Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 11

Consider Re-naming Article.
this isn't a conspiracy theory in the typical sense. It's literally an interpretation of the ideology propogated by the Frankfurt School Philosophers. "Conspiracy" requires connection between the participants. the Frankfurt School gives us that connection. if anything, the word "Theory" should be used, but Conspiracy does not fit. Jaygo113 (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I note in the subsequent section, this article, its title and its sourcing have been extensively discussed and have been subject to repeated, widely-parricipated RfCs. Your edits-which amount to the POV that "Cultural Marxism" is an intellectual movement and not the trope of a conspiracy theory- run counter to this broadly-based consensus. I have therefore reverted your BOLD changes. Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The claims of the conspiracy theory and the claims of The Frankfurt School don't line up. For instance, The Frankfurt School claimed an elite of corporate interests rule over the Culture Industry. Where as the conspiracy theory claims The Frankfurt School themselves are in control of the media, culture and academia. There's no semantics about it, it's a conspiracy theory, and runs contrary to what The Frankfurt School actually espoused. --194.193.147.6 (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Frankfurt School scholars that created Critical Theory, whether derogatively or pejoratively called "cultural marxism" or not, are no longer exclusively or even primarily confined to "the frankfurt school". However the Scholar Antonio Gramsci and Rudi Dutschke both recognized that influence in the societal institutions was necessary to bring forth a more "marxist" or egalitarian world. see e.g. https://www.conservapedia.com/Cultural_Marxism#Dutschke 75.164.170.25 (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ″The Long march through the institutions is a Marxist concept formulated in 1967 by the West German student movement leader Rudi Dutschke. Dutschke reformulated Antonio Gramsci's philosophy of cultural Marxism with the phrase the long march through the institutions (German: Marsch durch die Institutionen) to identify the political war of position or incrementalism, an allusion to the Long March (1934–35) of the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army, by means of which, the working class or "oppressed" would produce their own intellectuals, civil servants, and culture (dominant ideology) to replace those imposed by the bourgeoisie or "oppressor class."″ 75.164.170.25 (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a suggestion that should be made at the Talk Page of Marxist Cultural Analysis. I don't believe Gramsci or Dutschke ever used the term Cultural Marxism, he used the term hegemonic. --194.193.147.6 (talk)
 * Conservapedia is not a legitimate source according to WP:RS, due to it not being WP:NPOV. Wikipedia avoids politics this way. --194.193.147.6 (talk)
 * Since the article is about a conspiracy theory, the article should actually source what the conspiracy theorists claim, not what other people claim that the conspiracy theorists claim. The conspiracy theorists should be considered reliable sources for the content of their own theory, rather than use strawmen arguments and ad-hominem arguments about the theory, such as that Anders Brevik the mass murderer believed in it. Endomorphosis (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the page for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. If you want to make a new page with sources that define Cultural Marxism outside of the conspiracy theory - you'd need to put in an article request elsewhere Requested_articles. Currently the decision standing is that the term is non-notable in WP:RS left-wing writings. You'd need reliable academic sources defining exactly what "Cultural Marxism" is, otherwise you're doing something called WP:OR Original Research, which means coming to your own thoughts, rather than reporting the thoughts of qualified others. Wikipedia seeks to report facts and public opinion, stuff that's been expressed and vetted by an editor. You'd need something official which defines it. No one at The Frankfurt School used the term, and it's a fairly obscure term. It should be confined to those who actually used it (rather than The Frankfurt School). Not sure any major figure has used it to describe themselves. --194.193.147.6 (talk)
 * Conservapedia is not a legitimate source according to WP:RS, due to it not being WP:NPOV – indeed, and I strongly feel that any attempt to rename or otherwise rewrite this article to imply that "Cultural Marxism" has any existence beyond a bogeyman created by far-right conspiracy theorists (such as probably write half of Conservapedia) is likely to be summarily dismissed as nothing more than naked POV-pushing. Suggest abandoning this per WP:SNOW and the canonical Wikipedia approach to conspiracy theorists and other species of lunatic charlatans. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is a mainstream source that calls it "cultural marxism" https://www.dukeupress.edu/Cultural-Marxism-in-Postwar-Britain Title: Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies Author: Dennis Dworkin Published: April 1997, Cited by 534. This actually appears to be the first use of "cultural marxism" that I can find so far. Endomorphosis (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if you look at page 3 you can read the words: "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" (pg. 3) meaning it's a neologism, not longstanding discourse or plan. Besides which, this talk page isn't for the Wikipedia page "Cultural Marxism", it's for the conspiracy theory. If you want to recreate the old page (which only had 3 valid sources on the topic) - then this is not the place to do it. It's a WP:SNOW case. The discussion has already been had. Also we use the sources we do because they're notable or came early in the conspiracy discourse. Lind for instance. Breivik's usage is notable and has a lot of news stories that cite it. --194.193.147.6 (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I went to the origination of the "conspiracy theory", it was apparently NOT cited in the wikipedia page, only a criticism of the work. https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_91-96/921_frankfurt.html. The claim made, was based on a rhetoric exaggerated hyperbole, including claims: "This is not the academy of a republic; this is Hitler's Gestapo and Stalin's NKVD rooting out "deviationists," and banning books—the only thing missing is the public bonfire". It also does not actually use the words "cultural marxism" anywhere in the article. Moreover nothing in the article has any anti-semitism whatsoever, and even goes to claim that marxism is antisemitic " Their goal was not the protection of Jews from prejudice, but the creation of a definition of authoritarianism and anti-Semitism which could be exploited to force the "scientifically planned reeducation" of Americans and Europeans away from the principles of Judeo-Christian civilization, which the Frankfurt School despised." Endomorphosis (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How about you quit with the original research, and read the many, many discussions of these issues in the Talk page archives here and at Talk:Frankfurt School. Also, perhaps, take a look at Marxist cultural analysis, since you seem to be confusing that with the trope of the conspiracy theory. If you do that, and still believe you've identified any issues that haven't already been dealt with by many, well-informed editors, you could bring that back here. But it isn't necessary to rehash the basics every time a n00b editor appears on this Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is what the page reads "Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims Western Marxism as the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture." that is not the definition of a conspiracy. The definition of a conspiracy is when two or more people agree to a concrete course of conduct, not a criticism of a allegedly subversive ideology, merely because a couple academics "conspired" to create the ideology. This article claims the above cited article is the origin of the conspiracy, but the origin itself is not actually cited by wikipedia, but rather a separate writer criticising the author of the original, and when you look at the citation its literally from the "Quarterly Journal of Poetry, Science and Statecraft" https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_97-01/fidelio.html, and the journal claims the frankfurt school adherants are antisemetic, and behave like the nazis / nkvd, and it is clearly rhetorical hyperbole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endomorphosis (talk • contribs) 00:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could take the time to read WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. At Wikipedia, we prefer to use secondary sources (and tertiary ones, when available). Reliance on primary sources in articles is frowned upon. Perhaps you would prefer to contribute to a user-generated encyclopedia based on different principles...Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Relying on a document written by a literal nobody that states "This is not entertainment. This is the deeply paranoid hallucination of the LSD acid head. The worst of what happened in the 1960's is now daily fare. Owing to the Frankfurt School and its co-conspirators, the West is on a "bad trip" from which it is not being allowed to come down." and critisizing the frankfurt school as anti-Semitic, as the basis of an anti-semetic conspiracy theory is not reliable and contradictory. In fact there is a 1997 book called "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies" by Dennis Dworkin who is a history professor, which seems much more relevant as the far as the origin of "Cultural Marxism", because the original document does not reference "cultural marxism" but the "Frankfurt school". Endomorphosis (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia relies on secondary sources to describe the origins of the conspiracy, not primary sources. As far as Dworkin goes, do me a favor and search the Talk:Frankfurt School archives as well as those for this page. Thus has been amply discussed before - Dworkin is not giving an account of the conspiracy theory's origins. Newimpartial (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But what is the "conspiracy", to create an ideology? who are the conspirers, the originators of the ideology? The only difference is that one side says the effects of the ideology is bad, and the other side says the effects of ideology is not bad, so therefore the idea that people "conspired" to create an ideology with harmful effects is a "conspiracy theory". Also here is another book from 1981 by another professor using the term "cultural marxism", this implies that the term did not originate with "cultural bolshevism" of the nazis or the 90's evangelicals see https://books.google.com/books/about/Cultural_Marxism_and_Political_Sociology.html?id=ArLaAAAAMAAJ&source=kp_book_description see also https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=cultural+marxism&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccultural%20marxism%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Ccultural%20marxism%3B%2Cc0 I do not find these sources to be reliable because they're plainly contradicted. Endomorphosis (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * More WP:OR. That just isn't what we do on WP. And if you can't tell the differences between sources on "Cultural Marxism" as a trope of the conspiracy theory and sources on Marxist cultural analysis, you really shouldn't be proposing changes to this article, much less offering your personal opinion about which sources are "reliable". Newimpartial (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Relying on dictionary defintions is not WP:OR. Here is: A Dictionary of the social sciences - Page 392 published in 1964 https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Dictionary_of_the_social_sciences/ "the cultural marxism of Antonio Gramsci examines similar practices in relation to forms of social control" here is the definition of "conspiracy theory" https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy-theory "a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot". So what is the "theory"? That a bunch of intellectuals came up with an ideology, is the "theory" that the effects of the ideology are harmful? Where is the "conspiracy", people openly publishing ideas about their ideology? This would be similiar to having a page on the "fascist conspiracy theory", stating that many left wing activists claim that all the bad things they dont like are caused by "fascism", and that their ideological opponents are "fascist", instead of just recognizing that people are just LABELING the thing as "cultural marxism" / "fascism", and LABELING it as "harmful", in term of speech called exaggerated hyperbole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole. Nobody actually cited implied that Karl Marx and Engels conspired in a room some elaborate plan, that would inevitably lead to famines in the soviet union, nor that the frankfurt school conspired in a room to "destroy western civilization", because they obviously thought very highly of marxism and its utopian ideals. Endomorphosis (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Endomorphosis, you seem to feel some fundamental error is occurring. I concur with Newimpartial that the sources here are clear on what the conspiracy theory is and what its roots are. If all the sources are making the same fundamental error, you should find other reliable sources that point out the mistake. If they don't exist, you might seek out publication elsewhere as the first to identify the issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Endomorphosis, I really doubt that you have read WP:OR. If you had, you would most likely have recognized that your dictionary-based example could have been used in our policy as a textbook example of SYNTH. Newimpartial (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * this is not needed, being the sources I provided demonstrate that "critical theory" was classically called "cultural marxism" by its proponents to the extent that it was in the dictionary, the fact that there are people such as NewImpartial who said he publishes in the topic who want to portray criticisms of the ideology as anti-semetic conspiracy theorists who believe they want "to destroy Western civilization", when the chinese communist party marxist writers come to the same conclusions as the "conspiracy theorists" with regard to "It is a carefully arranged attack on Western civilization. Its main goals are Christian faith and moral values; the other is narrow white men, especially white men. Considered to be the source of most violence and exploitation in the world." see The History and Enlightenment of Cultural Marxism, Jianghai Journal Copy Issue Number: 2014, Issue 12 by Dang Shengyuan. I believe that it must be warranted to change the page to include the Chinese as among the people who believe in the "conspiracy theory".... I mean criticism of the ideology. http://rdbk1.ynlib.cn:6251/Qw/Paper/570796 Endomorphosis (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Martin Jay, a historian of The Frankfurt School is being used as the source for the Larouche article being the origins of Cultural Marxism. If it originated the concept it doesn't need to use the term, as the claim is only that the concept came from that article. There's a trope of Larouche being a conspiracy nut, this isn't the only conspiracy that it's been suggested originated there (See Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement for details). Personally I beleive Lind being asked by Weyrich to research The Frankfurt School was the origin. I believe Lind and Buchanan popularized the term on the right. Lind who appeared at a holocaust denial conference, and Buchanan who can be shown to be lying in his book Death of The West (specifically making false quotes that were later put into a youtube documentary). So it is a conspiracy theory. By the way the standard for that we're using is Barkun's three types, and it's a "Systemic conspiracy theory" - to quote the Wikipedia page Conspiracy Theory "The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. The goals are sweeping, whilst the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, Communism, or the Catholic Church."
 * But yeah, your claims articles are just jokes or hyperbole - is WP:OR. We're here to report, not interpret. --194.193.147.6 (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2021


 * Conservapedia doesn't just fail WP:RS because of WP:NPOV, it fails because it is an open wiki. No open wiki counts as WP:RS. Bear in mind, I am a contributor at both Wikipedia and Conservapedia; there's no anti-Conservapedia bias here or anything, but it can't be used as a source in Wikipedia articles. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 03:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Did someone mention switching back to the 2014 version of the "Cultural Marxism" page? Here's all that's changed since the 2014 version - https://i.redd.it/3sjg14xin8381.jpg --00:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.113.170 (talk)
 * This page didn't exist in 2014 (It was created in 2017 as a redirect) :D Maybe you need to look for yourself first before trusting a random reddit article? --Mvbaron (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * « This page didn't exist in 2014 » => I disagree.
 * The Cultural Marxism page did exist in 2014 cf. https://web.archive.org/web/20141104053904/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
 * The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article did exist in 2014 cf. special:permalink/608592820
 * Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory??
Not even looking at whether aspects of this are true or not, how can a social theory be a conspiracy theory? No one says objectively false social theories are "conspiracies". The definition of conspiracy is "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." Does this page imply there is a secret cabal somewhere trying to invent a term just to disagree with? Wouldn't that make a LOT of things "conspiracies"? Why would someone invent a school of thought (that many people subscribe to) just to argue with? If that was true, and there really was no "other side," why is there so much disagreement on this? There are people who identify as Social Marxists. That at least makes it not a "conspiracy theory". Even if there were zero people who had ever agreed with the idea that "Cultural Marxism is a term used to describe the idea that our society is best interpreted as being a power struggle between different identity groups or cultures (women, men, gay, straight, black, white)" (Urban Dictionary), which is certainly not true, there is at least an ideology there that someone could have, someday. The political implications of labeling this a conspiracy theory are quite evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.97.16 (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This page is indeed about the conspiracy theory. If you are looking for various Marxist positions on Culture and Society, you can start at the articles on Marxism and Marxist cultural analysis.
 * Btw, urban dictionary is a user generate site, anyone can add an entry on anything there, so the contents are often completely wrong and it shouldn't be used like a real dictionary. Best, -- Mvbaron (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do quite like the image of Social Marxists, though. I'm thinking of cute guys in black turtlenecks with round glasses, posing as Maoists or Frankfurters to get laid and yet, inexplicably failing to do so. Newimpartial (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The concept of conspiracy theory does not imply that the named conspirators do not exist, in fact they usually do. TFD (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources that show that Cultural Marxism isn't a conspiracy theory, article should be renamed, and anti-Semitic tag should be removed
The section title is a bit over-broad. Yes, cultural Marxism is a part of many conspiracy theories, but that in and of itself does not make cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory.

For decades, cultural Marxism has been an established political belief, applying the economic views of Marxism to the paradigms of identities other than economic class, such as sexuality, gender identity, and race. It's existence is acknowledged in both academia and commercial publication for decades from both conservative and liberal sources.

Brenkman, J. (1983). Theses on Cultural Marxism. Social Text, 7, 19–33. - from Duke University publication, primarily conservative leaning university which actually isn't critical of cultural Marxism, but simply takes a look at it

Gross, N. (2007, September 24). The Social and Political and Political Views of American Professors. Ucla.Edu. - published by UCLA, a primarily liberal university which openly admits that a significant proportion of professor in the field of Social Sciences are Marxists

And stepping away from academia, we can find publications that acknowledge cultural Marxism as a school of though, again on both sides of the political spectrum:

Mendenhall, A. (2019, January 7). Cultural Marxism Is Real. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. - A conservative non-profit, which references a Yale University(another primarily liberal university) publication that also acknowledges cultural Marxism as an actual school of thought

Just because conspiracy theorists use cultural Marxism to support their theories does not mean cultural Marxism itself is a conspiracy theory.

Just because anti=Semites use cultural Marxism to support their agenda, does not mean cultural Marxism is itself anti-Semitic.

Cultural Marxism is the application of Marx's theories on economics and class to other paradigms such as race, gender, and sexuality, is a very real school of thought that are acknowledged by both proponents and critics.

The idea that "ACADEMIA IS TRYING TO MAKE OUR KIDS GAY!" is a conspiracy theory. The idea that many of the people working as educators are applying Marxist class theory to these other social paradigms is very real, and dismissing that idea as a conspiracy theory is doing a disservice to people who come to this site looking for an NPOV look at what cultural Marxism is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.52.47.222 (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Application of Marxist theory to culture is covered at Marxist cultural analysis. None of that effectively refutes the existence of a conspiracy theory. Firefangledfeathers 04:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This article is named "Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory", and the article that actually addresses cultural Marxism is named "Marxist cultural analysis". Why the differentiation? In the name of maintaining consistency, either this article should be renamed to "Marxist cultural analysis conspiracy theory" or the other article should be renamed to "Cultural Marxism".


 * I don't deny that there are reputable sources to show that there are conspiracy theories based on cultural Marxism, just pointing out that cultural Marxism itself isn't a conspiracy theory. As an aside, I've noticed that the most prolific editor on both pages are the same person, and I can't help but suspect some sort of bias is influencing the difference in the titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.52.47.222 (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * That's a different topic, for a different article. But it does give me a good idea for the FAQ page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Consider Assassination of John F. Kennedy vs. John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories or maybe Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy vs. Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories or maybe COVID-19 vs. COVID-19 misinformation. While all of the words in the original articles' titles can be found in the conspiracy pages' titles, this is one of the only(few?) articles where the words for the conspiracy article have been changed, rather than just omitted or added. There needs to be consistency between the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.52.47.222 (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Cultural Marxism was a rarely used synonym for Marxist cultural analysis. But the conspiracy theory is not about that, but about a made up concept they call "cultural Marxism." One could compare it with New World Order (conspiracy theory). While the term new world order has been used to refer to other things, the New World Order as they understand it does not exist, or at least there are no reliable sources for its existence. TFD (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Look at the top of the page, there's a tag that reads: "Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For "cultural Marxism" in the context of cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis." - that is to say, Wikipedia already acknowledges the existence of "cultural Marxism" as a Neologism, but it was found to not be in wide spread usage enough to be noteworthy as an individual phenomena (there's already a page on The Frankfurt School, Western Marxism, The Birmingham School, Cultural Studies, Stuart Hall, ect... This is not the point, the point is that THIS PAGE, is for the right wing conspiracy theory that reaches as far as accusing Ardorno of creating A-tonal music to induce necrophilia. So yes, there is a real conspiracy there - and no, if you want to expand on Wikipedia's content in regards to Marxist cultural Analysis aka the culture within Marxism, or, Marxisms take on Cultural Phenomena "Cultural Marxism"... no, this is not the page for that. There's a page called "Marxist cultural analysis" for that. --203.221.148.126 (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed rewording of first sentence
opening a discussion section for you here. You've been reverted by multiple editors, and are above the WP:3RR limit. Why are the changes you're proposing DUE for inclusion? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Time for a FAQ
Regulars here are painfully aware of how the same arguments come up over and over again. We should create a FAQ in order to respond to some of the perennial questions, including why the article has this name, and others. I've started a FAQ subpage here just to get the conversation going: please modify/expand it as you see fit.

As far as style, I've been roughly following the model used at Talk:Climate change. Here are links to that one, plus some examples of other FAQs in Talk page context showing different FAQ page style choices:

All have bolded, numbered Q & A labels (e.g., Q1/A1, etc.) unless otherwise mentioned.
 * Talk:Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis – 8 questions; answers individually collapsed
 * Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories – 4 questions in a collapsed section
 * Talk:Climate change – 24 questions in a collapsed section, answers individually collapsed
 * Talk:Democratic socialism – 3 unnumbered questions in a collapsed section, with long, expanded answers
 * Talk:Historicity of Jesus – 7 questions (some with subparts to them), with long answers, some with multiple bullet points in the answer and lists of sources
 * Talk:Homeopathy – 11 yes/no questions with brief, parenthetical answer shown; longer answer individually collapsed.
 * Talk:Intelligent design – 6 questions, answers individually collapsed; collapsed references section included with 15 footnotes.
 * Talk:J. K. Rowling – an entirely different approach, without a Q & A format, and using Recurring themes instead.
 * Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories – 10 unlabeled yes/no questions with brief, parenthetical answer shown; extended answers individually collapsed.
 * Talk:Nazi Party – 3 unnumbered questions with long answers.
 * Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory – 5 questions, answers individually collapsed

Here's how the current draft would look when rendered on the Talk page:

Please expand/adjust as needed.

Once there is something useful there, we can render it in the Talk header at the top of the page with. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm not the most knowledgeable about this article, and I don't plan to take the draft FAQ too much further; I'm relying on more involved editors to step up (if interested) and carry it forward. The FAQ is here. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Good work taking the initiative! I'm sure regulars will expand on questions/answers soon enough! --203.221.148.126 (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like I have the competency to contribute much here yet, but I feel like by an IP editor, which may or may not be below likely covers some of the more common comments I've seen removed over the last few days. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really, there's still a conspiracy theory regarding The Frankfurt School having a plan or having already "taken over" society - there are books and websites accusing them of being in league with the devil, so yeah. That contribution should be on a different page. Good sources for Marxist cultural analysis - I've actually been meaning to add more there. Maybe the IP editor can discuss what that want added there? --203.221.148.126 (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to make a FAQ, feel free. But in my experience, it won't deter these topics from popping up. People just come to the Talk page to spout their outrage, without bothering to look at the FAQ (and sometimes not even reading the article). The one benefit to having a FAQ is that we can just close those new discussions with "Please see the FAQ." &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the readers who come with suggestions don't even read the article let alone the notes at the top of the discussion page. If they do read the article and still think it is not a conspiracy theory, then no arguments we can provide will persuade them. One value of the FAQ is that regular editors can cut and paste. I suggest we copy the first three FAQs from Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/FAQ. But I don't see the point of a lengthy rebuttal of conspiracy theorista. TFD (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. FAQs are not useless but they are of limited value. They can be helpful for people who are genuinely confused but most people who fetch up on Talk pages about far-right topics "just asking questions" about long settled issues are trolling. The value of a FAQ in those cases is that people can copy'n'paste bits or just say "Please read the FAQ" and avoid more onerous interaction. Of course, >90% of them won't even read the FAQ, because they are not here to learn, but if it helps anybody at all then that's better than nothing. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism redirect
Someone else should have eyes on the Cultural Marxism redirect to this article, which dates from before the Frankfurt School split, as I recall. Newimpartial (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This redirect should instead be a disambiguation page that links to both Marxist cultural analysis AND Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as it has been established in talks on both pages that the term Cultural Marxism refers to both subjects, and redirecting it to the conspiracy theory is a blatant violation of WP:POV
 * User Newimpartial has been policing both pages along with the redirect in order to promote their own WP:POV and to limit the obvious(as shown by sources in both articles as well as those provided on this Talk page) ambiguity between the two pages. Nerfdart (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nerfdart: one of the largest AfDs in Wikipedia history reached the conclusion you have accused me of policing - the deletion of Cultural Marxism as a "real thing" and redirect to the conspiracy theory - and I didn't participate in that discussion at all. Your POV does not trump a consensus that has been frequently reiterated by different editors in periodic discussions and RfCs since 2014. It just doesn't. Newimpartial (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I've not seen that discussion linked, which Nerfdart may wish to read here's the successful AFD entry from 2014, and the 2018 deletion review. Consensus of the first discussion was delete and redirect, and there was no consensus for overturn of that deletion/redirection at the second discussion. You are of course welcome to try another deletion review at the appropriate project page, though I don't think it would be successful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While listing some of the formally closed discussions, the successful 2020 split proposal (in which, like the first two discussions listed by Sideswipe9th, I did not vote) was this one. The subsequent formal consideration of the redirect from Cultural Marxism to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was here. The community's decisions on these questions have been remarkably consistent. Newimpartial (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting! For some reason the 2020 split proposal discussion didn't show up. The redirect page history only links to the 2014 AfD, and that AfD links to the 2018 review. I had no idea it was discussed again in 2020! But you're right, it's a very consistent line over the last seven or so years. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There was also a failed split proposal in 2019, which I did !vote in, but that closure also reaffirmed that "Cultural Marxism" was not a real thing. At that point, though, not enough people were convinced that the conspiracy theory was a viable article topic for encyclopaedic treatment; the community changed its mind on that narrow question (only), the following year. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It's so strange to me that people wish to update THIS page, rather than Marxist cultural analysis. Like, if people truly believe that Kellner and Brenkman are saying something definitive about Marxist approaches to culture, even though neither of them are from The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, nor have anything to do with EP Thompson... then PLEASE DO argue that on a talk page about a 'real' thing. Eg: Western Marxism, Marxist Cultural Analysis, Cultural Studies... don't go wasting everyone's time by trying to convert a conspiracy theory article to a factual article. Go look at WP:FRINGE.... there have been conspiracy claims made around The Frankfurt School, "Cultural Marxism" is definitely a term used in those conspiracy theories, so this page isn't going anywhere. I don't know why people don't get that. --203.221.148.126 (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

Links in "See also"
Why is literal "well poisoning" linked in the See also section? This article has to do with rhetoric, so I'm guessing it's supposed to link to "poisoning the well", the logical fallacy. I tried changing this, but it was reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Giovanni del Monte Cristo (talk • contribs) 15:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, because the reference is to the antisemitic canard Well_poisoning - and not the logical fallacy. Best, -- Mvbaron (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Mention of the conspiracy theory at Marxist cultural analysis
A novel approach to discussing the relationship between Marxist cultural analysis and the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has recently been proposed in this section. This may be of interest to editors watching this article. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be surprised if the same user now shows up on this page to "make changes" in order to point out the conspiracy theorists "are talking about actual historical facts". --124.170.170.79 (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

"Jewish intellectuals" of the Frankfurt School
Minnicino does not appear to use this phrase, which appears in quotation marks, in either of the two given sources. Either I have made a mistake, or the article is wrong. Tewdar (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It actually appears in Adorno's enlightenment as mass deception: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm but I believe the phrase is being used by Martin Jay to describe the Minnicino article. Martin Jay is an academic historian of The Frankfurt School. I think Lind also used something similar (as reported from the SPLC). --124.170.170.79 (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Is this the ip address that erroneously suggested that I am a 'new' (presumably code for something or other) editor, in a now deleted section on this page? Anyway, what does Adorno's Enlightenment as Mass Deception have to do with my question? Jay does not use this phrase in the cited article either afaict, and your "beliefs" do not allow me to attribute this phrase to Lind either, but I will check that. The article says Minnicino said that the "Jewish intellectuals..., followed by two inline citations to Minnicino's articles, so even if Lind did say this the sentence is still false. Your logic seems to be, "someone else said it, so let's pretend Minnicino said it". This is utterly preposterous. Tewdar (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Cannot find this phrase being used by Lind either. Not that it would have any relevance if I could anyway, really. Tewdar (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Of course it's relevant, Lind is one of the key proponents of the conspiracy theory. Here's the source of Lind talking about The Frankfurt School's jewishness, which he did at a holocaust denial conference: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2002/ally-christian-right-heavyweight-paul-weyrich-addresses-holocaust-denial-conference I haven't seen any source putting that claim in contention. Is that your purpose here, to attack sources in order to WP:OWN the page? --124.170.170.79 (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please explain how Lind using the phrase "Jewish intellectuals" (if he does) allows us to attribute this phrase to Minnicino. Your argument as it stands is ludicrously SYNTH, and doesn't even make sense. Tewdar (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For now, I have removed the quotation marks; additional changes (like quoting a phrase Lind actually used) I will leave for others (or for later). Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, at least it isn't a false quote now. I wouldn't synthesize material in this manner, however. But whatever, wouldn't want random ip addresses accusing me of being a Nazi racist or whatevs. 😡 Tewdar (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please respect the WP:HUMAN policy. I never called you a Nazi. Merely pointed out that your edits all call for the (questionable) removal of sources which use the term (Both Brievik and Feldman use the term, also, this page is for the conspiracy theory usage).--124.170.170.79 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial removed the quote marks now. Because it is not a quotation from any of the citations, evidently. Tewdar (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, you seem to miss the point. If Smith refers to the "Thinkery", and Jones calls the Thinkery "a shower of bastards", we cannot therefore in Wikivoice state that Smith said that the "shower of bastards" in the Thinkery..." because that misrepresents what Smith says and is SYNTH. Do you understand? Tewdar (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what is "Thinkery"? Weird example. Are you talking about Matthew Feldman (an academic) reporting on the writings in the BUF (The British Union of Fascists)? Please stick to talking about edits to THIS particular Wikipedia article. Personally I'm not even sure why you're here. Your goal appears to be removing WP:Reliable sources as far as I can tell. You need to stick to the topic, the page at hand. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The phrase "Jewish" appears 11 times across the two Michael Minnicino articles given as sources. Michael Minnicino does indeed focus on the Jewishness of intellectuals he is claiming to be "part of the conspiracy" (going as far as having a section titled "The 'Jewish identity' project" in one source). So again, investigating your claims I'm left wondering - why are you here? Are you here trying to muddle sources? --124.170.170.79 (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't understand why attributing quotations to people who do not actually say what we claim they are saying is a problem. Newimpartial removed the quotation marks. Talk to Newimpartial. Tewdar (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't realise that the page is in a series on Antisemitism, and that putting "Jewish Intellectuals" doesn't necessarily mean we're quoting a text. It means, the text was antisemitic... which the page is part of a series on. Might want to think about the CONTEXT sometimes. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is a 'term', and not a "quotation", single quotes might be best. Newimpartial, OTOH, determined that no quotes at all was best. Talk to Newimpartial. They'll explain everything for you. Tewdar (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I'm saying that given the context, not even that was necessary. I would really like you to be clearer and more informed in your goals here. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * My goal is to make sure that we don't imply that people have said things that they didn't actually say. Perhaps Newimpartial should explain this to you. You don't seem to understand when I tell you. Ask Newimpartial. Maybe you'll listen to them. Tewdar (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm far more worried about The Frankfurt School themselves having been misrepresented by the Conspiracy Theory than I am about the representation of the antisemites and conspiracy theorists. So I guess that's where our goals and approaches may differ. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm worried about both of those things. But no matter how shitty someone is, implying that they said something they didn't is unencyclopedic. Tewdar (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)