Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Organization

Here's an example of what the article could look like if arranged into sections with comprehensible titles and clear purposes. [1] Nothing has been added, and nothing deleted except very obviously redundant sentences. Sennalen (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that the original author of that work, has a statement on their user profile to the effect:
"This user has found Cultural Marxism to be a now defunct transitionary term between Marxist humanism/Western Marxism and the early development of Cultural Studies, and not to be an ideology or plan of modern Cultural Studies or The Frankfurt School." (See User:Jobrot)
Cultural Studies, would probably be a more appropriate destination for that content (rather than the more general, Western Marxism, which is a misnomer anyways as Karl Marx was a westerner born in Germany and lived in London). But I don't like your chances of any of this with your consensus free, autocratic style. --115.64.191.199 (talk)
Wow Sennalen, I say you have an autocratic style, and no consensus to mandate what you're doing - and you move my comment! I er... see. --115.64.191.199 (talk)
I assumed you meant to add the explanatory note about Jobrot's draft to the section where you introduced Jobrot's draft, rather than this section about my userspace draft. If that's not the case, maybe you can explain your reasoning further. Sennalen (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Your approach assumes that the conspiracy theory is an analysis about the Frankfurt School et al. when in fact it is a re-tread of a conpiracy theory that originated before the foundation of the school and declared bingo when half a century later an actual academic used the term cultural Marxism to describe them. TFD (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The conspiracy is a claim that the internal Communist conspiracy planned to pervert Western culture in order to destroy Western civilization. At some point they found the expression "cultural Marxism" used to describe analysis by the Frankfurt School and decided to claim that they were the arm that the conspirators used. TFD (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay. What do you think about the structure of the draft? Sennalen (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
It begins with the Frankfurt School, but the conspiracy theory doesn't start with them. As explained, it's an update of the Jewish Bolshevism theory, which dates back to the period 1900-1920, when conservatives, inspired by the Protocols of Zion, believed that the Jews were trying to undermine the West by promoting degenerate art. The Nazis expanded on this, neo-Nazis in the U.S. called it cultural Marxism and then future members of the far right identified it with the Frankfurt School. TFD (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, chronological would work for the background section too. Sennalen (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm confused, is the new article about The Frankfurt School, or the Conspiracy Theory? --115.64.191.199 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
There is no new article. It is the content already in Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory presented in a different order: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sennalen/sandbox/CT&oldid=1064575122 Sennalen (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Cool, looks pretty good, don't know what others will say, and haven't finished looking through it myself. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Oppose - the draft in the current (above) form. (1) Not an improvement over the current article (I think the section structure is more confusing in the draft than in the article we have now) (2) Having both sections 'background' and 'the conspiracy theory' in an article on the conspiracy theory is confusing at best and at worst misleading. (3) There doesn't seem to be a good reason to have a section 'after 2010' either, when the previous sections also describe the history after 2010. All in all, I don't see the improvements in the draft now, but I am not opposed to some restructure of course. --Mvbaron (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The fit of statements to sections is not always perfect, not only in the pre/post 2010 aspect, since at this stage I did not want to modify the text. There are many cases where the article breezily lumps together extremely varied people and issues, so I did the best I could. A later round of refinement would adjust the fit.
The intention for the Background section is to hold everything that meets two criteria:
  1. It's chronologically earlier than Minnicino (or LaRouche)
  2. It's generally accepted history rather than conspiracy Sennalen (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment - generally seems to be an improved structure, apart from the chronology issues highlighted by TFD (which already exist in the current version). I rather get the impression, though, that this is another one of those Mr. Pop articles which, though incomplete and looking a bit silly, nobody dares to add a part or rearrange the pieces due to concerns that the whole thing might go *pop!* if we did that...  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC) addendum - also, pace Mvbaron, I think a post-Breivik section is useful. I do agree though that the "the conspiracy theory" section should be either renamed ("main features" ?) or merged with the previous section.  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion - As with the Norway shootings section, I think we should have a 'see also' hat note (or 'from main article') for The Frankfurt School section and Cultural Bolshevism section, as to not give the impression of Wikipedia legitimizing the idea that they inevitably led to "The Conspiracy". The Frankfurt School did so much more than be accused of this, and we should give users an avenue to find out what they were actually about (everyone loves a wikitrain). --115.64.191.199 (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Aha! But by linking to the Frankfurt School, some editors here may suggest that, by doing so, we are thereby legitimizing the idea that they inevitably led to "The Conspiracy". The editor cannot win!  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Er... no, in fact a) the article already links there via multiple wikilinks, and b) there are specific policies on Wikipedia that recommend we link pages. WP:Orphan for instance. People being well read means they're less likely to believe in the conspiracy theory (or at least, be more informed about it). So yeah, if you're on Wikipedia to prevent articles being read, you're really not on WP:here for the right reasons. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Is this the ip address that I was conversing with previously, under a new, erm, 'identity'?  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
In any case, thanks for the wp:links to wp:policies and/or wp:guidelines. Being given these by a random ip address gives them a real aura of authoritativeness.  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Please stop violating WP:HUMAN. There's nothing wrong with being an IP editor. See WP:URIP2. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I've already read all the wp:policies and wp:guidelines and wp:essays, so there's no wp:need to wp:link any more wp:stuff_like_that, wp:thank_you_very_much wp:ip_editor.  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
People can plead for anything they want, IP, but after all, WP:HUMAN is just an essay, and in reality, IP editors are more likely to be inexperienced, block-evading and/or intransigent than non-IP editors (at least in my experience). Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM --115.64.191.199 (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey Newimpartial, do you still oppose disambiguation between this page and Marxist Cultural Analysis? I think it's reasonable that someone would go looking for the original meaning of cultural Marxism on Wikipedia... and the disambig policy does say It is necessary to provide links and disambiguation pages so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek. - that doesn't mean that the articles have to have a similar meanings or namespaces, just that there has to be a reasonable overlap in search terms. If anyone is wondering, I support disambig if there's a hardline regarding falsehoods/nazi things going to the conspiracy page, and leftwing academic sources going to the MAC page... which is basically what we're already doing. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
It would also give a more legitimate hat note solution to the "background" section of Sennalen's draft. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not oppose disambiguation - I was the one who added the disambiguation hat note at the top of this page, for instance. What I oppose is a disambiguation page located at Cultural Marxism, since the community decided to delete the former page at that location and later decided that that location should redirect to the conspiracy theory. At a minimum, a formal RfC would be required to change to a disambiguation page at that location, and I personally would want to see a better argument for the disambig page than anyone has heretofore presented before I would !vote for it. But the main thing is, given the background, it would have to result from a formal community decision; right now there is a strong consensus to redirect to the CT. Newimpartial (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That does seem to fit with what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is saying, unfortunately. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah; the community has quite clearly decided that the conspiracy theory is the primary topic in this instance. Newimpartial (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I hesitated to do so since it does have a link in the first sentence, but having a hat as well would not be bad in my opinion. Sennalen (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm choosing the current hat note, over the possibility of no hat note at all. No one has given a clear explanation of the necessity for these changes, and I'm not convinced they've been approached in the WP:GOODFAITH spirit of consensus forming on Wikipedia. As mentioned above, they seem to have been approached with an autocratic style, which is not a good approach for editing on WP:FRINGE topics. Those arguing for these changes did not make their case well. I am still trying to WP:LISTEN though. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I also have a sneaking suspicion that this is a prelude to further merges with a view to obscuring the topic under the general article Western Marxism, as those supporting the changes have already pushed for (despite multiple and obvious arguments against from multiple editors). --115.64.191.199 (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Opposing article improvements now because someone might introduce changes you disagree with later is failing to assume good faith, at the very least. Sennalen (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure I guess we could ignore every other discussion I've had to you about this. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Sennalen, I honestly believe you're "a wandering copy editor" who "wishes to make these changes ... to improve readability and clarity". Editorial discussion requires some negotiation skills though. For instance, I've already raise the hat note issue (which you were hesitant towards and are now ignoring). I've now raised the possibility of a diambig page with NewImpartial, this is the editorial discussion, this is the negotiation. Don't waste it. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I expect it's a wp:conspiracy of some sort.  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I find myself hoping that Karen Douglas writes an article on Cultural Marxism some day. Eminently citable scholar.  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I don't think starting with sweeping rewrites or massive changes to the structure of the article are a practical approach. There's definitely room to improve references and tweak wording (as in any article), but I'm not seeing any actual indication of systematic problems, and I'm concerned by the massive WP:WALL of vague handwaves at policies above; it makes it extremely hard to identify what concrete problem these changes are trying to solve and why (eg. you talk a lot about the sources but haven't done anything about them here.) Start with one narrow, highly-specific problem, and the narrowest, most specific solution to that one problem; then move on to the next. Trying to lump everything into a giant rewrite of a huge, complex, controversial article is usually a nonstarter, and at the very least I don't agree that the article has problems that are so severe that they justify the sort approach you're advocating here. --Aquillion (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    The wall is exactly the indication of systemic problems. I would like to improve the sourcing and balance, but the structure seemed like the right place to start. Without it there is no rhyme or reason to where anything should be added. Sennalen (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm still unsure as to why Sennalen and Ꞇewꝺar felt it necessary to remove all mention of Breivik from the conspiracy theory section of the Marxist cultural analysis page, given he was a major proponent and the earliest to be said to have brought the concept to the mainstream (due to killing a bunch of people he called "Cultural Marxists"). So highly notable in terms of international media/spread, and yet still removed. Still have no idea why it was done. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
That was a consensus of nearly everyone. If you think Breivik is part of Marxist cultural analysis then open a new thread at Talk:Marxist cultural analysis to discuss it. Sennalen (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus of nearly everyone there at all. In fact, the first time it was removed, it was restored (and the objection noted on talk.) Obviously more discussion than just two editors agreeing is needed to remove it again after that. It's the most significant incident in relation to the conspiracy theory or term, so devoting a single sentence to it in a section summarizing it seems hard to describe as undue. --Aquillion (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: appeared to agree too (it might be nice if people could remember this). They merely did some tidying up of the paragraph after it was removed, and did not restore it. Perhaps they can explain why they did this.  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
If we mention the conspiracy theory on that article, it should only be to differentiate it from Marxist analysis of culture, explaining points of departure, explaining they are not the same thing and so forth. The paragraph about Breivik is completely unrelated to Marxist cultural analysis, and seems undue on such an article. If this is seen as a suspicious attempt to somehow minimise the terrible crimes of Breivik or something, well...  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
In fact, according to my understanding, that was the entire purpose of previous discussions: mad stuff goes in this article, genuine Marxist cultural analysis goes in the other one.  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
due to killing a bunch of people he called "Cultural Marxists". Indeed. Not "Marxist cultural analysts".  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you understand what sections are for in an article, or why that section might have "Main article: Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" written above it? It's because it's meant to be a brief summary of this page. This is basic Wikipedia 101. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
That isn't a great argument in this context. Breivik occupies one subsection in this article, which has ten sections. That by itself would not be a plausible argument for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@115.64.191.199: oh, that probably won't work, will it? Yes, I understand what sections are for in an article, but when a section basically exists to say, "look, there's this conspiracy theory, but don't get confused, it has very little to do with the content of this article", it doesn't need to provide a brief summary of [the other] page. The other article should just mention the conspiracy theory, distance itself from it, and move swiftly on, imo.  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
can yall discuss that on the other talk page? Mvbaron (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The pages relate, how much of each page hat-notes/summarizes the other page is part of the editorial discussion. Ꞇewꝺar and Sennalen have already shown confusion about the division, and when to hatnote. Bound to come up. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Tewdar said: mad stuff goes in this article, genuine Marxist cultural analysis goes in the other one - what exactly makes you think I am confused? Quotes & diffs, please.  Tewdar  (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes Tewdar, "mad" stuff like the idea that the kids Breivik killed were actual Cultural Marxists who were working to corrupt the sexual morality of europa. Not stuff like the fact that Breivik killed a bunch of kids. That's the whole point of splitting the pages is to discern what REALLY happened from what DIDN'T really happen. For instance; Adorno didn't really write all the Beatles songs. Marcuse was never involved in weird German sex experiments. However Marcuse EXISTED. That's real. Likewise, Breivik killed a bunch of kids - but those kids weren't somehow secretly "Cultural Marxists". So yes, all the conspiracy nonsense on one page, but we have sections (for instance Sennalen's background section which appear on the other page and summarizes/directs people to the other page so they know the full context). We're splitting reality from unreality. Much like we would for Moon vs Moon landing conspiracy theories. It's not that Moon landing conspiracy theories and Moon don't overlap or mention the fundamental events of each other, it's that one focuses on "the mad stuff" and the other focuses on the facts. Or are you suggesting that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory section be expunged from the Marxist cultural analysis page? --115.64.191.199 (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
However I do 'get' that that section is basically doing the work of a disambig, so it's doing a lot of work. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
At this point, I think it's best if I stop responding to ip editors.  Tewdar  (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
given he was a major proponent and the earliest to be said to have brought the concept to the mainstream (due to killing a bunch of people he called "Cultural Marxists"). So highly notable in terms of international media/spread, and yet still removed. Still have no idea why it was done. --115.64.191.199 (talk)
  • Oppose By beginning the story with the Frankfurt School, the article implies that there is a basis to the theory. In contrast, the article Antisemitism doesn't begin with a history of the Jews.

At their core, grand conspiracy theories attempt to attribute social conflict to malevolent outsiders. They cannot understand that blacks, women, gays hispanics or other minorities would have any reason to assert their rights or that parties of the center or left would accomodate them in order to build electoral coalitions.

TFD (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The beginning text is exactly the same as the status quo article. If it's intolerable in my version, it should be intolerable already.
Responding to your earlier feedback, I modified it further to begin with Cultural Bolshevism. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sennalen/sandbox/CT&oldid=1064786302
Since the draft follows your preference, while the status quo does not, I hope you will update your assessment to a strong support. Sennalen (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
??? The current article begins with the Frankfurt School?  Tewdar  (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I was referring to the proposed version of the article.
I am not claiming that this article if perfect, just that if we change it, the new version should stand on its own. A good policy is to look at how reliable sources cover the topic. They don't begin by explaining Marxist schools of thought, but with adherents of the conspiracy theory.
TFD (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The current article does begin with the "Cultural pessimism" section, which in turn begins with the Frankfurt school. Sennalen has not (yet) proposed changes to this article's lead section, at least AFAIK. Newimpartial (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
We need to look at other conspiracy related articles vs their real counterparts. Looking at Moon vs Moon landing conspiracy theories you see the latter uses "Origins" to contextualize what's being discussed. "Background" (as Sennalen has it) is inappropriate, which is why I was suggesting to at least hat note it. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, that's a good suggestion. Moon landing theories don't need background, since the only prior knowledge required is that a moon landing happened. Others involve a more complicated set of ideas or events, where the reader might need to be informed about what really happened in order to put the conspiracy theories in context, like John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories#Background or 9/11_conspiracy_theories#Background Sennalen (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The background in this case is the extreme right perception that the West is in decline or worse as a result of the undermining of traditional institutions. Since they cannot accept that these are natural consequences of Western civilization, they need to place the blame outside. Immigrants for example come to America to earn money, not because the Frankfurt School is trying to replace the white population. TFD (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
See Suggestion above. Is part of the problem that whilst Marxist cultural analysis has a section clearly marked as being about the conspiracy theory, the conspiracy theory page doesn't have such a clearly defined section to explain the thrust of what The Frankfurt School were on about. I mean, culture industry which was one of their main ideas (I'd say the "theme" of their work), isn't even pointed to AT ALL, on the conspiracy theory page. I think that's what you're trying to do with the 'background' section, but it just doesn't quite come across as delineated from the conspiracy theory (which is why I suggested a hat note).
Part of the reason for this is that your background section starts to give a chronology of events, when it should be focusing on what the Frankfurt School were actually on about that ticked off conservatives (or at least, as close as that can be said in Wikivoice). The background section also claims that the "theme" of the Frankfurt school was the failure of the 1918 revolution - when in actual fact, The Frankfurt School weren't revolutionary for the most part (hence not even supporting their own students in revolutionary action). The Frankfurt School mainly focused on Capitalism's effects on human culture. It was very cerebral, and about the psychological confinement one can feel in society. Yes, this was inspired by the failure of a revolution, but they weren't "themed" around trying to create a revolution to fix that. They just wanted to point out the constraints capitalist consumerism puts on human culture. Conservatives mistake that as them being revolutionaries, red in tooth and claw who have taken over culture, and are discussing how they did it. They did not take over culture, and for the most part, weren't focused on the 1918 revolution. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Basically all of Germany was "themed around the 1918 revolution" during the interwar period. It's kind of like saying the thinking of early American presidents was "themed around the civil war" - sure it's true to an extent, but that's not the content of their ideas, and it's not what ticked off the British. What I'm saying is that 1918 brought the frankfurt school to culture, and culture (particularly what causes fascism within culture) was from then on, their theme or focus. That's the origin of the conspiracy theory: That they were cultural anti-fascists (which ticks off some conservatives, and is the origin of the conspiracy theory). --115.64.191.199 (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
What you've outlined is precisely what I want to do, achieving the policy "the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it". Putting things in an order is just a prelude to that. Sennalen (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Yet your draft removes all introductory paragraphs, and just jumps to a "background" of The Frankfurt School. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
But that's not the origin of the conspiracy theory. As both the Fideleo and Lind articles, point out, the origin was the perceived degeneration of culture following the 1890s. This was pinned on revolutionary socialists and their successors: Bolsheviks, Western Marxists and the Frankfurt School. It's not as if right-wing extremists started reading critical Marxist texts and uncovered a conspiracy. TFD (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. In this sense the 'Origin' of the conspiracy theory was Nazi and pre-Nazi rhetoric (which was then borrowed and built upon) where as the 'Background' of Marxist Cultural Analysis was philosophers responding to their socio-cultural circumstances via writing and theory (Gramsci, The Frankfurt School, et al). That much should be made clearer. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Wikivoice cannot be used to endorse conspiracy theories. Starting the page with a background of The Frankfurt School does just that. It would be like starting the JFK assassination page with a background on Mafia hitmen, or starting the moon hoax article by talking about technologies recovered from the Roswell. Yes The Frankfurt School existed, but they are not the origin of the conspiracy theory about them. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment Sennalen's draft omits the current lede. Is this because no changes are being proposed to the current lede at the moment, or because they are suggesting that this article shouldn't have a lede?  Tewdar  (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    Also, I would like to propose an alternative structure:
    • (1)Lede
    • (2)Key features of the conspiracy theory itself
    • (3)Historical development of the conspiracy theory, beginning with relevant background information
    • (4)Impact, including:
      • (4a)Contemporary politics
      • (4b)Terrorism/violence
    • (5) (scholarly) Analysis, additional views, etc.
    All of the current article, as in Sennalen's draft, can be integrated into this structure.  Tewdar  (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    I left out the lede because its not part of the edit. Sennalen (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems that some people (not me) thought that you were proposing that we shouldn't have a lede at all.  Tewdar  (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't see anyone misunderstanding that. We were opposing the first section header. Mvbaron (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Funny, because I was pretty much certain that that was what people were misunderstanding. And the proposed section header, is the same as the current section header after the lede...  Tewdar  (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The consensus to change the article.

Given that at least 3 editors are working on drafts, and others are seeking restructuring as well, I NOW DO believe there's a consensus to change the article WP:CCC. I'll be observing/commenting here less now from now on, as I only ever intended to argue for the status quo, and to stabilize content whilst politics was in flux. Bye everyone, I hope you can all collaborate to create a new draft that matches the WP:RS guidelines. --115.64.191.199 (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


No, the only thing that came out of the above discussion is that there is no consensus to adopt one specific draft (Sennalens)'. There is no consensus to majorly change this article at all. Mvbaron (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


Even you are seeking major changes, Mvbaron, aren't you? 🤔  Tewdar  (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Not really. I am pretty fine with the structure as it is now (or at least, I don't see a huge problem with it). It's just that your recent edits to the scholarly analysis section made me look into it again and realize that I don't actually agree how this section is right now. BUT I'm open to good arguments for restructuring everything of course! (just haven't seen them yet) Mvbaron (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


There is no consensus for any specific changes. TFD (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions. Sennalen (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Working the "Scholarly analysis" section into the article

My reasoning for moving the content of the "Scholarly analysis" section into other parts of the article were: (1) the section discusses antisemitism and the role of the Frankfurt school. (2) This stuff that is already present in two other sections in the article. (3) therefore I moved these two parts to the already present sections.

Tewdar you undid my BOLD edit with the reason "I hate it" and "too early for analysis" - what does that mean? "I hate it" is not a reason for reverting. Mvbaron (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Look, I really think we should continue the discussion about the structure of the article. I think the order should be: (1) lede (2) Describe the multiple variants of the conspiracy (3) describe the historical development, impact on politics, culture, terrorist incidents, etc. and (4) analysis, commentary and so forth. Inserting discussion of the conspiracy theories, before we have described them properly, is what I mean by "too early".  Tewdar  (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
(2) and (3) could be reversed, if you prefer. I don't, but...  Tewdar  (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Hmm I see, that makes sense. We could move the section on the Frankfurt school back? So that the article starts with the "aspects" discussion, ends with the role of the FS? I just find that the "Scholarly Analysis" section is useless because it just reiterates content (antisemitism, the FS) that came before. --Mvbaron (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mvbaron: do you mean, move the "Role of the Frankfurt School" section to later in the article? If so, I'd rather not. What I'd rather to, is trim that section, basically to "hey, there's this Frankfurt School thing, which is real, which is misrepresented by these conspiracy theories, which are mostly fictional, and here they are..." Personally, I'd just dump all the analysis in the "Scholarly analysis" section for now. But I have some other suggestions. Perhaps I'll propose something later (I already did a very basic sketch, somewhere on this talk page...😁)  Tewdar  (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I disagree, I would rather delete the scholarly analysis section altogether. The content is already duplicated, and I believe that "scholarly analysis" just like criticism sections should be avoided. Mvbaron (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, I think the stuff you just moved back definitely needs to be put somewhere else. At least give it its own section or something, Breitbart's going there later...  Tewdar  (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, you did. My mistake.  Tewdar  (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Okay, I changed my mind. 😁 I think we need to do a bit of rearranging and trimming to that section, though.  Tewdar  (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Mvbaron: Okay, I moved some stuff around a bit, and deleted a couple of things that seemed to be irrelevant.  Tewdar  (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


This page's failure to follow NPOV and a plan to fix it

long section, mostly off-topic - we are doing much better with more specific headings

Policy reminders

It's rare to see a page with so much attention for so long still flaunt WP:NPOV to such an extent. Here are some of the relevant clauses presented all at once so as not to break up the text below. Bold emphasis is mine.

WP:YESPOV

  • The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view. It means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.
  • When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.

WP:WEIGHT

  • Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
  • In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.
  • Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.

WP:BESTSOURCES When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias and NPOV disagreements.

WP:IMPARTIAL Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

WP:EVALFRINGE (...)restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations.

Sennalen (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Could you be more specific about each of these, focusing on them one at a time? You mention WP:YESPOV / WP:IMPARTIAL, but I'm not seeing what POV you believe the article is advancing or where. --Aquillion (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    These are tributaries to the main concern, "Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas." There is no clear statement of what the conspiracy theory is that stands apart from the many denunciations and stretched allusions to nazis. An observer with any critical detachment will detect overwhelming editorial hostility. I understand the impulse to do that, but treating it with anything less than honesty undermines Wikipedia's credibility. Sennalen (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Textual problems

The first section is named with a vague and mealy-mouthed title "Aspects of the conspiracy theory". The first paragraph is a brief history of the Frankfurt School sourced entirely to New Statesman. The main thesis of the source - Adorno's break with the student movements he inspired - is not mentioned. The conspiracy theory's founding text from Minnicino seems to be mentioned as briefly as possible before being used to coatrack Wandervogel and Daniel Estulin. The discussion of Cultural Bolshevism seems appropriately placed, although there is an ongoing thread above about how to phrase it better.

Woods, an excellent secondary source on the conspiracy theory discourse in post-2010 conservatism, gets only a sentence in edgewise before the article uses him to quote in full the 11 points circulating on Stormfront. What is due weight even? The "Othering" and "Political correctness" sections are full of sources that likely belong somewhere in a finished article, but it looks like it was built by a processes of accretion, lacking any coherent plan for presenting these particular claims in this particular order.

Now we start the history section, although we also abortively started the first section with history. Nevermind that. Except for name-checking Minnicino again, the history consists of continuing to talk about Lind's views on political correctness that we were just discussing in the "Political correctness" section immediately prior.

In the "Main promoters" section we have two WP:BESTSOURCES identifying five individuals. Lind has already been discussed. Brevik gets a subsection here although there is a terrorism section later. The views of the other three people named have no description, but Andrew Breitbart and Paul Weyrich get a few sentences each. The main source for Breitbart's views is Socialist Review.

There is a section called "Fomentation". What is this supposed to be about? Ghostbusters, InfoWars and Richard Spencer. What they are fomenting is anyone's guess.

"Entering the mainstream"! This is an important part of the story that is covered well by Woods and Jamin. We'll get to that later. First the reader needs to know Noah Berlatsky's opinions about Jordan Peterson. The sections on regional issues are actually not bad.

The article ends with "Scholarly analysis" as if scholarship is not the kind of best source that should form the whole article, though in this case, scholarship apparently consists of Joane Braune and Vox.

This is an objectively terrible article. Sennalen (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • This is an objectively terrible article. Incorrect. It is much, much worse than that.  Tewdar  (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Agreed that if Minnicino's article is seen as the conspiracy theory's founding text, this article does an utterly dreadful job in its attempt to establish this.  Ꞇewꝺar  (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing philosophy

Why is the article like this? The existence of this article is fallout from a 2014 AfD on the page called "Cultural Marxism" with high participation from PoV warriors on both sides of the Gamergate fracas happening at the time. The outcome was to delete and redirect to Frankfurt school#Conspiracy theory which was later spun out to this article in 2020. In the intersection of anti-Semitism and Gamergate, there was naturally a lot of WP:OUTRAGE, WP:USTHEM, and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Whether or not it was the intention, the outcome has been an article that insinuates more than it informs.

There has been a critical misunderstanding of WP:DUE weight policy. WP:BESTSOURCES detail what the conspiracy theorists believe, attributing views to individuals rather than collectives where appropriate. They explain the history of Western Marxism and the Frankfurt School, how the conspiracy theorists drew on that background, and how the conspiracy theorists went wrong. In the mistaken view of policy, since RS agree that it's a conspiracy, then Wikipedia can and should be maximally dismissive and derogatory. The thinking goes, if sources like Jamin or Braune say anything anything that lends credence to the conspiracy theory, it's undue weight to repeat it, since its supporting a conspiracy theory. Meanwhile if cherrypicking verbatim quotes from primary sources makes the conspiracy theory seem more nutters, that gets a green light. This is 180 degrees opposite of how policy should actually be applied. WP:BALANCE is not between things that are friendly to the theory and hostile to it. Balance is between things that are in best sources or not. The ideal article would be one that fully WP:SOURCEMINEs a few review articles.

There is resistance from editors who suspect that efforts to get the article to clearly explain the conspiracy theory and clearly contrast it with the mainstream view is a plot by supporters of the theory. If anyone truly believes that letting the facts speak for themselves would create an article that supports the conspiracy theory, that seems like someone who by definition believes the conspiracy theory is true. Sennalen (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Plan of action

There is very little if anything that needs to be outright removed from the article. It's reliably sourced, so achieving due weight will be from adding balancing material, mostly from mining the sources already used. The biggest problem with the article is the lack of meaningful structure, just a series of vague headings under which to coatrack. I would like to reorganize it, similarly to how I recently tackled the lack of structure at COVID-19 lab leak theory - before:[2] after:[3]. I will create a new thread when I have a more concrete proposal on how to do that in this article. It will certainly include an unhurried discussion on the actual activities and scholarship of Lukács and the Frankfurt school, in order to comply with the policy that "the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it." Sennalen (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

There is an old draft here; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jobrot/sandbox/Cultural_Marxism_(culture_studies)&oldid=871336153
Also, this article is WP:FRINGE

We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

The question becomes what is WP:DUE. Here's a photo of William S. Lind giving his book to Donald Trump: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Bloom-for-web.jpg
It strikes me that you'll want to research the development of Cultural Studies through the Birmingham School as well. Especially given sources like Dennis Dworkin's "cultural Marxism in Post-War Britain", but you should probably also be aware of the impacts of those involved, culturally. You'll want to know the meaning of The Lady Chatterly Affair Lady_Chatterley's_Lover#Censorship (as the British cultural Marxists, Raymond Williams and Richard Hoggart were directly involved). You'll want an over view of The Frankfurt School obviously, especially of their views on The Culture Industry. "cultural Marxism in Post-War Britain" states that it's the first book to try to construct a history of British cultural Marxism. You'll also want to know about E.P Thompson, as he's the third most referenced historian in the world, and wrote "The Making of The British Working Class". The Oxford english dictionary recently added the term, so WP:NEO may well apply.
Also, if you search for a sources name in the archives of Frankfurt School you'll often find why sources aren't acceptable. Jamerson's "Conversations on Cultural Marxism" for instance, never actually uses the term "Cultural Marxism" within it. Dworkin's is claiming to be the first account of British Cultural Marxism. Richard Wiener's "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" mentions that no one he's talking about can be called a Cultural Marxist, and that he indeed is just patching together authors he thinks are like minded. So a lot of sources are... patchy, and do seem to be discussing something of a long standing neologism. Given that none of the traditional "Cultural Marxists" never used the term, and certainly didn't self-identify that way - it's going to be difficult to shoe horn them into the label. I'd personally consider that somewhat WP:OR, myself.
There is a section called "Fomentation". What is this supposed to be about? Ghostbusters, InfoWars and Richard Spencer. What they are fomenting is anyone's guess. Ghostbusters and StarWars were both accused of being "Cultural Marxist" propganda. There was a rightwing campaign to boycott star wars.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=ghostbusters+culutral+marxism

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Star+Wars+culutral+marxism

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9571309/star-wars-boycott

InfoWars uses the term, as does Richard Spencer. You should know who these people/groups are, and how they use the term if you're going to try to edit the page out of no where. --115.64.191.199 (talk)
I do not believe an article on cultural Marxism along the lines of the pre-2014 one or Jobrot's draft ought to exist in quite that form, but both of them along with your comments here will eventually be helpful in expanding the article Western Marxism. Sennalen (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
How is right wing nut jobs calling for the boycott of major American films under the guise that they involved black people and women, "Western Marxism" ??? --115.64.191.199 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Obviously that's not the part of your comment I'm responding to. Sennalen (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd also argue that Ron Paul's cartoon fiasco is also a notable event in the timeline of the conspiracy usage, and of course Rich Higgin's memo.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/us/politics/rich-higgins-memo-national-security-council.html

--115.64.191.199 (talk)

I'm pleased to see the progress being made. I'm going to avoid disturbing consensus from forming organically, I'm following a rabbit hole from Feldman to the Lukács-Brecht debate. Sennalen (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism as scapegoat and straw man

I haven't followed or edited this subject, so will just drop this here for anyone who wants to include the topic. It deserves inclusion. Scapegoating is mentioned in this article, but straw man isn't. I found this on page 191:

"Nevertheless, the objectives of proponents of conspiratorial views about Cultural Marxism were (and are) not to give a current account of Critical Theory, but to advance a conservative version of US liberalism against the scapegoat of global conspiracy theory.

In short, what Critical Theory provides to those who use "critical theory" to signal a socialist threat to liberalism is not only a link to Marxist thought, but also a straw man against which to advance neoliberal politics.

Liberalism and Socialism: Mortal Enemies or Embittered Kin?, edited by Matthew Mcmanus

This can help liberals to understand why they don't recognize themselves when accused by conservatives who describe them in terms from their own false, misguided, and straw man views of liberal beliefs. -- Valjean (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I'll take a look when I get a chance.  Tewdar  (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is relevant or not, but Tablet magazine has an article in which they refer to the alt-right as a movement based in responding to hyper-liberalism. It also claims that Paul Gottfried, coworker of Richard Spencer and coiner of the term 'alt-right' is the origin for the alt-rights ideas. Interesting to note is of course; the Paul Gottfried, William S. Lind, Herbert Marcuse triangle. In that Paul Gottfried was a student of Marcuse, who then went on to be a conservative (as a Jewish person) with what he himself describe as "Paleo Conservative" ideas. He has also published articles with William S. Lind which refer to their disagreements about "Cultural Marxism" (this is possibly where Lind got the term). Gottfried describes it as a long term friendship (and the two have political overlaps, and political dissonance). At any rate, here is the Tablet Magazine article, personally I find Tablet to be a bit conservative, as it is a religious magazine, but it's thorough journalism as far as I can tell: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/spencer-gottfried-alt-right --203.221.193.193 (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Tablet isn't top shelf, but I'm certain it could be used. This is some fascinating contextualization for the modern part of the story that echoes a lot of what I'm finding pre-1940, such as Sorel's use of Max Nordau, or the influence of Lukács on Evola. Sennalen (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Since the Tablet article doesn't mention Lind or cultural Marxism, I don't see how it could be used in this article. It's possible that after Lind used the term cultural Marxism, Gottfried told him the term had been used in the literature. OTOH, Gottfried may have been unaware of that since Marcuse never used the term and it was rarely used. TFD (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to Martin Jay's book Splinters in Your Eye: Essays on the Frankfurt School (Verso Books 2020)? It includes discussion of Lind, Gottfried, the conspiracy theory and how Wikipedia has covered it. TFD (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
It appears to talk about Minnicino's later repudiation of LaRouche which I have only otherwise seen in a marginal online magazine. I have Splinters in Your Eye and Grand Hotel Abyss on the way. Sennalen (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory/Archive_12&oldid=1071762558"