Talk:Cultural Marxism/Archive 1

Redirect target
The present redirect does not make any sense. How is it a conspiracy theory if it is admitted by critical theorists themselves that they seek to criticize western culture so that it changes in a way that they desire?

The redirect should be to critical theory because it includes the works of not just the Frankfurt School but also other cultural Marxism ideologues like Antonio Gramsci.

Redirect target
I believe that the present redirect target is not ideal. I don't know of any sources whatsoever that support the idea of "Cultural Marxism" as an alternative name for the Frankfurt School. As far as I can tell, the best target would be critical theory. Ideas? RGloucester — ☎ 00:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, although there isn't a single comment anywhere on this page in support of the current situation, it is apparently the result of a "consensus". JimmyGuano (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought the disambig page that User:Zzuuzz had it directed to was a good idea. Only it should be cultural studies, critical theory, Frankfurt School and Frankfurt School conspiracy theory on the disambig page. But I am open to others suggestions and concerns. Dave Dial (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation page would not be supported by the guidelines on disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages are only used when multiple titles have the same name with minor differences, such as parenthetical disambiguation, variant spellings, &c. We do not have multiple pages called "Cultural Marxism". RGloucester  — ☎ 01:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Of all the choices, I think Frankfurt School conspiracy theory would be the best redirect because it at least discusses Cultural Marxism. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, did not realize there was a talk page on this before I edited the redirect target. But I agree that Frankfurt School conspiracy theory is the better than redirecting to the Frankfurt School, since it has several paragraphs dedicated to Cultural Marxism, whereas Frankfurt School does not use the term.Metroid composite (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Any target but the conspiracy theory article is fine by me.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 08:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd pick Frankfurt School conspiracy theory. The CM-FS link seems almost farcical. অমিত   talk  10:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I consider throwing readers who are genuinely looking for information about the Frankfurt School to a "conspiracy theory" page is simply an ideologically loaded insult and would be really regrettable for Wikipedia's attempt to be a real encyclopedia. The message it sends is "the only reason you could use this phrase is because you are too stupid to know the correct opinions to hold. We, the thought leaders, will help you correct your stupid opinions." There is no philosophical content at all on the "conspiracy theory" page and therefore nothing for the reader to engage with if they are honestly interested in Marxist analysis of culture.
 * A redirect to Frankfurt School, in contrast, treats readers like adults and allows them to interpret for themselves the useful historical and philosophical information we have on that page. The "conspiracy theory" information, along with the use of the term Cultural Marxism within that subculture, should be relegated to a sub-section on that page. Given the limited reliable literature we have on the "conspiracy theory" I have doubts whether it should be a full article. Just a few days ago I found that a large block of it was WP:OR. Shii (tock) 13:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a for to the top of the Frankfurt School that should fix people not able to find content they want. Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Shii, that implies that there are sources that show that "Cultural Marxism" is an alternative term for "Frankfurt School". There aren't. Critical theory is the best possible redirect. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to redirecting to critical theory. Whatever we think people might actually want to learn about when looking for this keyword is good. Shii (tock) 14:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to think that Critical theory is the best possible redirect, general aspects of Marxist analysis of culture are covered there. It also doesn't limit itself to the Frankfurt School, which is better. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What about Cultural studies? অমিত   talk  18:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That might also be desirable as it indirectly points to a conflation that has been exploited by those using the neologism in a polemic manner. When people hear the term "Marxism", they generally associate it as indicating a specific type of doctrine/political system (socialism/communism) that exists as one such doctrine/system among others. Cultural theory, on the other hand, including that influenced by Marx's work is largely based on a form of critique, it does not posit a doctrine/system system of its own. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the proposed redirects (except conspiracy theory) explain the term. Would it be okay to write a paragraph about it? Eventually there will be a RS to write "Cultural Marxism (neologism)". Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My original preference was for a redirect to the Frankfurt School (top), where we could have content in the article. Even better if there was a section. I think a redirect to cultural studies is also fine. Disambiguation, also OK, even if it breaks a few rules. However a redirect to a conspiracy page is completely unacceptable when it is also a serious topic. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support redirect to critical theory. No critic -- social, political, cultural, etc. -- today would call themselves part of the Frankfurt School for obvious historically delineated reasons. On the other hand those using the term (as well as Wikipedia readers searching for the term), in the pejorative sense or otherwise, are more likely talking about things going on today and claims made about today's critics. Cultural studies is often linked to critical theory but includes too many strands and traditions that are not Marxist. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The advantages of redirecting to critical theory or cultural studies is that it at least recognises that the subject is broader than a particular school of thinkers in the mid 20th century. The down side is that it's not obvious that people that see themselves as opposing "Cultural marxism" oppose critical theory in its broadest sense. On the contrary the phenomenon seems to indicate the wholesale acceptance by the right of the underlying Gramscian position about the relationship between culture/language and politics. And arguing over whether the target of the redirect is actually Marxist in any meaningful sense is missing the point - labelling anything to the left of the Tea Party as "Marxist" is the entire purpose of the concept. JimmyGuano (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I suppose the question is; what's more likely - a student or academic coming across the uncommon (albeit academic) usage and visiting Wikipedia to find out more (which the current re-direct target is geared towards [perhaps due to the nature of the discussion that took place, and the academic references taking primacy in such discussions])... OR (and personally I think this is a far more likely occurrence) someone (academic or otherwise) coming across the (very popular albeit factually unsubstantiated/problematic) conspiracy term and going to Wikipedia to suss it out. I'm not really sure which of these two scenarios takes defacto primacy. Rare but genuine students (looking to bone up on academic jargon) or lay people who have just been introduced to the conspiracy term and are trying to validate or invalidate it based on what Wikipedia might have to say (a very common role for Wikipedia I suspect). Perhaps this is a case of; Academia ruling the roost as far as sources go, but ultimately (in practice) Wikipedia still having to serve the people based on their intended use of the site and the intended target when looking up popular (albeit unfounded) terms. I'll just note here that whilst the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory page does mention The Frankfurt School within its first sentence. The Frankfurt School page doesn't return this favour (nor is it about to for obvious reasons). That said, I do feel the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory runs the same contentious future that the Cultural Marxism article had. Still... one AfD at a time I suppose.
 * Really it would be great if we could redirect to a specific (edit protected) section of The Frankfurt School page which contained the post-merger contents of the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory page (making it clear what was conspiracy and what was academic fact), but I guess something akin to that solution is quite a few steps away (if it goes that way at all). --Jobrot (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've now merged the conspiracy theory content into Frankfurt School, since two other editors on the conspiracy theory talk page thought this would be a good idea. Shii (tock) 18:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say it works well, and would also be OK with a redirect from here to the new section. What we really want is Marxist analysis of culture or something to target. Wherever the target I think we all agree it's going to need some work, but given the current content this seems the right starting point to put it all in context. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the reason an article like that doesn't exist is because there are no scholarly sources independent (isolated?) enough to describe Marxist cultural critique neutrally. Sourcing the "conspiracy theory" allegations is proving difficult enough... Anyway, now the Frankfurt School article now contains the phrase "Cultural Marxism" in proper context, so it has the basis to be the target of a redirect. Shii (tock) 05:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we all accept a redirect to critical theory? RGloucester  — ☎ 17:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably the best option, as the various contexts/usages could be described more readily against that background.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, as "Cultural Marxism" is a controversial term whose meaning and scope is contested, any uncontextualised redirect to a single target is doomed to being in one way or another POV. However in that context the logical conclusion is that a wider target article must necessarily be less bad than a narrower one, so I guess it would at least be an improvement on the farcical status quo. JimmyGuano (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that is the closest one can get to associating the term with its original by academics (1970s?) with respect to scholarship ('critical theory') related to aspects of Marx's work addressing cultural themes in contradistinction to political or political economy themes (for the sake of argument).
