a different way? Comments about cultural analysis are for a different article.
• The current article says: “Contrary to the claims and underlying assumptions of the conspiracy theory, academic Joan Braune explained that Cultural Marxism is not an academic school of thought”. If this is intending to say that the conspiracy theory is not an academic school of thought it should be revised to avoid the appearance that it is saying that cultural Marxism as in Marxist cultural analysis is not an academic school of thought, since this article is not supposed to be discussing that question. — Swood100 (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I get that this is a complicated topic, but Braune is not disputing the existence of Marxist cultural analysis as a field of inquiry. She is saying that "Cultural Marxism" as the object of the conspiracy theory does not exist, and that "Cultural Marxism" is not the name for any intellectual movement concerning Marxist cultural analysis. Now, if you wanted to dispute that second claim (about nomenclature) using Jamin as a source, it would be possible to do that - but the place for that would be the Marxist cultural analysis article, not here. What is more, if you wanted to replace the emphatic Braune quotation with a paraphrase that sticks to what all RS agree on (that the conspiracy theory is based on falsifying the existence of an intellectual movement), rather than including the claim that "no movement exists by that name" - which is the view of most but not all RS - then that would be fine in my view. What is not OK is attempting, through selective quotation, to insert disputes into the article that do not exist in the RS literature. Newimpartial (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, since the Frankfurt School (notably Adorno and Marcuse) are constantly set up by conspiracy theorists as a major bugaboo, I think the comments concerning the Frankfurt School currently in the article are entirely relevant and DUE.

• This article says “that Frankfurt School scholars are called ‘Critical Theorists’, not ‘Cultural Marxists’”. To the extent that the reader could misinterpret this to be saying that Frankfurt School scholars are not cultural Marxists as in Marxist cultural analysis it should be modified, since that is not an assertion that should be made in this article. How about this: “that Frankfurt School scholars are called ‘Critical Theorists’ and were not conspirators”? — Swood100 (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

But this statement is in Braune's voice, not in Wikivoice, so I don't see any problem with it. Frankly, nobody except the conspiracy theorists asserts that the Frankfurt School scholars are correctly called "Cultural Marxists", so I definitely don't see any need to water this down. Also, didn't you say earlier that you were withdrawing your Braune-related edits? Are you using WP:SEALION as some kind of instruction manual? Because that isn't how it was intended. Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

But this statement is in Braune's voice, not in Wikivoice, so I don't see any problem with it. Frankly, nobody except the conspiracy theorists asserts that the Frankfurt School scholars are correctly called "Cultural Marxists", so I definitely don't see any need to water this down.

The point simply is that I thought we agreed that this article should not be making any assertions about Marxist cultural analysis, regardless of the voice. If making assertion A would be relevant to this article it doesn’t seem possible that contradicting assertion A would not be. When Jamin and Langman are talking about cultural Marxists as in Marxist cultural analysis, then presumably they are talking about Frankfurt School scholars such as Adorno and Marcuse. But Jamin and Langman are not conspiracy theorists.

How about if we replaced all the above Braune references, since they could be understood to refer to Marxist cultural analysis, with: “Contrary to the claims and underlying assumptions of the conspiracy theory, academic Joan Braune explained that the theory is false, it is not an academic school of thought, there is no intellectual movement associated with it, it has no valid connection with Frankfurt School scholars, and those scholars were not conspirators.” — Swood100 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That is again a misrepresentation of the sources, because "it" in the following clauses would be "the theory". But the point isn't that the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" isn't an academic school of thought, it is that the object of the conspiracy theory, "Cultural Marxism", isn't an academic school of thought. Please stop confusing the object of the conspiracy theory with Marxist cultural analysis. Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

because "it" in the following clauses would be "the theory"

How about this: “Academic Joan Braune stated that the version of Cultural Marxism that is referred to by the conspiracy theory was manufactured by the conspiracists for their own purposes. It is not an academic school of thought, there is no intellectual movement associated with it, and it has no valid connection with actual Frankfurt School scholars.” — Swood100 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Based on this discussion I have revised the passage further, splitting the existing sentence, removing the direct quotation, and adding appropriate nuance. Newimpartial (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