 * The capitalized incarnation as a proper noun, which is a signifier that is essentially empty of meaning outside of the intentions of those promulgating said usage in a political context as a polemical label meant to denigrate opponents through a sort of guilt by association, is a recent phenomenon that deserves a paragraph or so, but no more.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Limiting the term to academia is itself a POV though (not saying it's an invalid POV, but it's still a POV). New Left, for example, is probably another of the many places the term could quite comfortably be taken to apply to. I agree that giving the concept of Cultural Marxism more than cursory coverage on articles such as Frankfurt School or critical theory would constitute a bad case of WP:UNDUE - those articles should focus on covering serious scholarly schools of thought in a serious, scholarly fashion, not be sidetracked by contemporary political controversies, no matter how notable. That is precisely why those articles shouldn't be where we cover this subject. JimmyGuano (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you redirect this article to Critical theory? It simply is a much, much better target. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dworkin refers to Critical Theory once in his whole book, Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain yet refers to Cultural Studies 84 times, and the Frankfurt school 6 times. A similarly nill result is found of Keller's essay Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies with Critical Theory not being mentioned at all in that text, yet the Frankfurt School gets 38 mentions and Cultural Studies gets 90 mentions. So I'm not sure why you're suggesting Critical Theory as a good target for redirect??? The other benefit of the current re-direct is that it's in line with both sides of the debate (both the academics and the conspiracy crowd use The Frankfurt School as a reference point). I would support a re-direct to a new page that makes it clear in the title that Cultural Marxism today refers to a conspiracy theory (ie Cultural Marxism (conspiracy theory)) but other than that, the only other reasonable contender (as per the sources I've mentioned) seems to be Cultural Studies (which may be a problematic redirect). --Jobrot (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just thought I would say (after seeing this with PopUps) that you don't need to use that kind of bolding for emphasis. It is always irritating to me whenever I see someone use bold text in that manner. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm just new to Wikipedia and am finding it frustrating. --Jobrot (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, a lack of direct references to a subject of another name does not necessarily mean that the two do not have something in common. A unique section dedicated to the topic of "cultural Marxism" may be preferable. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that much of Dworkin's book and argument is aimed at constructing British Cultural Marxism as a coherent influence in British leftist politics (which appears to be a tip of the hat to a British Cultural Studies ) - and that Keller attempts to make associations between "Cultural Marxism" and the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies, I'd say that Cultural Studies is much more of a target. So my claim is NOT based on the numbers alone. That said, I'm not suggesting Cultural Studies is a better re-direct than the Frankfurt School, just that it's a better suggestion than Critical Theory (as far as I can tell from the research I've done). --Jobrot (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Though I recognise there's some arguments for this above, Critical theory currently contains no mention of Cultural Marxism whereas the current target does, so I'm not sure it makes sense to change the redirect right now. Sam Walton (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * An RfC might be a good idea? Sam Walton (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * After being forced to read the books and papers presented for this theory, I can see this being directed to cultural studies, or Critical theory, or Frankfurt school. But I still believe that we should ignore all rules and make a disambig page for it for all 3. It would help the readers and give all possible options for the searcher. Dave Dial (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That would certainly be less bad than a single redirect which cannot possibly be anything other than POV-laden. What users really need is still a well-sourced page explaining and contextualising the term's various uses, though. JimmyGuano (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Equally so, do we need a redirect at all? The academic usage is rarefied and somewhat confused (with the two best sources being an essay that happens to have been written and uploaded by an academic to his own personal directory ie. not at all peer reviewed, and a book that states its self to be an early and contentious attempt at constructing an argument on the subject). The conspiratorial usage seems to be more an idea popular among one particular side of politics. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of conservative political slang. Whilst there are secondary sources, many of them contain a strong focus on Anders Breivik and the events surrounding him, and the term is somewhat covered on the page relating to him. So perhaps the case is that this term requires incubation? That it's currently incoherent and needs time to solidify its self before we can document it. --Jobrot (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Always good to ask the big question, and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is certainly a well-enshrined principle. I suppose the question underlying that is "is there a distinct and substantial idea underneath this word". If the answer is yes it belongs in an encyclopedia, if no it's just a definition and doesn't. Unfortunately the answer to that question for the term "Cultural Marxism" (and incidentally why this whole debate is such damned hard work) is "there are a number of ideas underlying the term, often overlapping, with complex and highly-charged relationships between them". Under those circumstances normal members of the public could quite reasonably come across the term in everyday life and go to their favourite online encyclopedia expecting to find some neutral help in hacking their way through the thicket. We really owe it to them to provide that help as well as we can. JimmyGuano (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but that is also part of the problem. There is no such school of thought called 'cultural marxism'. There is critical theory, there is cultural studies, and there is the Frankfurt School/Frankfurt School conspiracy theory. We are left with a mess that can't be fixed, because even some scholars are confused. If one reads the sources from the absolute mess of an article, and the article, there is no way one would come away stating, "Ahh, now I understand". No, they would be saying, "What the fuck did I just read?". Which is why TNT applied here. I hope you people figure the best way forward. Good luck! Dave Dial (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article was a mess, no question. The topic is difficult and highly charged, definitely. Can't be fixed? Well we need to one way or another - that's what we're here for. I don't have a problem with WP:TNT, as I indicated below, I just have a problem with "I don't like it therefore Wikipedia should not cover it". I could quite happily sign up to the proposal that we should start looking afresh at how we cover this subject and if we need some sort of holding page in the meantime then your suggestion of a dab page looks the least-bad that we seem to have managed so far. JimmyGuano (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, a disambiguation page is impossible. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well we're in a a bit of a mess then, as the obvious and sensible thing for an encyclopedia to do with a difficult, multi-faceted and contentious idea – write an encyclopedia article explaining it – seems to be something you'll move heaven and earth to prevent. JimmyGuano (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't find the "idea" to be "difficult, multi-faceted and contentious". The context of the historical use of the term (as a descriptive term in the 1970s in academia) through to the recent appropriation of a capitalized version of the term as a proper noun without content (it doesn't name anything that has a substantial existence outside of the political discourse in which the term is used) for political purposes is fairly straight forward. That can be easily handled in a paragraph or two within the context of the Critical Theory article, for example, and mentioned in the Cultural Studies article with a link to the paragraph or two.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe it would be WP:UNDUE to make such a paragraph in either article, given that the term used in those senses was very rare. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It does seem to be rare. I suppose that leaving the material as is under the Frankfurt School article is fine.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 07:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Paucity of the Wikipedia article aside, the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory would basically be synonymous to anyone in academia. Accordingly, a single redirect to that page would suffice, as it would provide redirects to other pages. What people write in the UK about topics indirectly related to Germany, incidentally, does not seem very relevant. It would be easy to add and expand the Critical Theory article, which would seem to be necessary anyway at this point.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Last I checked there was a large difference between Critical Theory and The Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School being a rather early phenomena created by dissident Marxists and based in Germany, that helped launch the wider area of post-Marxists social discourse called Critical Theory (which is nowadays heavily invested in the study of Post-modernity). I believe Critical Theory to have gone far beyond Germany and to now be an international and global movement of thought (with many nations offering relevant subjects at a University level), and garnering key theorists from France (Michel Foucault, Étienne Balibar), the UK (David Harvey), America (Wendy Brown (political scientist), Martin Jay), and at least one from Slovenia (in the form of Slavoj Zizek).
 * Interestingly enough your argument discounts the sources I've cited in one sweeping statement the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory would basically be synonymous to anyone in academia without adding any of your own. I find claims about what ALL academics think dubious, and do not see "basically synonymous" as a good enough criteria for re-direction (after all, WW2 is basically synonymous with Hitler, but they are far from being the same thing). Also you've not established why there is a problem with the current redirect. So I'm still not seeing the case/motivation for the change of re-direct, let alone for changing it to Critical Theory (due to the fundamental differences listed above). --Jobrot (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think I discounted anything. Meanwhile, you might be right about what the article refers to as "modern critical theory", but that would seem to be splitting hairs, so to speak. Meanwhile, none of the scholars you mention are referred to as "critical theorists" in their respective WP articles. Critical theory has not disappeared, but it does not have the currency in academia it did when the term was being developed and applied. "Critical theory was established as a school of thought primarily by five Frankfurt School theoreticians: Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, and Erich Fromm. Modern critical theory has additionally been influenced by György Lukács and Antonio Gramsci, as well as the second generation Frankfurt School scholars, notably Jürgen Habermas. In Habermas's work, critical theory transcended its theoretical roots in German idealism, and progressed closer to American pragmatism."
 * -preceeding unsigned comment by --User:Ubikwit


 * They may not be listed as such on their individual wikipedia articles, but they all participate in that particular academic discourse (Critical Theory), and I doubt any of them would refuse the title. They all have expertise on and interactions with that subject area. --Jobrot (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Also your loaded statement suggesting that Critical Theory is no longer being applied or developed (ie. that it "does not have the currency in academia it did when the term was being developed and applied) seems flat out false given that Critical Theory is a contemporary area of discourse that is receiving ongoing academic attention and publication: []. I'm not sure what evidence you're basing these claims on (perhaps you're merely suggesting the flame has past to another area/school of thought, if so I'd like to hear more), and again you are yet to state your case/motivation for The Frankfurt School being a poor target (given that the academic references suggest it as the reference point for the rarefied academic usage of "Cultural Marxism"). --Jobrot (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Critical theory is a "school of thought" that was developed by the so-called Frankfurt School, where its historical specificity is centered. It is based on the notion of critique, and does not represent a formal dogma such as that generally associated with "Marxism" per se. I mentioned that in an earlier comment. It seems that you are trying to assign some sort of formalistic status to "critical theory" aside from it representing a school of thought embodying a methodological approach. Moreover, it should be pointed out that Marx's work was only one of many influences of the Frankfurt School scholars. Foucault's work, for example, was often based on a form of critique, but he is known as a philosopher, not a "critical theorist".-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Critical theory is quite a bit more involved than merely "the notion of critique" although some on the conservative side of politics do falsely preach that it can be entirely summed up by "just being critical of everything" . To quote from the lengthy wikipedia page "Critical theory is a school of thought that stresses the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture by applying knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities. "
 * Anyways, I fail to see how a conversation on 'who calls Foucault what' is of any relevance to the current redirect discussion. Critical Theory is a thing, but I don't believe it's what the academic sources are referring to by their usage of the term "Cultural Marxism". I've cited sources and quotes for my reasons in the above discussion with Samwalton9 and Dustin, if you're interested. Likewise I'd appreciate evidence/references/sources if these claims are (and this thread is) to continue. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So, should this redirect simply point to Frankfurt School (top) or to the conspiracy theory section directly? RGloucester supports the second option, and it does not seem that his rationale was ever challenged in the discussion above; instead, it was supported by Jobrot and Dave. Note that the term "Cultural Marxism" is not used in the article Frankfurt School article outside the section about the conspiracy theory, which supports RGloucester's point. I have emboldened the term to underline this. I wonder if we should implicitly legitimise in this way a collocation as a fixed academic term and valid, neutral synonym for the Frankfurt School when it is used as a right-wing slur in virtually all cases that a Wikipedia user (academic or not) will ever encounter. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not a synonym for the Frankfurt School, neutral or otherwise. That is perhaps another reason to make the redirect to Critical Theory instead, but the sources for the usage as a right-wing slur seem to draw an association to the Frankfurt School more than to Critical Theory. As the above quote regarding Habermas states however, later Frankfurt School scholars moved the theory closer to American pragmatism than German idealism (including Marxism).-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that critical theory is not only mentioned aplenty throughout the Frankfurt School article, but also prominently in the conspiracy theory section, where it is clearly contextualised as the claimed origin of "multiculturalism" and "political correctness", I don't see any reason to redirect to critical theory. Readers immediately get all they need in the conspiracy theory section, without having to read the rest of the article necessarily.
 * To elaborate on the rationale for my concern, redirecting readers to the top of the article could make them take the term "Cultural Marxism" and the associated meme far more seriously than it deserves, or even assume the far-right narrative to be factual. Wikipedia could thus be seen as indirectly endorsing it. (We cannot assume that readers battle their way through the whole article until they find the conspiracy theory section, the general assumption being that lay readers will more or less only read the intro section.) By redirecting to the conspiracy theory section, we could avoid this impression.
 * I cannot change the redirect on my own, otherwise I would already have done it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If it does redirect to Frankfurt School, it should link to the conspiracy section. Add a hatnote to the top of the article that says "Cultural Marxism redirects here..." RGloucester  — ☎ 16:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why a hatnote? It appears pointless to me. The term is now in bold in the conspiracy section, which already clarifies the same fact to the reader, and there is no alternative article to point to. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that the redirect should be to the Conspiracy Theory section of the article, not the top.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Since there appears to be a consensus for this change. Sam Walton (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You might add the template R to section. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, wasn't aware of that template :) Sam Walton (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have one thing to comment here: Redirecting to the Conspiracy Theory Page is a mistake. It assures that this article will once again come back and we'll go through this entire process again. There are much better alternatives to redirect this page to. I voiced my view of deleting OR redirecting this page because I believed it was the only way it could survive in any good shape with minimal controversy. Choosing to once again redirect this to the Conspiracy Theory page insures that numerous readers and editors will be upset. HessmixD (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The thread above you discusses other possible redirect targets (and why this one won out). The frozen thread below elaborates on why and how it's a conspiracy theory. The academic usage refers to the Frankfurt school, the (probably more searched for) conspiracy usage has the Frankfurt school as a jumping off point. The current redirect is accordingly a compromise between the two usages. --Jobrot (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that what we just went through is very likely to happen again because of this decision that is all. HessmixD (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus to delete this article
Yet some leftist deleted it anyway? Now the edit history with much valid material has disappeared entirely. That is an extremely underhand move and should be reversed.

This is simply a case of leftist ideologues not wanting to be given and identifiable label and so have resorted to censorship. The context of the term deserves explanation on its own and has wider scope than merely the Frankfurt School or Critical Theory and the redirect to such articles is absurd. Jonto (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a very lengthy deletion discussion in which three admins agreed there was a consensus to delete the article. There is no conspiracy here. (Or is that what I'd say if there was?) Sam Walton (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I blocked Jonto to give him some cool down time -- considering that this is a contentious article, I'd rather not have an edit war. Shii (tock) 01:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

As a longstanding Wikipedian with no political axe to grind who took part in that discussion and got back from Christmas yesterday to find the article had been deleted I have to agree. I'm obviously not accusing the three editors concerned of a conspiracy - they no doubt had a difficult task being launched into the middle of a discussion riddled with SPAs/abuse/berating on both sides. But I think the status quo should it stand represents a major failure for Wikipedia and something we should be embarrassed about. Covering contentious topics is part of our responsibility as an encyclopedia. Airbrushing challenging concepts away to suit taste represents a major failure for our core mission. JimmyGuano (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There was consensus to delete and the theory that there is a cultural marxist conspiracy is correctly called a conspiracy theory. While some may think that only conspirators or their dupes would say that, articles are not supposed to give credence to fringe theories.  TFD (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "There was a consensus to delete" - well that's exactly what I am disputing! I'm not joining in with either side's fear-laden paranoia here, just suggesting that the project that you, I and many others devote a lot of time to furthering is ill-served by the status quo. A well-written and well-sourced article on this subject would not lend credence to the theory, it would reflect in a balanced fashion the available sources - which are largely critical of it as a concept and suggest it is largely used as a rallying cry for the right. However critical they are of the concept, however, they do cover it, as should we. JimmyGuano (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hence the redirect to places it can be covered. Frankfurt School conspiracy theory is a whole page dedicated to the theory, and you can add it as a section to whatever page you deem most relevant (using reliable sources of course). If you feel the concept is "wider than just the Frankfurt school" provide some evidence of that to justify your claim. I think what you mean is that the concept is "believed by it's proponents to be wider than just the Frankfurt School" - and to some degree that is true (as the term refers to The Frankfurt Schools influence on the early establishment of Cultural Studies as a discourse. But there is no evidence of any wider meaning than that. So the onus is on you, to find evidence of the "width" (span of the conspiracy) you're proposing as legitimate. --Jobrot (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well firstly the article isn't currently redirecting to the article about the conspiracy theory it's pointing to Frankfurt School (this is presumably what there was a consensus for? The discussion taking place above would suggest otherwise...) So a term whose primary usage revolves around early 21st century American society is pointing at an article about a group of mid 20th century German intellectuals. Secondly pretty much any of the multiple sources available - not just proponents, opponents too - recognise that the term as used includes but is not limited to the Frankfurt School. To pluck one at random, here is Bill Berkowitz writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center "But it may be William Lind, who has long worked at the Free Congress Foundation that his ally Paul Weyrich founded, who has done the most to define the enemies who make up the so-called "cultural Marxists." Ultimately, this enemy has come to embody a whole host of Lind's bête noires — feminists, LGBT people, secular humanists, multiculturalists, sex educators, environmentalists, immigrants, black nationalists, the ACLU and the hated Frankfurt School philosophers." Synecdoche makes a poor and unencyclopedic naming convention. JimmyGuano (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The operative term there being so-called. --Jobrot (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm not suggesting we should cover the subject of the term as if its existence is fact, just that we should cover it. JimmyGuano (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * JimmyGuano, I believe I was having that discussion with you, and just out of curiosity on my part - I'd like to say I'd be perfectly comfortable if you'd want to continue that thread on my page or somewhere else. I enjoy discussing philosophical topics such as this, and thought that conversation had ended naturally (as the points you were bringing up also got addressed in other threads on the AfD). I'm a fairly new user, and am interested in honing my ability to debate policy combined with the standard tools of rhetoric. --Jobrot (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the difficulties with Wikipedia discussion is that it can take place in a number of places at once, which can make both establishing and judging consensus difficult. As far as I can tell this is the central place for this topic to be discussed so we should probably try and keep it here (please correct me if I am in the wrong place). Although I am relatively disinterested in Cultural Marxism as a concept (it somehow got into my watchlist via the Birmingham School, which is related to my core interest in West Midlands local history) I wasn't just having a recreational debate though. Core wikipedia policies like NPOV, verifiability etc underlie everything we do - if they're not upheld (as i believe they haven't been here) then a lot of us have wasted a lot of time building this encyclopeida and a lot of users place a trust in us that may be misplaced. JimmyGuano (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's look at what's actually said about the Birmingham School, and whether it's actually claimed that the Birmingham School IS Cultural Marxism, or has merely been influenced by the Frankfurt School (using "Cultural marxism" to refer to the Frankfurt School in line with this redirect). Sound good? I'll use Keller as he is both an employed academic in the field concerned and a common "Keep" source used in support of Cultural marxism as something other than a conspiracy theory. Keller writes in his essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies":""While during its dramatic period of global expansion in the 1980s and 1990s, cultural studies was often identified with the approach to culture and society developed by the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, England, their sociological, materialist, and political approaches to culture had predecessors in a number of currents of cultural Marxism.""


 * I notice a couple of things in this quote, he disconnects Cultural Studies and the Birmingham School, saying they were "associated" in a past period of time. Secondly I see he's talking about approaches taken by the Birmingham School as having predecessors (meaning modification occurred) in SOME currents of Cultural Marxism (he interchanges this with The Frankfurt School though out the essay). He's being incredibly associative and loose in his thinking here, adding indefinites to indefinites, and to interpret this as him making the claim that The Birmingham School is the same thing as Cultural marxism... or WORSE: That Cultural Studies IS Cultural Marxism - well, it's a completely unsubstantial position to take (to the point of seeming biased), and as I've said above you'll need stronger evidence than this (and as far as I can tell, this is the strongest source for the claim). I'm sorry to say, but I just don't see what you're seeing (I would really like to though). --Jobrot (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I'm not clear what point you're making here. I'm not suggesting that the status of the Birmingham School is in any way central to this. JimmyGuano (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Where ever we ARE afforded the opportunity, the onus is on us to couch conspiracy theories in fact and the factual terms (people/places/events) that they stem from (this is a non-liablist approach). The academic usage does refer to the early influences of the Frankfurt School on the development of Cultural Studies (as illustrated above and all over the deletion discussion). Ergo, much as with the Rothschild family conspiracy theory (another, even more popular conspiracy couched in fact) the best result for wikipedia would be to express the conspiracy as a section of the page to which the academic term (being hijacked) refers.
 * To quote WP:CommonName "Editors should also consider the criteria outlined above. Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." I hope this settles your qualms with what's been done (sorry for misunderstanding your position).--Jobrot (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite - the status quo violates WP:CommonName and even more relevantly WP:POVTITLE in pretty much every way you could devise. We have an article about a supposed phenomenon in contemporary American society redirecting to an article about a mid 20th century school of German philosophers. It's pure smoke and mirrors. The only Wikipedia guideline that has been followed here is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. JimmyGuano (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And obviously now the conspiracy theory article has been deleted too, so there is no article on the subject at all, the logical conclusion of you arguments above are that you now agree with me that the situation is pretty poor? JimmyGuano (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, there's no longer a stand alone page discussing the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory. Nor is there a page trying to legitimize the conspiracy terminology "Cultural Marxism" by masquerading as a factual Wikipedia article. Currently there is however a section about the conspiracy theory located on the page for the school of thought to which the academic terminology refers. This way Wikipedia respects the academic usage, but still provides a space in which the conspiracy theory can be covered (without constant controversy over which is which). This seems like a reasonable outcome for such a divergent (ongoing) term (with The Frankfurt School consistently being a reference point for the conspiracy usage, as well as the academic usage). Perhaps at some later date you might consider creating an article with a title like Cultural_Marxism_(Conspiracy theory) - but depending on the level of SALT Protection_policy applied, I'd recommend you confer with one of the admins involved in the decision process before doing so. In the mean time, I think this outcome followed the evidence that met verifiability and NPOV standards, whilst managing to retain and define the conspiracy usage as well. At this point in the debate (I only entered the debate just before the 2nd nomination happened) and with the number of SPAs involved, I don't think a better outcome could have been achieved. --Jobrot (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. We have an article on Flat Earth - does this mean we're legitimising the idea that the world is indeed flat? If you start from the presumption that Wikipedia's job is to protect users from terminology that we judge 'bad' then what's happened here does count as success. If however you start from the presumption that Wikipedia's job is not to police what ideas people use, but to cover the ideas that are out there in the world (critically, reflecting reliable sources) then we have failed abysmally. And the latter principle is the one that is enshrined in WP:NPOV - "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." There is a real dispute on this subject, it's is a notable one as it's widely covered in reliable sources (it's not just a passing meme on some online forum about video games) but it has been buried here because a group of editors don't like it, and wouldn't stop until it had been airbrushed away. JimmyGuano (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia of facts, not a mouthpiece to substantiate paranoid theories. If you feel the "dispute" extends beyond the Frankfurt School - then feel free (as I've said) to create an article entitled Cultural Marxism (conspiracy theory) but make no mistake, claiming that Cultural Marxists have gone beyond The Frankfurt School to take over the CAPITALIST mass media IS a conspiracy, and would require a title stating such. The proposed article's naming should fall in line with these other titles/"disputes":
 * Chemtrail conspiracy theory
 * Free energy suppression conspiracy theory
 * Global warming conspiracy theory
 * Jonestown conspiracy theory
 * Many of which have required permanent or semi-permanent levels of edit protection. If you feel the "dispute" concerns the level of influence the Frankfurt School has had, feel free to add whatever research you have to this effect to the Frankfurt School page. But currently, I see no room for mixing what is well research and academic (whether it uses the minority term "Cultural Marxism" or not) with what is WP:OR (ie. conspiratorial in it's description). Currently I believe there is a clear distinction between the two, in line with the consensus decision - which I now feel we're just re-hashing. --Jobrot (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've written a response to your previous post, which you've now deleted. I'm not sure whether you deleted it because you don't stand by what it said any more, or whether you just felt it wasn't persuasive enough.
 * You've obviously made a bit of a straw man parody of the argument there ("Cultural Marxists" seems a term little used in decent sources). I am arguing that there are people out there who believe something roughly along those lines to be the case, who have had books arguing this case published by reputable publishers, whose arguments have then been discussed (and often dismissed) by scholars in serious academic publications, the resulting wider debate over which has then garnered significant mainstream media coverage. It could well be a fringe theory, and some of its wilder expressions (the rantings of Brievik, Lind) very obviously are. I'm less convinced that people like Pat Buchanan and Ed West are so extreme and obscure as to count as pure wacko. Ultimately that argument doesn't matter though. Even if it is a fringe theory, it's a notable fringe theory and it should therefore be covered by Wikipedia. For the sake of clarity, your !vote seems now to have changed from Delete to Rename and improve? JimmyGuano (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To pick up the new post you replaced the old one with - as an encyclopedia we also have to have facts about opinions, otherwise we can't cover anything even slightly controversial. Nobody is suggesting we need an article to act as a "mouthpiece" for the position that there is a thing called "Cultural Marxism" - quite the opposite. I'm just arguing that we shouldn't pretend that the position itself doesn't exist, or isn't in any way significant. JimmyGuano (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed my response because I CAN see what you mean by their being a dispute over the term (the dispute being separate from the term its self), and because I felt I'd stepped over the line in my original post (not sure if you saw it) but it had "get a grip man" at the end, which obviously went too far into ad hominem territory, and I apologize for the inference/mis-characterization of you (Sorry). I do think you may be onto something by suggesting that now (in hindsight) I might support a renaming/re-couching of an appropriate version of the original article... unfortunately this alteration of my view has come in part due from having researched the term during the debate (I can now differentiate between the academic usage, and the "extended"/distorted usage much easier). So my position has evolved organically as I've looked at the sources (and the differences between the [WP:OR] sources vs the Academic sources). That said, I do believe arguing for such a name change (had that been my position at the time) would have been difficult. I believe that as soon as the phrase 'conspiracy theory' would have been introduced, true believers of the WP:OR theory would have had a strong reaction and cited the academic usage as proof that it's NOT a conspiracy theory. So the decision has still been a good outcome (despite my change in view), as it's made clear what the academic meaning is... and hence makes it easier to see just where the extension into conspiracy occurs.
 * I changed my response because I CAN see what you mean by their being a dispute over the term (the dispute being separate from the term its self), and because I felt I'd stepped over the line in my original post (not sure if you saw it) but it had "get a grip man" at the end, which obviously went too far into ad hominem territory, and I apologize for the inference/mis-characterization of you (Sorry). I do think you may be onto something by suggesting that now (in hindsight) I might support a renaming/re-couching of an appropriate version of the original article... unfortunately this alteration of my view has come in part due from having researched the term during the debate (I can now differentiate between the academic usage, and the "extended"/distorted usage much easier). So my position has evolved organically as I've looked at the sources (and the differences between the [WP:OR] sources vs the Academic sources). That said, I do believe arguing for such a name change (had that been my position at the time) would have been difficult. I believe that as soon as the phrase 'conspiracy theory' would have been introduced, true believers of the WP:OR theory would have had a strong reaction and cited the academic usage as proof that it's NOT a conspiracy theory. So the decision has still been a good outcome (despite my change in view), as it's made clear what the academic meaning is... and hence makes it easier to see just where the extension into conspiracy occurs.


 * On where that line is (and I believe it to be a hard demarcation, and not a soft blur), and considering that even the softest versions of the conspiracy claim that Cultural Marxists came up with Political Correctness and/or Multiculturalism (with the more perverse versions going as far as to include feminism, gay rights, atheism, the mass media and Hollywood ect) I'll note this: That currently on the page for Political Correctness, Michel Foucault is cited as popularizing the early modern usage politiquement correcte in 1968 - and that Foucault himself states specifically OF The Frankfurt School that their "influence on me remains retrospective" stating earlier in that quote that he agreed with many of the problems they (The Frankfurt School) highlighted, but that he did not know or read of them until the 70s, sometime AFTER his original usage of politiquement correcte. So the idea that Cultural Marxists invented Political Correctness is demonstrably FALSE (and the idea that they did so with a disruptive intent towards Western/Christian values [a common version of the softer strain] is an outright absurdity).


 * Multiculturalism seems to come about from a mixing of cultures, and hence wasn't "invented" by anyone, but is more a defacto matter of people crossing into other cultures.


 * For me these are the initial (hard) demarcations for the softest claims of the WP:OR (conspiracy) terminology, and as you can see they are directly falsifiable. Accordingly it IS WP:NPOV to state that this idea of ongoing Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory (and that this statement is WP:NPOV as it stands). Ergo whilst writing about the dispute carefully in a WP:NPOV manner IS possible, I think it would take a specialist to do so properly, I think it would be very difficult to do in an unprotected article, and very difficult to do so from scratch (which may be what is required given the number of controversial/disputed statements and edits on previous versions of the article). That is my position currently.


 * P.S In future I'll try to get all my editing done before submitting a reply. Thank you for bearing with me, and again I apologize for my mis-characterization, and my sometimes adversarial demeanor (I'm still getting used to debating things on wikipedia) --Jobrot (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The contemporary meaning of the term
So if someone comes to Wikipedia wanting to know the contemporary, popular meaning of the term, "Cultural Marxism," they're not going to find it? Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see the link to the conspiracy theory, that's okay with me. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theory may be a bit broad. Perhaps  or  would be a bit more descriptive. — Ched :  ?  21:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your first source says, "Cultural Marxism is often used as a term synonymous with the Frankfurt School.... In current wingnut usage, the term is basically a one-stop-shop snarl word for everything right-wingers don't like. [It calls it a "conspiracy theory]"."  Because of Wikipedia's disambiguation guideline, we have two articles about the two concepts, while they have one.  TFD (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

All previous discussion removed?
Why does this page (including its history) start in 30 December? Where has all the previous discussion gone? JimmyGuano (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I know the article was moved to someone's user space, and that user may have since attempted to delete their account, but I don't know if that's related: Admin Noticeboard Move of Cultural_Marxism to User:OverlordQ --Jobrot (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There was first and foremost a consensus to delete the article, and when an article is deleted the talk page is too. We decided a redirect then made sense, and I'm happy to see that the target is being debated above. Sam Walton (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well as you can tell from the discussion above I dispute the fact that there was a consensus to delete the article. And if an AfD has been closed in controversial circumstances, the subsequent removal of the multiple previous discussions whose closure didn't come to that controversial conclusion has the potential to look like bad faith, even on the assumption that it wasn't. Can this history be restored? JimmyGuano (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus was to salt the earth so that no article will ever grow here again. WP:G8 applies here. Shii (tock) 16:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And WP:G8 says: "This excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia, and in particular deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user pages, user talk pages, talk page archives" (my emphasis). It explicitly identifies the type of content that has been deleted as examples of the type that should not be deleted. In accordance with the policy that you have identified, please can this content be reinstated?
 * To pick up on the other half of your point: even if there was a consensus to delete the article (which I dispute), there certainly wasn't a consensus "that no article will ever grow here again". That would be a major change in Wikipedia policy, and wasn't even a subject of discussion. I of course understand and respect the use of salting to prevent edit-warring, which is a different issue. JimmyGuano (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see it more in terms of TNT than salt or nukes. I agree that the talk archives could be restored as they'll inform current discussions. Even redirects and disambiguation pages can have talk archives. I'd suggest the most recent deleted talk page revisions be moved to an archive. It requires an admin, is not a trivial thing to do and as a matter of courtesy would require consent from the closers if not consensus itself to do so. The closers were procedurally correct to delete the talk archives, but we can ask them to restore them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly support the request and/or comment by zzuuzz. — Ched : ?  11:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no question the existing article had many layers of problems and if WP:TNT had been the outcome of the discussion I'd have happily acquiesced with it as a sensible compromise. Unfortunately there seems to be a group of editors who (fairly understandably) dislike the term/concept and (wrongly, and to the detriment of Wikipedia and its mission) have therefore decided that they will do whatever it takes to prevent there being an article on it.
 * It also looks like there's a bit of a conflict between procedure and policy about talk page deletion in that case, given the very clear position expressed in WP:G8. I appreciate it might not be straightforward to restore the history but given the amount of gaming of the system going on I think a high degree of transparency would be to the benefit of everybody. JimmyGuano (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, if you think those deleted discussions are useful then I'm happy to restore them. I'll put everything prior to deletion into an archive page, bear with me. Sam Walton (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, on the basis that they may be useful to the above discussions. Note that they may be deleted again after the discussions here have died down and they are no longer useful. I moved the pre-deletion history to /Archive 3 to keep this page tidy, per my hatnote there. Sam Walton (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Gratefully appreciated @User:Samwalton9 JimmyGuano (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much sir. — Ched : ?  17:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on redirect target
I changed the section heading to reflect that reliably-sourced coverage does not generally describe this as a conspiracy theory, but the redirect target includes the original section heading. Please change it to the new heading of "Cultural Marxism" on the Frankfurt School article.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that this change in heading has no editorial consensus (if anything the consensus is to leave it) on the destination's talk page Talk:Frankfurt_School. --Jobrot (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not "I have more friends than you!" You actually have to present a valid argument. Saying, "But it's true!" is not a valid argument.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 04:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, very good, I'm glad you realise this. --Jobrot (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the title of the section needs to be settled first at the target article's talk page, then this redirect and the others can follow it. However the section title is not so important to this redirect since, as long the title is unambiguous, some masking can be done with a template like anchor. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Trying to name the section anything other than a conspiracy theory would be tantamount to Wikipedia covertly substantiating the claims of the conspiracy theorists that there is something called "Cultural Marxism" that exists outside of the purview of the pejorative use of the term for political purposes. As has been discussed above, the use in academia of the non-capitalized term is extremely limited, and probably doesn't even merit mention under WP:DUE.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 07:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's exactly right, and there is no way we should ignore reliable sources and the fact that the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory is an established conspiracy theory. Although there are two issues here, where to direct 'Cultural Marxism' which is separate from the merged section of the Frankfurt School(from this discussion). If someone wants to bring up the ignore all rules discussion again and talk about a disambig page, I would favor that. But let's not try to fix a small issue by legitimizing an antisemitic canard, which should be obvious. Dave Dial (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you have to demonstrate that reliable sources generally support your characterization of it as a conspiracy theory. The SPLC and Chip Berlet will simply not do as they are highly partisan sources of questionable reliability.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to the disagreement and revert to the old section title. Sam Walton (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
I'd like to request speedy deletion of this page under WP:G4, as someone has unilaterally restored revisions deleted by consensus, but I cannot nominate it due to full protection. Would an administrator please place the speedy deletion tag for me? RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy declined; there's a discussion about this at W:ANI (or WP:AN, I forget), that seems to be currently against deleting the history; I doubt any admin is going to use speedy deletion to short circuit and overrule that discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to overrule. The deletion discussion cannot be overruled by an out-of-process nonsense that has no basis in policy. If someone wants to launch a deletion review, they should do it. If there was nothing wrong with the process, then the process's result should stand. This is an absurd abuse. The deletion policy is clear. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC on proposed replacement article entitled 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory'
Hello, I've written a draft version of a replacement article for this redirect to be targeted towards, and am looking for comments and feedback from the Wikipedia community. The draft can be found here Draft:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory but I would prefer to reserve the related talk page for specific discussion of the contents of that draft... and have this space for more general concerns on whether this is a good path forwards.

There has been some discussion on both this talk page, as well as the Talk:Frankfurt School page about creating such an article, and I thought it would be a good means of separating the conspiratorial claims from the niche academic usages. I've tried to keep my sources very clean, and for the most part I am quoting the authors being discussed from their own texts/words. I feel this is the best way to treat such extraordinary claims and have tried to simply report their views directly. Ultimately this network of related viewpoints (stemming from Lind/Weyrich, to Breivik, and to Buchanan/Jaeger) does advocate that there is a conspiracy of Marxists taking over culture, so I feel that the use of the label Conspiracy Theory is entirely fair and justified in this case. Please feel free to comment on this, and any other issues you may have with this proposed article in the space below. Thanks for your consideration --Jobrot (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So we're back to a proposal that the mainstream academic usage dating back to the 1970s, on which we have reliable sources in the form of books and peer-reviewed articles by respectable academic authors, is being consigned to a line or so at the end -and described as "niche" - while the recent right-wing, culture-warring, fringe usage gets a whole lengthy article aimed at debunking it? Sorry, but this won't wash. We need an actual article that discusses cultural Marxism as understood by mainstream scholars in the academy.
 * It can, of course, talk about the way the term was hijacked by Lind and others in the 1990s, and no one doubts that this hijacking by right-wing culture warriors is what has made the term well-known in recent times outside of the circles of intellectual historians, etc. The article can certainly say that. But an entire article devoted to debunking Lind, etc., is the wrong way to go. I should also say that I see no evidence at all that ordinary people who throw the term around are aware of a conspiracy theory involving the Frankfurt School, as opposed to thinking they are talking about Marxism applied to criticizing culture (which isn't very far from the academic usage). Someone seeking information about cultural Marxism is going to be very surprised to get all this stuff about the Frankfurt School, etc.
 * I appreciate the work you've put in here, and much of it may well be usable in the final article, but why not read the books by Schroyer, Weiner, Dworkin, and even conservative scholars like Gottfried, and see what they mean by cultural Marxism, then produce a draft that does justice to the term? If you can do that, then there is no reason not to call the article by its proper title, "cultural Marxism" even if a lot of it ends up being about Lind's views and criticisms of them. I just don't understand the resistance to having a proper article on cultural Marxism, as opposed to an article debunking Lind and his affiliates. As I've made clear, I think Lind is a right-wing culture warrior of dubious academic or intellectual merit), but that's not a good reason not to have a proper article on cultural Marxism. Failure to do so makes it look as if Wikipedia is itself engaging in culture warring, only from the left rather than the right. Metamagician3000 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "mainstream academic usage" that is notable, or that isn't described in an existing article, or that isn't WP:FRINGE. Canards, canards, canards. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article focuses in on Lind BECAUSE he coined the modern conspiratorial usage of the term ([complete with false claims about Political Correctness and Multiculturalism] during his time working for the Free Congress Foundation under Weyrich). I do use Dworkin in the academic usage section of the article (which Weiner could be added to if anyone can access his work, at any rate the academic usage of the term is represented but not intended as the focus). As noted at the top of the draft this article intends to be about the more common modern conspiracy usage of the term, and I wrote the article with the intention of reserving the current space on the Frankfurt School article for the pre-70s academic use (which some have suggested is non-notable, and WP:UNDUE its own article). --Jobrot (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are books by Schroyer, Weiner, Dworkin, and even conservative scholars like Gottfried that discuss "cultural Marxism" as described by, then obviously that is what the article (if there is to be one) should focus on, and not the fringe misappropriation by right-wing polemicists propping up a contrived label to attach to their political opponents as a target serving as a focus of attacks.
 * Though my knowledge of the use of this term in academic discourse is zero, because I am not in academia, it is clear that there is no proper noun phenomenon that corresponds to the appelation "Cultural Marxism".
 * If the term is used in academic discourse, it is as a descriptive term pertaining to criticism that incorporates Marxist theory. This ain't rocket science in terms of the appropriate application of NPOV with respect to mainstream views, minority views, and fringe views.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 06:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've boldly merged the material we have in the draft and some material I've been working on. Some glitches there to be fixed and some smoothing out to do, but this is approximately what I think a proper article on the subject would look like with some tidying. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks like there's the beginnings of a sensible article there. Incidentally Kellner's article is about as reliable as you could get, it seems to be essentially this:
 * To respond to some of the points further up, there isn't really a simple dichotomy between two uses of the term. On one level everybody from Kellner to Lind seem to agree that the term basically means the application of elements of Marxist thinking to culture. On another level there are just multiple theories as to what is "in", "out", "out but related" and "out but to some extent influenced by" by this definition. Lind et al bracket pretty much everything not actively conservative as Marxist for fairly obvious reasons, but there are multiple interpretations with different rationales behind them within the more measured academic usages as well.
 * JimmyGuano (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (For the sake of clarity, the above comments referred to the page merged together by Metamagician3000 at Draft:Cultural_Marxism) JimmyGuano (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (For the sake of clarity, the above comments referred to the page merged together by Metamagician3000 at Draft:Cultural_Marxism) JimmyGuano (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an entire article of OR and SYNTH, simply taking its cue from an SPLC page that described the Cultural Marxism phrase as a "conspiracy theory", but integrating dozens of sources that do not use those two terms together. Shii (tock) 15:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there really doesn't seem to be much substance to the academic use of the descriptive term. The blockquote from Kellner, for example, is a meta-analysis of other thinkers works that themselves make no reference to the concept.
 * The lead of the draft would, accordingly, seem to be a gross misrepresentation of the situation, because the primary use of the term is as a politically pejorative label applied for polemical reasons to influence opinion. If there is more in the scholarly literature, people should present it as their time permits.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is absolute OR. I've never seen more OR, citations to sources that don't support the text (such as sources that don't use the term "cultural Marxism"), and various other disasters than this. The descriptive phrase "cultural Marxism" is both extremely rare, and the equivalent of WP:AND. It cannot be the basis of an article. There is no "academic usage" that isn't WP:FRINGE. This is absurd. This page was deleted for a reason, and now it is returning as something even more Frankenstein-like patchwork. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read WP:FRINGE? Even if there were no serious academic uses of the term at all, WP:FRINGE (in particular WP:NFRINGE) would on its own mandate the existence of an article on this subject as even as a Fringe Theory it is clearly a notable one according that very policy, purely on the basis of the amount of discussion the term has received from its opponents - "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents."
 * That said, I agree that there is still far too much WP:OR in the draft article and given where we are now (and in the perfectly reasonable spirit of WP:TNT that several editors have suggested on this page) I think we should patiently and greatly improve it before suggesting any sort of restoration. JimmyGuano (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, "political correctness" and "multiculturalism" have more currency as right-wing memes/bogeymen rather than as "movements" leading independent existences, as the article implies. The only significant (non-ironic) use these terms see is by their opponents, much like "Cultural Marxism".
 * This pattern is hardly accidental: Right-wing ideologues see it necessary to straw-man the left heavily because otherwise it would be hard to drum up support given that most of left-wing politics sounds so commonsensical nowadays once you stop to take the time to ponder it calmly. It's kind of hard to argue with social justice as a goal, so all that is left for anti-left polemicists and demagogues is the allegation that left-wingers (portrayed as a monolithic bloc) go totally overboard with it or go about it all wrong (using Big Government, another right-wing bête noire; compare red-baiting), or pursue the goal exclusively in superficial, cosmetic ways such as language politics, or are being manipulated (as useful idiots) by some shadowy elites (usually implied to be Jewish at the very top) for their ultimate selfish goals that are opposed to social justice. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. The recent changes are an excellent example of WP:OR (and obfuscation). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Most of the sources added look both reliable and clearly relevant. I don't have access to all of them but the ones I have checked look like they generally support the claims that are the subject of the citation. It's all far from perfect but those edits look more of a step forward than back. JimmyGuano (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I endorse these most recent edits which bring the page towards an NPOV description of what is available in sources. Also, Florian Blaschke -- are you the one responsible for putting "political correctness" in scare quotes in the earlier article revisions? I was thinking about that today, it's a very amusing thing to do on Wikipedia. It's like a Christian editor putting all references to "gay marriage" in scare quotes, or an Islamic extremist editor putting "terrorism" in scare quotes. Shii (tock) 00:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * More information is better, but there still seems to be a paucity of academic sources that use what is basically a descriptive term, "cultural Marxism" that would establish notability. I see one from 1973, another from 1988 (supposedly), and Kellner. I don't see those as being sufficient to create an article that serves to legitimize the referent of the term as used by right-wing polemicists. There is only notability for the conspiracy aspects, and the section under the Frankfurt School article would seem to adequately cover that.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 01:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I was trying to point out earlier, there is only once source that actually calls Cultural Marxism a "conspiracy theory". All of the other sources are simply antagonistic towards the negative use of the phrase. Shii (tock) 01:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I must have missed that. In that case, then, again, there would seem to be a considerable notability issue for an article of any sort.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 01:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say the reason for that is because of the attempts from some to search for key words(cultural marxism) in Google books, and then try to import them into a "Cultural Marxism" article, while mixing the books meanings into the conspiracy theory. For example, books cited in the article describing cultural studies should not be confused with sources describing the conspiracy theory. Likewise, editors are confusing Western Marxism with Critical theory, and trying to meld sources together to describe an imaginary 'school of thought' called 'Cultural Marxism'. There are no real sources that describe cultural Marxism as a school of thought, they just do not exist. Perhaps if some people want to redirect the term to Social Justice Warrior, or PC identity politics that would be better. Some sources could even be used in Multiculturalism in the United States. But the current hodge-podge mess in the Draft is untenable and isn't better than the deleted mess. Dave Dial (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You've hit on the pivotal point there. Avoiding the danger of a form of implicit conflation is probably the trickiest but arguably most important task we have to achieve. It's not hard to find fairly reliable sources describing a wide range of thinkers/schools as examples of "Cultural Marxism". These individual points can and should be mentioned where the sources are decent, and are the reason that it's completely untenable for the article to straightforwardly take the "Cultural marxism doesn't exist" line. But at the same time it does not follow that these separate authors are collectively saying all of these thinkers or schools form a single continuous whole - that's the point we run the danger of verging into the sin of synthesis.
 * This is not an unusual though - the whole contested continuity vs change thing lies at the heart of many issues in history and philosophy (is the British Labour Party socialist? was the Iraq war imperialist? are Ahmadiyya Muslims? Do British Liberal Party leaders William Gladstone and Nick Clegg belong to a single political tradition?) Political and intellectual taxonomy is rarely straightforward.
 * As ever on Wikipedia the solution should lie wherever possible in the sources. As far as I can tell the two authors who seem to address this point most explicitly, and thus should provide the best basis for the article making well-sourced statements on the subject are Kellner and Gottfried. The interesting thing here is that they take opposite lines to the ones you'd expect from the culture wars model that sees the right pushing the idea of Cultural Marxism. Kellner – who is from a left wing background – argues for continuity through the grand sweep from Gransci to the late Birmingham School; while Gottfried – weeeeeell to the right – argues that the idea of "Cultural Marxism" unhelpfully exaggerates the degree of continuity between the various thinkers it purports to encompass. This paradox seems quite useful for the purposes of making the article balanced though, as it moves the issue away from being a simple left-right tennis match. JimmyGuano (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are at least 3 sources citing it as a conspiracy theory (the first three). With others merely endorsing the claims of those three (ie. confirming that proponents do use the term to refer to an intentional conspiracy). That said one those first 3 sources is on the same level as Kellner in that the author is an academic in the correct field, but the essay shows no particular sign of being peer reviewed. --Jobrot (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Although the book "The Post-War Anglo-American Far Right: A Special Relationship of Hate" is certainly antagonistic towards the users of the phrase Cultural Marxism, I read through what was available on Google Books and did not at any point see it identified as a conspiracy theory. I have to say that the idea that a book with this title could be NPOV is certainly eyebrow-raising. Shii (tock) 05:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Three of many, See also, There is more than one source for this conspiracy theory. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, that was Comrade Stalin, who also edited Political correctness to insert the following piece of commie-nazi propaganda disinformation:
 * Gee, Wikipedia sure has a left-wing bias. Much like reality itself, insidiously.
 * Seriously, I've never edited any of these articles. If I were so willing to assume bad faith on your part as you are on mine, I'd suspect that your bias is showing. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I've never edited any of these articles. If I were so willing to assume bad faith on your part as you are on mine, I'd suspect that your bias is showing. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment labeling this a "conspiracy theory" advances the POV that this subject should not be taken seriously because only fringe elements have described it and the sourcing of the section (as it currently exists) reinforces this narrow POV. A number of mainstream individuals have describe the tactics advocated by the Frankfurt School as Cultural Marxism. WeldNeck (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What "mainstream sources? And what "tactics"?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have to ask, you'll never know. WeldNeck (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Say what?
 * If you can't support your statement(s) with WP:RS, you are violating WP:NOTFORUM. I suggest you check that essay and not waste other editors time. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 20:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny enough, in another draft, Draft:Cultural Marxism, I've noticed a quotation where Lind himself refers to the old Nazi trope Cultural Bolshevism, adding to the evidence that the Cultural Marxism trope is its modern incarnation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Guardian article
On Talk:Gamergate controversy, I just saw a link to this Guardian article. No idea if it's a reliable source or not, but it confirms what people here have been saying all along. It's pure right-wing conspiracy bunk, essentially an updated version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Non-RS per WP:SOAP. It is an opinion piece. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Per WP:USERG, this seems to be, or could be, a RS. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NEWSORG. USERG does not apply. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. From this I understand that as far as the opinion is attributed properly, however, the source could still be used. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because opinion pieces are not useful for statements of fact, and without statements of fact, the opinion of this most likely non-notable commentators are useless. I'm especially concerned because he links to Wikipedia. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What's more, the following flippant sentence is completely off kilter: "Adapting this, later thinkers of the Frankfurt School decided that the key to destroying capitalism was to mix up Marx with a bit of Freud, since workers were not only economically oppressed, but made orderly by sexual repression and other social conventions. The problem was not only capitalism as an economic system, but the family, gender hierarchies, normal sexuality – in short, the whole suite of traditional western values", and doesn't seem to have any basis in reality. The Frankfurt School did not address sexuality in their works, for example. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I understood that the writer describes the conspiracy theory at that point, not what really happened. Perhaps I misunderstood it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't clear, however, it is clear that this is not an authoritative piece for statements of fact. It is an opinion piece (per NEWSORG), and has no citations other than Wikipedia and Youtube. Without reliable secondary sources for statements of fact, the opinion of this guy is of no use. It is just a talking head. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * JFYI, his profile says:
 * "Jason Wilson is a writer and researcher whose work is focused on the intersection between new media technologies and politics. He is a visiting fellow at Swinburne University's Institute for Social Research, and lives in Portland, Oregon". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As an opinion piece, as per WP:NEWSORG, this is definitely not a reliable source for a statements of fact, and shouldn't be reproduced in Wikipedia's voice. Properly attributed it could be a decent source to illustrate some of the various opinions around the subject, though there are already more authoritative and scholarly sources for this broad viewpoint (Beirich & Hicks, Jamin). It also establishes notability yet further, as per WP:FRINGE - not that anybody could seriously question the notability of this subject given the amount of coverage long before this article emerged. JimmyGuano (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion properly belongs at Draft talk:Cultural Marxism as that's attached to the current draft. RGloucester fails to raise any valid objection to the source (WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid objection). The Guardian is a reliable independent source, a national newspaper with a reputation for fact-checking and correction of errors when they arise. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, are you refusing to read? Please read WP:NEWSORG. The Guardian's quality is not in question. However, this piece is an opinion piece. Opinion pieces cannot be used for statements of fact... RGloucester  — ☎ 23:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NEWSORG "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Ergo - with proper attribution of quotes (attributing as a statement by, or opinion of the individual in question) they can be used (reporting someone elses view on the matter). But no, opinion pieces alone can't be used as a direct source of facts. --Jobrot (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What's more, please note this bullet of NEWSORG "Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing". I'm very concerned by this editorial's citation to Wikipedia's article on the Frankfurt School. Simply put, this piece is no good for establishing notability or facts. It is only useful for presenting the author's opinion. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You already stated your opinion. Mine is at least equally valid, especially since I have been an admin and not a long-time partisan on this issue. Feel free to stop digging any time you like. --preceeding comment by User:JzG/(Guy) [06:57, 20 January 2015‎], note added by User:Jobrot
 * Oh, please. Honestly, who do you think you are? You are an editor, no different from me. Pulling the rank card isn't going to get you anywhere. I'm no "partisan". What exactly is a "partisan"? Is this some kind of Americanism that I'm not familiar with? Regardless, your "opinion" is only worth as much as it is based in Wikipedia policies. Given that you are content to ignore them left and right, your opinion is moot. RGloucester  — ☎ 07:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Guardian article has almost 500 comments . . . must be a very important, interesting concept. . . maybe we should have an article about "Cultural Marxism." Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've ported over the content from the current redirect target (Frankfurt School, conspiracy) to Draft:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory if anyone is interested. --Jobrot (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Better watch what you say or you might be unpersoned like the article. WeldNeck (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey WeldNeck, did you know that many of the founding fathers of America were slave owners, and that wikipedia was invented in America BY AN AMERICAN - and that we all work here FOR FREE *HINT HINT*. Obviously this new theory of mine should probably have a wikipedia article... I mean, it references HISTORY! Of course, I bet if I tried to create a page for this new theory, I'd be shut down (I mean, it might survive a little while if I backed it up with some references but eventually it would probably face the deletion process) - this is because the theory IS TRUE! And WIKIPEDIA IS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!!! --Jobrot (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WeldNeck is obviously a White Nationalist martyr. It's going to be tough either way to include him/her in this while keeping it neutral and civil or to nix the whole article without feeding the martyr complex. Oilyguy (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Oilyguy
 * I think you could argue the opposite. The more comments an online article has, the less worthwhile it is for Wikipedia.  As an online encyclopedia, I wouldn't want Wikipedia to feel pressured to kowtow to ambitious online commentators as if actual, neutral information were a popularity contest.Oilyguy (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Oilyguy

Cultural Marxist
I was doing some research concerning some COI issues of a long time Bob Jones U history professor pushing a right wing agenda and ran across this in one of the noticeboards history. It seemed interesting as I have seen this term being used much more of late. Please do not accuse me of being a sock in your obvious disputes regarding the term as a attempt to silence dissenting opinions. This is the only time I have been here and I have never and will not ever register a pseudo wiki identity (mostly fake identities). This is an cellular IP that is beyond my control and being used by millions it changes frequently. Here is my two cents on what the modern term means which is not narrowly defined as of yet but the basics to its use are pretty accurate. In the modern sense the term is used to describe a left wing ideology that seeks to restructure the Western World into a neo-Marxist state. The term Cultural Marxist has been used to describe those whose goal is to promote cultural change with a strong Marxist influence. Another similar term used to describe what cultural Marxism creates is a nanny state. The term has been used to describe President Obama, Senator Al Franken, Chuck Schumer and many other left wing politicians. The Tea Party is one group which has used the term to describe those who promote the agenda. The highly political left wing institution the Southern Poverty Law Center has spun the term to be conspiracy hate speech in 2003 and linked to an earlier school of thought as a preemptive political strike against the term. There are similarities but they are far from the same and redirecting it to that school of thought seems highly political and an attempt to bury the term in my opinion. I will predict the term will become more broadly used in the next presidential election to describe the left wing agenda and cultural changes that have taken place during the Obama administration. The urban dictionary does a decent job defining its modern connotation. Yes, I realize this is a primary source but this is a talk page to discuss the term. Urban dictionary: ''The gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble society in the future as a communist utopia. This utopia will have no notion of gender, traditions, morality, god or even family or the state. The Philosophy was proven not to Work already by Vladimir Lenin as he tried in vein to control and subjugate the people. He admitted before he died that capitalism was the only true system in which people understand how to live with each other.... Lenin knew that there were a few western Idiots who kept spreading the communist ideas long after Lenin gave up.... he called these people useful idiots as they had more emotion than brains and could be used to subvert the western states for a military takeover in the future as the citizens would already be perverted and sick and weak from poisonous ideas, decadent lusts and mindless entertainment.'' http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cultural+marxism A google search will link to many other sites which shows the term has notability and here is a reddit discussion that provides archived links to the original article for those who would like a deleted copy to work with. http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2occ7m/wikipedias_cultural_marxism_article_now_redirects/ 172.56.7.197 (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI the original article was moved to Draft:Cultural Marxism. Sam Walton (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is indicative of the absurdity of true believer claims, the Lenin deathbed recantation idea is as hilarious as it is ill informed, as is the general idea that there are 'Cultural Marxists' who will one day specifically get rid of 'languages'. This is the sound - of silence (or will be if the Cultural Marxists get their way). --Jobrot (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete and redirect was not the best move for the page
I will stay away from the left vs right flame war that has been going on about the topic. I simply think the page should exist regardless of whether if it is a conspiracy theory, even if it is on the same scale as alien influence in the building of pyramids. It is a popular enough term that it is searched with increasing frequency, by people trying to learn what the term means. Especially the current redirect simply tells them to go away at best and gives them a sided opinion that the term is garbage not even worth investigating at worst. If a term universally agreed on to be a conspiracy theory like WP:New World Order has a page satisfying enough for a reader looking for the meaning of the term, Cultural Marxism should have a page as well without political bias. SerFishy (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)SerFishy