She also stated that Frankfurt School scholars are referred to as "Critical Theorists", not "Cultural Marxists"

To the extent that the reader could misinterpret this to be saying that Frankfurt School scholars are not cultural Marxists as in Marxist cultural analysis it should be modified, since that is not an assertion that should be made in this article. How about this: “that Frankfurt School scholars are most often called ‘Critical Theorists’ and were not conspirators”? — Swood100 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No. The current text offers an accurate statement of her view (which happens to be the prevailing view) about the non-applicability of the term "Cultural Marxists" - using quotation marks so it is difficult to misunderstand - to members of the Frankfurt School. Nobody reading this article or Marxist cultural analysis is tempted to think that this statement that they are referred to as "Critical Theorists", not "Cultural Marxists" has anything to do with whether or not the Frankfurt School offers relevant Marxist insights on culture, or not. It is time to drop the stick. Newimpartial (talk)

What if a reliable source is found who, for example, connects Marcuse to what later became political correctness, but without accusing him of being involved in a conspiracy? So it’s an element of what some people mean when they talk about “Cultural Marxism” but without the conspiracy part and without the anti-Semitic part. The relevance to this article could be that some aspects of the full-blown conspiracy theory may have originated from Franklin School sources. Jamin talks about two groups: the real and serious academic work and the conspiracy theorists. He says,

"These questions also show the connection between the two groups. All start with unquestionable facts, but to go on to make very different interpretation about the impact of Cultural Marxism on culture and values, with sometimes very strong suspicions about the shameful objective behind the story. But more again, it also gives a large range of possible uses by multiple actors from right-wing conservative intellectuals to criticize Marxism in the United States to radical and violent groups to denounce the "death of the West." Finally, because Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory allows each user the option to travel between both groups, and stops exactly where it fits with their own vision, it offers a variable scope."

In other words, even a conspiracy theory may contain elements of serious academic work. If there is a reliable source saying that the political correctness element originated with Marcuse, that would appear to be relevant.

Here’s another issue. Suppose a particular Franklin School scholar said that Western society needs to be totally upended by means of a cultural revolution, including a substitution of entirely new societal mores. If somebody were to say that the person advocated the destruction of Western society would it be clear-cut to say that he was wrong and that this is unquestionably an incorrect characterization? — Swood100 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• that’s the third attempt to insert that content. Besides the obvious POV pushing, against consensus, any further attempts to push this content into the article will cross the 3RR redline. Bacondrum (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Eventually, yes, but let's remember that 3RR is crossed at the fourth revert, not the third, and I see two reverts in Swood's recent history. Of course, it is quite possible to be blocked for edit warring without actually reaching 3RR. Newimpartial (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi Newimpartial, it's the third attempt by Swood100 to insert the same content against consensus. Even the first attempt was out of line as it was clearly and firmly against consensus. I'll be seeking an article block for bludgeoning debate, POV pushing and editwarring if it continues. Diffs below. Bacondrum (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
      • 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&type=revision&diff=998554127&oldid=998036225
      • 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=998746785
      • 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&type=revision&diff=999361656&oldid=999349843
      • Third attempt, which means second revert. The redline is crossed at the fourth revert, though that isn't an excuse for further edit warring, of course. Newimpartial (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

regardless, it needs to stop. The POV pushing adding content against consensus, bludgeoning and editwarring are extremely disruptive. I personally think they long ago passed the point where they should have been blocked from the article. Bacondrum (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Article: Just Because Anti-Semites Talk About ‘Cultural Marxism’ Doesn’t Mean It Isn’t Real

Does this reference have a place in the main article? It seems to be from a reliable source. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/just-because-anti-semites-talk-about-cultural-marxism-doesnt-mean-it-isnt-real - Antiquark (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Zubatov has no relevant qualifications and is not a reliable source. This has been discussed at length previously; I believe it was at Talk:Frankfurt School. Newimpartial (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Really, this again? Bacondrum (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

My edit summary

Of course it was supposed to refer to Jerome Jamin's views about Cultural Marxism. My apologies for the typos. Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class socialism articles
• Low-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Low-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• Low-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• C-Class Judaism articles
• Low-importance Judaism articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles