Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 6

Verification tags
,, et al., could any of you help me verify the tags added by Emir of Wikipedia? Thank you. Davide King (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like drive by tagging by the user. I looked at the first one which asked for a quotation which isn't necessary and doesn't make sense. In the other cases, editors should add the necessary cites or raise the issue on the talk page. Give them some time to explain themselves or just remove them all. If the first objection made no sense, why should we spend time investigating the others? TFD (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree. I have done so and actually verified them. The only tag remaining is a better source needed for Kesvani, Hussein (March 27, 2019). "Opinion: 'cultural Marxism' is a far-right conspiracy in murky internet forums – so why is a Tory MP now using it?". The Independent. Retrieved October 6, 2020. This source is used to verify that "[d]uring the Brexit debate, a number of Conservatives and Brexiteers espoused the conspiracy theory." This is already supported by the other sources in the section anyway, so there is no need to tag it there too. And to verify that "Tim Montgomerie wrote about the conspiracy in "The 20th Century was Far from an Overwhelming Victory for the Right: Though Revolutionary Marxism Died, its Fellow Traveller, Cultural Marxism, Prospered" (2013) in The Times. Similarly, Toby Young asked the whereabouts of the theory in "Are the cultural Marxists in Retreat, or Lying Low?" (2015) in The Spectator. Writing for The Independent, Hussein Kesvani cited those as examples that the conspiracy theory entered mainstream discourse." It is properly attributed and it is more a matter of weight. Still, I think gave a valid rationale and that now it is not used to support a list of conspiracy promoters as it was before but the aferomentioned sentence.  Newimpartial stated that "all the citation is actually doing is pointing to two readily verified primary sources that document what the sentence is saying; I would make the argument that in such an instance it is more elegant to cite the analysis that lends weight to these sources rather than the primary sources themselves, but the statement they are supporting seems quite obviously to have been backed up by this evidence in toto. In general I think editors have a tendency to read op-ed sources without great consistency, regarding them as reliable when the editor agrees with statements in the op-ed and as unreliable when they disagree. In this instance Kesvani is pointing to clear evidence while lending it weight." Emir of Wikipedia tagged sources because they failed to mention Cultural Marxism, when in most cases they are used to verify quotes. In this case, Cultural Marxism is actually used in both primary and secondary given sources. Davide King (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not drive by tagging. I have made multiple edits to this article, and contributed to discussions as per above the above discussion. Also I am not sure why 3 other editors were tagged and not me, almost seems like someone just wants to remove them with any excuse and not chance for me to offer any explanatio needed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Emir of Wikipedia, make up your mind. First, you complain that we ping you too much and now that I have not pinged you. Since you complained about getting pinged and that you were editing the page, I simply assumed you would see this talk and there was no need to ping you; there was no grand plan from "someone" to "remove them with any excuse and not chance for me to offer any explanatio[n] needed." Anyway, you removed several sources such as you have done here with Copsey, Nigel; Richardson, John E., eds. (2015). "'Cultural-Marxism' and the British National Party: a transnational discourse". Cultures of Post-War British Fascism. ISBN 9781317539360. Archived from the original on September 29, 2020. Retrieved September 11, 2020 regarding Weiyrich.  You also removed this image which is relevant because Cultural Bolshevism is its forerunner and it is supported in the body. You again removed this source even though it does not disqualify that and it is more a matter of weight than better source needed; and Newimpartial gave a valid argument about it, but we can discuss it more. However, several of the edits you did were unjustified.  You even removed this when I literally provided the quote in my edit summary here. "Spencer, who co-edits Altright.com and Radix, promulgates stories such as 'Ghostbustersand the Suicide of Cultural Marxism' (Forney 2016), '#3 -Sweden: The World Capital of Cultural Marxism' (Right on Radio 2016), and 'Beta Leftists, Cultural Marxism and Self-Entitlement' (Follin 2015)." Davide King (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to start some sections below, but there was technical difficulties something might have got mixed out. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the Emir's "drive by tagging" can and should stop, this isn't the first time objections to this odd way of contributing has been brought up. I also think there's no malice evident, but it is disruptive - please stop with the wanton tagging, Emir of Wikipedia. Bacondrum (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , they have removed "Tim Montgomerie wrote about the conspiracy theory in 'The 20th Century was Far from an Overwhelming Victory for the Right: Though Revolutionary Marxism Died, its Fellow Traveller, Cultural Marxism, Prospered' (2013) in The Times. Similarly, Toby Young asked the whereabouts of the theory in 'Are the cultural Marxists in Retreat, or Lying Low?' (2015) in The Spectator. Writing for The Independent, Hussein Kesvani cited those as examples that the conspiracy theory entered mainstream discourse." I believe the issue was bigger when the same ref was used as part of the list, but I do not see the issue if it is worded like this and I agree with 's comment that "all the citation is actually doing is pointing to two readily verified primary sources that document what the sentence is saying" and that this avoids the issue of using this ref to verify them as part of a list, which I would agree it was more problematic to use. Davide King (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing Tim Montgomerie and Toby Young claims. Poorly cited IMO, but that's besides the point - they are undue, I can't see any reason to include them, unless we are attempting to complile a list of everyone who ever uttered the words. Bacondrum (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not an attempt to compile "a list of everyone who ever uttered the words" but that the conspiracy theory has been proposed or in some cases re-branded by political commentators in mainstream print press. Davide King (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not saying you are wrong, I just can't see how they are due, they are not significant players and their actions are not significant, as far as I can see. Bacondrum (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wish could weight in their thoughts too (as far as I can see, they have not replied back to some objections raised and I would be open-minded to see their response), but I can understand if they are undue. However, Toby Young has published at least three articles about it ("Are the cultural Marxists in retreat, or lying low?", "If I were a cultural Marxist, I might be thinking about giving up" and "The neo-Marxist takeover of our universities"), so he may not be an insignificant player; and while this is an opinion piece by The Guardian, it says: "Or consider the Times, supposedly a paper of record, which has published Tim Montgomerie bemoaning the prospering of 'cultural Marxism'. Or Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times, who believes young Britons are brainwashed by the 'delusions of cultural Marxism'. It’s not clear whether these people were aware of the phrase’s loaded nature – they surely should have been more careful – but many readers would certainly have heard a dog whistle. As Britain’s own counter-terrorism chief said last week, mainstream newspapers are helping to radicalise the far right with irresponsible reporting." This latter part is cited to a non-opinion piece by The Guardian entitled "Newspapers help to radicalise far right, says UK anti-terror chief". Davide King (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what I am being asked here - I stand by my previous comment, which is that while we can't use opinion pieces (for facts), we can certainly use them for commentary, and they can lend weight to observations that are documented in primary sources. The idea that we "can't use" opinion pieces is simply false - we just can't source facts to them. Newimpartial (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC), ''amended Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am moved by your comment. While I can understand why it is undue (that would be a better tag rather than better source needed), I believe you have point and I still lean for inclusion exactly for the reasons you outlined. I would argue the fact Toby Young has written at least three articles about Cultural Marxism means he is notable and not a non-significant player. Tim Montgomerie is also relevant because, as noted by The Guardian and other sources which "lend weight to observations that are documented in primary sources", The Times is one of the most mainstream newspapers in Britain. The propagation, or re-branding, of the conspiracy theory so that now is held also by more mainstream, or otherwise non-fringe, people, is supported by scholarly sources. Davide King (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I also have to disagree - I find Emir has generally removed poor references in my opinion (opinion pieces, a questionably OR picture) and certainly nothing disruptive here. The passages have also been brought to the talk page here for discussion, I think this is productive. Mvbaron (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the "drive by tagging" that is disruptive, objections to this behavior have been raised before, it should stop. Bacondrum (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The Times and The Spectator
So, User:Bacondrum, I do disagree with the removal of this material here, here and here. Your attempt to make the article "more discerning" actually makes it considerably more US-centric. The fact that major broadsheets in the UK have elaborated the CT within their national context is not "trivial", as you suggest in your edit summaries. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with on both comments. Just saying. Davide King (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Those claims are undue, IMO. A social commentator hardly anyone has ever heard of saying this "If I were a cultural Marxist, I would think about giving up" is trivia...I've certainly never heard of the fellow and its a throw away comment in an op ed - we can't list every comment by every opinions writer that mentions the conspiracy theory. We should focus on the most notable proponents, the most prominent proponents and the loudest proponents...those who really carry on about it. Also, the sourcing is poor or simply does not back the claim. The first claim about The Times is not backed by the source at all (I searched the entire paper, The Times does not receive a single mention), so that one must go, obviously. The second is a fleeting mention in a op-ed sourced to an opinions piece...not lede worthy, that's for sure - I'm up for discussing it in the body, though I think it's undue in the body too, even with better sourcing, it'd be undue IMO. With Tim Montgomerie the same applies, he's not a significant figure in the debate, its a throw away comment in a throw away opinions piece in a throw away paper, sourced from a much better paper, but its an opinions piece. You guys have always been fair and reasonable editors in my experience, I hope you can see my intent is purely about due weight and reliable sources. We simply can't make a list of every person who ever used the term.  Bacondrum (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

First we cannot use opinion pieces as reliable sources. The phrasing anyway is misleading. The Times does not promote conspiracy theories, like other mainstream publications, they publish a broad range of opinion pieces including those by right-wingers. We don't say that they promote socialism for example just because they also publish opinion pieces by socialists. It's also unfair to single out publications. TFD (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, spot on. Then there's also a question of undue weight. I agree, a paper publishing an editorial does not mean they are advocating the writers position. And none of this meets the standard for sourcing or due weight. Bacondrum (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, I hear you. I do not hold strong views on the matter either way, but I would like to hear back from from more input; if they have changed their mind, then there is no longer an issue or dispute. Perhaps it may be removed from the body, but the two individuals may be re-added. Or perhaps, if there are reliable sources discussing this, we may add a sentence discussing how some on the right have turn the cospiracy theory into the mainstream, at least on the right, and that it is no longer relageted to the far-right fringe; this does not imply that it is no longer far-right or antisemitic as the various IPs and users above argued, it just means that a far-right and antisemitic conspiracy theory has been mainstreamed by and on the right and is held by individuals that may not be personally far-right or antisemitic but that, whether they realise it or not, believe in the conspiracy theory. Davide King (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not here to collate some kind of black list of those who espouse the conspiracy theory, a great many people have espoused it. They must be due, those two and their comments are not even close to being due, IMO. Nor are we here to analyze the motivations of people who espouse the theory, we are here to write a nuetrally worded encyclopedic article on the subject. As for "Or perhaps, if there are reliable sources discussing this, we may add a sentence..." Editors should read reliable sources and let the reliable source lead what you write, editors shouldn't be coming up with a position then seeking out sources to affirm that position.  Bacondrum (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , where did I argue for a "black list" of those who espouse the conspiracy theory? We should only list those widely discussed in reliable sources and perhaps add move to the body the ones reported by green sources such as this case. Since you asked sources, we have "How the 'cultural Marxism' hoax began, and why it's spreading into the mainstream" by David Neiwert, author of Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump; and "'Cultural Marxism': The Mainstreaming of a Nazi Trope" by Ari Paul, who has covered politics for The Nation, The Guardian, Jacobin, The Forward and In These Times, among other news outlets; both of which are referenced by Joan Braune. We also have "Is 'cultural Marxism' really taking over universities? I crunched some numbers to find out", already in body, by Matthew Sharpe, Associate Professor in Philosophy at Deakin University, stating that "[t]he term 'cultural Marxism' moved into the media mainstream around 2016, when psychologist Jordan Peterson was protesting a Canadian bill prohibiting discrimination based on gender. Peterson blamed cultural Marxism for phenomena like the movement to respect gender-neutral pronouns which, in his view, undermines freedom of speech." Honestly, I have not been surprised at all by the IPs and other users' comments lamenting that "Cultural Marxism" is somehow not a far-right and antisemitic conspiracy theory as it has been disseminated by mainstream media. Those sources referenced by Baune try to explain this. I also think that both you and gave valid arguments and rationales, albeit arguing in opposite directions, so I hope they and other users can reply you back and we get more input for some consensus. Davide King (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi David sorry if I came across as accusing you of arguing for a "black list". It was more a general comment on listing people who have espoused the conspiracy theory, that we need to be discerning and only add really notable instances and promoters. I was really trying to say we are not here to list offenders or expose anyone. Bacondrum (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , cultural marxism moved into the media mainstream the same way that climate change denial did: through motivated reasoning by grifters. Being part of the mainstream doesn't stop it being bullshit. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hit the nail on the head. Spot on. I think the issue is that some people are rightly embarrassed to find out they have been regurgitating a Nazi era antisemitic conspiracy, so they get upset about it and make up excuses. Bacondrum (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * and, I do not know if you may have misunderstood what I said, or maybe I did not explain myself clearer, but that is my whole point. That several mainstream media, especially right-wing media, has moved the conspiracy theory in the mainstream (by mainstream, I do not mean at all that it is no longer an antisemitic, far-right conspiracy theory; I simply mean that is now no longer promoted by the far-right but by more mainstream right-wing media). I believe we should discuss this in the article and clarify exactly that "that some people are rightly embarrassed to find out they have been regurgitating a Nazi era antisemitic conspiracy, so they get upset about it and make up excuses", that "Being part of the mainstream doesn't stop it being bullshit." That "cultural marxism moved into the media mainstream the same way that climate change denial did: through motivated reasoning by grifters" should perhaps be mentioned, explaining that the rebranding did not make it any less far-right or antisemitic, that it is, precisely, still bullshit. As noted by  below, the conspiracy theory is also framed and rebranded as 'political correctness' (this rebrand does not make it any less far-right or antisemitic). The sources I gave above may not hold weight on themselves, but both were referenced by Braune, so I believe they can be used and properly attributed. Not only Ron Paul and Jordan Peterson rebranded the far-right, antisemitic theory, but in one of the sources I listed above it is stated even The New York Times and The Wahington Post are guilty of that, not for the rebranding, but for not explaining clearly that it is a far-right, antisemitic conspiracy theory and letting a few opinion pieces by people using the rebranding.  Some relevant quotes include how "columnist David Brooks (New York Times, 11/26/18) lamented that today's youths 'tend to have been influenced by the cultural Marxism that is now the lingua franca in the elite academy,' giving them a 'clash of oppressed and oppressor groups' worldview. Also in the Times, contributor Molly Worthen (4/20/19) quoted the phrase 'cultural Marxism'—not approvingly, but not explaining what it meant, either, just offering it as an example of what 'conservatives' were complaining about. A Times story in 2017 (8/11/17) about a former White House aide reported that the aide believed 'globalists' would 'impose cultural Marxism in the United States'—again, without defining for the layperson what that might mean. The Washington Post (like other newspapers) invoked the phrase in its reports on Bolsonaro’s rise to power last year, and even on the hipster styles of the new wave of American white nationalists: In November 2016, the Post (11/30/16) reported that the style of shaved sides with long hair combed back is 'worn by men who feel their whiteness has been infringed upon by the ‘cultural Marxism’ of the Americas.' And opinion-haver Andrew Sullivan took to New York (2/9/18) to denounce 'cultural Marxists' for inspiring social justice movements on campuses. [...]  Like others on the right, the National Review (8/9/18) saw proof of the plot in the Frankfurt School [...]. It's far from a cultural grappling with the Frankfurt School's actual ideas, which live mostly in academia. As Spencer Sunshine, an associate fellow at Political Research Associates, points out, the focus on the Frankfurt School by the right serves to highlight its inherent Jewishness. 'A piece stands in for the whole,' he said. This isn’t one of those 'yeah, it could be interpreted as antisemitic' things—it's straight from Nazi ideology, with just enough cosmetic changes to make it acceptable for the modern right. [...] What should be shocking is the cavalier way some traditional media, like the Times and the Post, are allowing it to live on their pages. Brooks rebrands cultural Marxism as mere political correctness, giving the Nazi-inspired phrase legitimacy for the American right. It is dropped in or quoted in other stories—some of them lighthearted, like the fashion cues of the alt-right—without describing how fringe this notion is. It's akin to letting conspiracy theories about chem trails or vaccines get unearned space in mainstream press. And it's not as if the Times doesn’t know this. In 2018, Columbia University historian Samuel Moyn wrote in a Times blog post (11/13/18) [referencing "The Alt-Right’s Favorite Meme Is 100 Years Old" article] [...]. It would be sensible, when the term is invoked by far-right extremists, to provide readers with a definition of the phrase and its origin. And unless it is invoked in a quote, writers like Brooks should be encouraged not to use it all. 'They should define it as an antisemitic conspiracy theory with no basis in fact,' Sunshine said of mainstream news editors. Failure to do that, as places like the Times and Post are guilty of, has bitter consequences. 'It is legitimizing the use of that framework, and therefore it’s coded antisemitism,' Sunshine said."  The other source I gave cites Fox News, Jordan Peterson, The Daily Caller, Pajamas Media, The Federalist and Spectator USA, among others, for moving the conspiracy theory in the mainstream, resulting in this 'political correctness' rebranding used as cover to hide what is essentially something "straight from Nazi ideology." Davide King (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style/Lists says they "should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose." In general I would avoid lists except when dealing with a short finite one, for example list of elements. Otherwise we get into issues of of who to include. If they're not mentioned in the text, then they're not important enough to add to the list.
 * Also, lists are supposed to be helpful as navigation tools. Someone might click on William S. Lind to find out more about the topic, since Lind was the creator of the theory. But not everyone who has ever used the term is significant to the topic. Nonetheless I think that the current list is informative. I just think that it would be better to incorporate it into the article.
 * Incidentally, I found an article, "Ron Paul Tweets Out Racist Message While Denigrating Marxism". In a tweet he asked if people knew what Cultural Marxism meant and included racist caricatures of a Jew, an Oriental, a brown skinned person and a black man. He later replaced the tweet where he replaced the symbols with political correctness. it might be a useful illustration.
 * TFD (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree that some of those in the list may well be incorporated in the article (hence why I opposed the removal of those in The Times and The Spectator promoting the conspiracy theory from the article; if not worthy for the list, they may be appropriate for the lead and attributed) while we list only the ones most significant and move to the body those that may still be worth mentioning. I knew about that tweet and I agree it is a useful illustration to make and point out, hence the whole point of my comment above. Davide King (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The first issue is sourcing, The Times was not mentioned at all in the source citing that claim, and The Spectator claim is from an opinion piece. Then there's due weight, using the term cultural Marxism is not in and of itself noteworthy, the use by whomever we are including needs to have recieved widespread coverage, it needs to be a notable event. For example, Fraser Anning made national headlines here in Australia for days, his promotion of the conspiracy theory received widespread coverage, that makes it due. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=fraser+anning+cultural+marxism Bacondrum (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you have a point. What do you think of "Cultural Marxism: far-right conspiracy theory in Australia’s culture wars" saying that "[t]hrough the lens of the Cultural Marxist conspiracy, however, it is possible to discern a relationship of empowerment between mainstream and fringe, whereby certain talking points and tropes are able to be transmitted, taken up and adapted by 'mainstream' figures, thus giving credence and visibility to ideologies that would have previously been constrained to the margins." We already state that "[t]he conspiracy theory of Marxist culture war is promoted by right-wing politicians, fundamentalist religious leaders, political commentators in mainstream print and television media and white supremacist terrorists." I believe we should clarify and expand a bit on the bolded part in body rather than in the list; I provided a few sources that discuss this, both of which are referenced by Braune. I also agree with your points below that it would be better to incorporate the list in the body and have a smaller list (I think the current one is mostly fine) with only the most 'famous' or noted proponents that are due, but do you also think that expanding a bit or clarifying on the bolded part is undue? Or am I missing something? Davide King (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that makes sense and works with those sources. Bacondrum (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion
Did this discussion ever reach a proper conclusion or is it outdated now anyways? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Ausstellung entartete kunst 1937.jpg
Should this page include the file file:Ausstellung entartete kunst 1937.jpg? with the captioning and sourcing below? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no issue in pointing this out or using this image. I believe sources show enough weight that this is relevant and that "the etymology of the term Cultural Marxism derived from the antisemitic term Kulturbolschewismus (Cultural Bolshevism)." Davide King (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think the picture is borderline OR and I dont' think it particularly helps the article, but I saw one source that made the connection at least indirectly... Mvbaron (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's borderline OR, although it makes sense on reading the sources. It's borderline. We could use an image to illustrate the Nazi connection that's less debatable? Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:German_antisemitic_and_anti-Soviet_poster.JPG or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wochenspruch_der_NSDAP_28_September_1941.jpg perhaps? Bacondrum (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The argument is made by Andrew Woods; I have corrected the photo caption accordingly. Newimpartial (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I prefer the current image; the link from the image to Cultural Bolshevism seems clear to me, and many, many sources have established that Cultural Marxism reflects the logic of Cultural Bolshevism. In addition, the fixation of the CM CT on high culture, often that produced by Jewish creatives (such as the obsession with Adorno) connects nicely with this image, while none of the alternative proposed images make this connection clear IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove This is a tenuous link at best and unpublished synthesis at worst. The first source does not even mention Cultural Marxism at all, as far as I can see. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Emir, your presupposition that all sources cited in the article need to mention "Cultural Marxism" in as many words has come to border on the ridiculous. The sources need to support the content included in the article, and that content itself needs to be a DUE representation of the subject. Your attempts to reduce this to a mechanical examination of "does this source place the word 'Cultural' before the word 'Marxism'?" are not a helpful contribution to these discussions, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not ridiculous, this is an encyclopedic article about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. If something is not about that it may have a place in this project, but we don't just randomly put it in to justify including a picture with a caption. I am not trying to reduce this to a mechanical examination of anything, but we need a starting point if some editors are treating this like an essay or an editorial. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is ridiculous. There is simply no article on WP for which the policy-compliant boundary for sourcing is set by a word search for terms from the title. For example, an article about a Notable book can provide (BLP-compliant) information about the author based on (appropriate) sourcing in which the book itself is not mentioned. This seems like so basic a point I should not have to make it here - if we have sources connecting the Cultural Marxism CT to the Cultural Bolshevism CT, then sources explaining the nature of the latter do not have to refer to "Cultural Marxism". Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If we have sources linking them, then use them instead of using another source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The linking sources are already there. But the additional source supports the caption with more detailed information. There simply is no policy-relevant ground to remove it. IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid argument, and neither is "it doesn't mention the article title". Newimpartial (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not case of I don't like it. Another editor has suggested alternatives that you do not like, so if anyone is using the IDONTLIKEIT argument it is you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I had understood your comment, The first source does not even mention Cultural Marxism at all, as far as I can see as an objection to the source based on "it doesn't mention the article title". Please let me know if I was mistaken. Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If a source does mention the article matter then we do not need to include it. This is meant to be an encyclopedic article, not link Cultural Marxism reflecting the logic of Cultural Bolshevism via a random image or whatever you are saying. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources trace the CM conspiracy theory back to "Cultural Bolshevism", not I. The source in question provides additional context for the picture in relation to so-called "Cultural Bolshevism". Newimpartial (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the sources trace it back to CB or do they provide "additional context"? Make up your mind. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources do the former, while the one you questioned does the latter. Newimpartial (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a source that does it all in relation to CM though? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That does what, exactly? Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Does any source, whether it in the article right now or not is irrelevant, say anything along the lines of The Cultural Marxism conspiracy recycles Joseph Goebbels opinions from the Degenerate Art Exhibition (July–November 1937) which the Nazis said proved that modern art was part of the cultural Bolshevism conspiracy meant to morally weaken German society i.e. what is in the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)



Civitas Institute speech and republication
Should this page include the Civitas Institute speech and republication with the sourcing below? No quote has been provided from the source "Red Pill, Blue Pill: How to Counteract the Conspiracy Theories That Are Killing Us". "Death of the Moral Majority?" does not even mention Cultural Marxism. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have clarified the primary source is for the speech; the secondary source, which is verified and again one does no need to provide always a quote (it just needs to be verified), is that he promoted the conspiracy theory. I see no reason to exclude this. Davide King (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Davide, this speech is mentioned in a lot of the cited material, Like Breivik's manifesto it seems to be one of the most widely discussed efforts to promote the CT. If there's an issue i's about selecting the best source/sources. Bacondrum (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That does not clarify how a source that does not even mention Cultural Marxism should be included. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cultural Marxism is in the primary source by Weyrich; I see the Moonves reference as adding weight to the Weyrich quote, and for that purpose I don't see why it has to use the term "Cultural Marxism"

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

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

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

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

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


 * Whoever I am replying to (not sure because it looks like they did not sign their comment). The source source mention "Cultural Marxism", because that is what this page is about, not random views of Paul Weyrich. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, each source for this article does not have to mention "Cultural Marxism, because that is what this page is about" - the sources need to be relevant to the statements made in the article, which in turn need to be DUE in relation to the topic (the Cultural Marxism conspiracy tehory). In the case of this passage, Weyrich does talk about "Cultural Marxism", and "Red Pill, Blue Pill" discusses Weyrich's debates with Lind as part of the origin of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. I see no policy-relevant argument against inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is about (or is meant to be about) Cultural Marxism. I am not saying that sources that do mention it are not reliable, but rather that this is not the place for them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That simply isn't how WP sourcing requirements work. For example, Right-wing terrorism cites this text by the Atlanta Olympic bomber, which does not use the word "terrorism" (or the term "right-wing"). That doesn't make the source any less relevant to the article. Newimpartial (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists is not a valid argument unless made on WP:Consensus grounds. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And where is the evidence of site-wide consensus behind "all sources must mention the article title"? Perhaps I missed it.Newimpartial (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

In a speech to the Conservative Leadership Conference of the Civitas Institute in 1998, Paul Weyrich presented his conspiracy theory equating Cultural Marxism to political correctness. He later republished the speech in his syndicated culture war letter.

Weyrich quote
Should this page include the below quote on Weyrich with the sourcing below? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see why not. We also do not need every ref to have a quote. The term Cultural Marxism is used in the book and Weiyrich is mentioned, so it is verified and I see no reason to remove this. You should assume more good faith that the user or users who added did verify it first. Davide King (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't see any issue really, there are a number of sources for this throughout the article. Bacondrum (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot see the term Cultural Marxism at all in the 3rd reference. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cultural Marxism is in the primary source by Weyrich; I see the third reference as adding weight to the Weyrich quote, and for that purpose I don't see why it has to use the term "Cultural Marxism". Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The source has to say Cultural Marxism as that is the subject of this article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Include - there is no rule that says The source has to say Cultural Marxism as that is the subject of this article - the sources have to be relevant and DUE for the text included in the article. In the case of Weyrich, he debated "Cultural Marxism" with Lind as part of the paleo-origins of the theory. The name of the conspiracy is in the Weyrich quotation, and the sources given in the article discuss Weyrich's role in the development of the conservative agenda as it produced the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. I see no policy-compliant reason for removal. Newimpartial (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Exclude - No reason to have it in. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Paul Weyrich promoted the conspiracy theory as a deliberate effort to undermine "our traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian culture" and the conservative agenda in American society, arguing that "we have lost the culture war" and that "a legitimate strategy for us to follow is to look at ways to separate ourselves from the institutions that have been captured by the ideology of Political Correctness, or by other enemies of our traditional culture."

Original Research / Telepathy?
The text "Peterson blamed the conspiracy for demanding the use of gender-neutral pronouns as a threat to free speech,[27] often misusing postmodernism as a stand in term for the conspiracy." This seems to rely on some sort of telepathy. How can the wiki editor know what Peterson meant when he discusses postmodernism? - Antiquark (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We write what the reliable sources tell us. The sources say he is misusing "postmodernism", so that's what the article says. We wiki editors tend to reserve our telepathic powers for when we interpret comments on Talk pages. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The actual wording of the source is given in the edit of 23:27 9 November 2020 Sweet6970 (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What are the wiki standards for youtube references? Some of the Peterson references in the page eventually point to the following three videos of Peterson talking, none of which refer to Cultural Marxism.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ - Peterson never mentions Cultural Marxism or Postmodern Neo-Marxism in this video, contrary to the title.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI - Peterson never mentions Postmodern Neo-Marxism or Cultural Marxism in this video.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofmuCXRMoSA - Peterson never mentions Cultural Marxism in this video.
 * Antiquark (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've altered the text to reflect that it is a single authors opinion, rather than anything Peterson has explicitly stated. Thank you for your help. -- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 15:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What are the wiki standards for youtube references? You can't use it. Youtube is unusable for anything, ever. User generates, no editorial over site what-so-ever. It's a cesspool. Bacondrum (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * here is the content you're asking about: WP:Youtube.121.45.240.191 (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't respond to rude editors. Don't be rude, personal attacks are prohibited here, insult me again and I'll take you to ANI. Bacondrum (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

National Review interview of Michael Walsh
Hi, there are some choice quotes by Michael Walsh, a conservative author of the book "The Devil’s Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West". The quotes can be sourced from this interview. I'm just not sure which ones to use (some demonstrate real WP:FRINGE thinking), or where to put them into the article. Does anyone have any suggestions? -- RecardedByzantian -- talk, contrib, sand. -- 15:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What are your suggestions? That article you linked to doesn't mention cultural Marxism. Can't discuss proposed additions if you don't put any forward. Bacondrum (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "'Critical Theory was the notion, promulgated by the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School, that simply states there is nothing — no custom, institution, or moral precept — that is beyond criticizing, and destroying.'" 121.45.240.191 (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since Michael Walsh isn't an expert there is no reason to quote him. TFD (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What is required to establish expertise? For example, why does Chip Berlet qualify but Michael Walsh does not?
 * In "Collectivists, Communists, Labor Bosses, and Treason: The Tea Parties as Right-Wing, Populist Counter-Subversion Panic'" (2012), the journalist Chip Berlet identified the culture war conspiracy theory as basic ideology of the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party. — Swood100 (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would like nothing better than to insert "Magic Helmet" theory into the present article. Deception is critical to the success of Satan’s war on God and on God’s creatures; thus most Leftist schemes come cloaked in false virtues, such as “tolerance.” These certainly are the tropes of the conspiracy theory (Schoenberg as a culture warrior - lol - so Judeo-Bolshevik). I'm just not sure exactly where they fit in. Newimpartial (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that a person who expresses a religious belief cannot have expertise in the nature of Critical Theory? Is it that since the expression by a person of his religious belief would not be appropriate for this article, no assertion by that person, even if on a secular subject and intended to be factual or historical, qualifies either? Religious people are disqualified as experts on any subject? Could you point me to the part of WP:RELIABLE that expounds on that?  Also, how is the expertise of Chip Berlet established?  — Swood100 (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that, no. However, I am unaware of any reliable sources that Critical Theorists are, in fact, participants in Satan's war on God - though I am aware of the Blood libel, which may be relevant here. Newimpartial (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that, no. However, I am unaware of any reliable sources that Critical Theorists are, in fact, participants in Satan's war on God
 * But nobody proposed Walsh as a reliable source to establish the truth of one of his religious beliefs. He was above suggested as a reliable source for this statement: "Critical Theory was the notion, promulgated by the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School, that simply states there is nothing — no custom, institution, or moral precept — that is beyond criticizing, and destroying."  proposed that since Walsh has no relevant expertise his quote cannot be used. I then asked how such expertise is demonstrated, and how we know that Berlet possesses it but Walsh does not.  You then raised a point about Walsh’s religious beliefs.  If you are not claiming that Walsh’s expression of his religious beliefs has some bearing on Walsh’s reliability or expertise with respect to the above statement, then why did you raise that issue?  — Swood100 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you may not have understood what I was saying. The statement I quoted from the interview is at least potentially relevant to this article, by illustrating the Culture war logic of the conspiracy theory, and would be reliable as a statement of Walsh's own beliefs about this - if they were DUE for inclusion as an illustration of the conspiracy theory.
 * On the other hand, the statement you are quoting is not presented as illustrating Walsh's (conspiratorial) beliefs but as a description of what Critical Theory is about. Even if a description of Critical Theory were in scope for this article (which seems unlikely to me), I am unaware of any publications that would make Walsh a reliable source about Critical Theory, or about Marxist cultural analysis, or about anything relevant to the topic of this article except, as noted above, for his personal beliefs that could illustrate the conspiracy theory. As far as I can tell, his published book simply elaborates his belief in the conspiracy theory in relation to his theistic (and apparently Manichaean) world view, and would be reliable within similar parameters to the interview. Have I now made myself understood? Newimpartial (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of any publications that would make Walsh a reliable source about Critical Theory
 * Well, he published a book in which he apparently provides some analysis of Critical Theory. What disqualifies him?
 * Tell me this: do you think that the purpose of Marxist cultural analysis has been to bring about massive and fundamental changes to western culture? — Swood100 (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If Walsh has any other publications or qualifications besides the Magic Helmet book that make him an expert in Critical theory, I would like to be told what those are. Otherwise, he is no more of an expert on that and relates topics than is Jordan Peterson - and it has been established on this Talk page that he is no expert. Newimpartial (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Berlet meets the standards of Self-published sources (online and paper) as an expert because his "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." However, we are not using a self-published work by or interview of Berlet, but an article he wrote for Critical Sociology, which is a peer-reviewed publication. In other words, experts have reviewed his article before publication. If Walsh or anyone else for that matter gets an article published in a peer-reviewed publication then we can use it as a source. TFD (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, but plenty of acceptable references come from sources that are not peer-reviewed. So we need a quote from Walsh’s book?  — Swood100 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok I'm confused. Why is someone trying to use quotes from a clearly WP:FRINGE individual who helped found a subsite of Breitbart News which is so completely unreliable it's on the spam blocklist? IHateAccounts (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The question really goes to how we know that Walsh lacks expertise or is WP:FRINGE. This has to be demonstrated through WP:RS right? — Swood100 (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody needs to demonstrate a negative, here. The onus is to establish expertise, and publishing a book of theology re-inscribed with the conspiracy theory narrative does the opposite of establishing expertise. Newimpartial (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are arguing with someone who thinks COVID-19 is a hoax. TFD (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


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


 * I think the sealioning around fringe claims here is drawing close to warranting an ANI report, it's wasting everyone's time and as such it is disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 04:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the quote should be included, and Walsh should be made to sit along site his coworker Andrew Brietbart, as they've both pushed the conspiracy (and both formed BigJournalism.com together. Bacondrum, you need to stop viewing every comment on the talk page as a personal attack you have to rally against. The inclusion of the Walsh quotes as coming from the Conspiracy Theorist camp is fine. 194.223.46.197 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I, for one, would like to see Satan properly credited for his/her role in the conspiracy. (Also, can I please have my Magic Helmet? Pretty please?) Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Frankfurt School a synonym for Cultural Marxism?
The sole Ben Shapiro reference in the article ultimately ends up at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Ngy2aU_QY

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

Article: Just Because Anti-Semites Talk About ‘Cultural Marxism’ Doesn’t Mean It Isn’t Real
Does this reference have a place in the main article? It seems to be from a reliable source. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/just-because-anti-semites-talk-about-cultural-marxism-doesnt-mean-it-isnt-real - Antiquark (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Zubatov has no relevant qualifications and is not a reliable source. This has been discussed at length previously; I believe it was at Talk:Frankfurt School. Newimpartial (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Really, this again? Bacondrum (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What Zubatov describes as "cultural marxism" seems to just be simply the actual ideas that stem from from the work done within the Frankfurt School such as critical theory, so what is the point of renaming things that have long and established histories in the research and literature to justify a term that is popularly, largely, and majoritively used by far-right individuals, groups, and conspiracy theorists as a spook? - Cdjp1 (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You appear to be arguing that because something was known as X once, it can never be known as Y in any legitimate sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.88.59.121 (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that. You need to provide reliable sources for any claim you make and the claim needs to be more than just a WP:FRINGE opinion, you need to demonstrate that the consensus among academics has changed, not just say "oh I think it means something different now". Bacondrum 00:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether or not if it's a consensus. It's a falsified, as the most prominent opponent of Cultural Marxism happens to be David Horowitz who is not only Jewish but a Zionist as well, and a prominent opponent of anti-Semitism. So if it is a consensus, it's a falsified consensus, and should therefore be falsified. Also as a rule of thumb it is best not to cite social scientists "consensuses" as the entire field has become overrun with leftist pseudoscience and does not reflect objective facts. When objective facts appear directly falsifying claims like this, such as is the case here, Wikipedia should side with the objective facts, rather than a pseudoscientific consensus that the facts falsify. jfraatz — Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think that the social sciences are leftist pseudoscience and should not be considered reliable, you need to get reliable sources policy to be changed in order to make an exception. Otherwise, we are obligated to considered them as reliable. TFD (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Scientific American should be reliable enough: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-social-science-politically-biased/ Jfraatz (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)jfraatz
 * A simple hallmark of pseudoscience is that it cannot be falsified (see Karl Popper). Social science's politically biased results have been falsified in many occasions (e.g., | enough to fill a handbook chapter), which is evidence that social science is not pseudoscience. But it does appear that the article is missing David Horowitz's views, so please add them to the promoter section, jfraatz. CriMen1 (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A simple hallmark of pseudoscience is that it cannot be falsified (see Karl Popper). Social science's politically biased results have been falsified in many occasions (e.g., | enough to fill a handbook chapter), which is evidence that social science is not pseudoscience. But it does appear that the article is missing David Horowitz's views, so please add them to the promoter section, jfraatz. CriMen1 (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

My edit summary
Of course it was supposed to refer to Jerome Jamin's views about Cultural Marxism. My apologies for the typos. Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a redlink. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That was part of my point. Not all of Jerome Jamin's views about Cultural Marxism are due for inclusion in this article, which is not that other (non-existent) one. Newimpartial (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds pointless then. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit summary in question related to the Talk page drama. You were lucky to miss it. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Owen Jones and Hussein Kesvani
Should we have the sources by these two in this article? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes - these sources express well-informed opinions, based on an appropriately careful analysis of evidence, and are published in impeccable RS outlets. We just have to observe RSOPINION in their use. Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We can use them per WP:RSOPINION, but should we? If it's true that Toby Young and Tim Montgomerie's usages were notable in terms of mainstreaming the topic, we ought to be able to find non-opinion sources stating that.  One thing I should point out, though, is that if we're going to remove those two we also have to remove the Toby Young / Tim Montgomerie bits, which are cited to it and which (while we could in theory find the primary sources) are probably not noteworthy without something establishing their significance.  That said, this paper (published here) might be a better source for Toby Young (pg 168), although it would require rewording what the article says a bit; it also lists a few other people of note who have promoted the term and who may be more important.  Regardless of whether we use it for this or not, it's worth reading the entire thing, at least from the "Cultural Marxist Conspiracism" subsection - it goes into depth on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (which they summarize as CMC for brevity) and has a lot of interesting stuff that we could maybe use to replace weaker sources or expand the article, unrelated to this particular dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My own view is that we should not think about removing this material unless we find something better to represent the UK, since removing it without replacement would leave the article unDUE-ly US-centric. Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the paper I linked above; it has an entire section that begins with In the following, we will apply these theoretical and conceptual insights to social policy mostly in the UK. In order to provide more evidence for the role of intellectuals and the CMC conspiracy, we provide specific examples of individuals’ public speech acts like publications or Twitter postings as well as reported statements and interviews that illustrate the prevalence of major elements of CMC among a well-educated and influential group of people (they use CMC as shorthand for "Cultural Marxist Conspiracism".) If the larger issue is covering the UK properly then there's a lot more we can draw on. More importantly, it actually links them together to perform some coherent interpretation and analysis, especially regarding the broad role CMC plays in the UK right, which is more useful than just listing people who have used the term. --Aquillion (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with this idea, but I'd like to see a concrete proposal in relation to the content of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My proposal is that we remove the sources from Owen Jones and Hussein Kesvani. I have no problem trying to include stuff from outside the US, but if the sourcing is just about the US then that is not a wrong we can right here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, Emir (and per the threading established by my indents), I don't disagree with the use of the sources Aquillion has proposed for the UK, rather than the Jones and Kesvani sources - depending on what the new text would actually be. I do disagree with removing the Jones and Kesvani material without replacement, and so far in this discussion nobody besides yourself has expressed support for your prior attempt to remove the material; Aquillion and I agree that the Jones and Kesvani sources meet RSOPINION for their current inclusion in the article. The question we have been discussing is whether it is the best material available for this aspect of the article, and I accept that other sources may be better. Newimpartial (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to clarify that as I said, while I think we can use them, I'm not sure we should, so I'd rather focus on coming up with something to replace them. Going by the source I posted, I'd replace this entire block of text:
 * Tim Montgomerie wrote about the conspiracy theory in "The 20th Century was Far from an Overwhelming Victory for the Right: Though Revolutionary Marxism Died, its Fellow Traveller, Cultural Marxism, Prospered" (2013) in The Times. Similarly, Toby Young asked the whereabouts of the theory in "Are the Cultural Marxists in Retreat, or Lying Low?" (2015) in The Spectator. Owen Jones and Hussein Kesvani, respectively writing for The Guardian and The Independent, cited those as examples that the conspiracy theory entered mainstream discourse
 * ...with something like:
 * In Alt-Right ‘cultural purity’ ideology and mainstream social policy discourse, Julia Lux and John David Jordan describe a process in which the conspiracy theory is spread and sanitized by public intellectuals who voice support for its key elements, which they break down into "misogynist anti-feminism, neo-eugenic science (broadly defined as various forms of genetic determinism), genetic and cultural white supremacy, McCarthyist anti-Leftism fixated on postmodernism, radical anti-intellectualism applied to the social sciences, and the idea that a purge is required to restore normality." In the UK, proponents of these elements they identify include Douglas Murray, Richard Dawkins, Steve Harris, Adam Perkins, and Toby Young.
 * This summarizes pg. 9-16. There are several other figures mentioned there we could include in addition to or instead of those.  I'd also prefer to avoid the massive quote for their list of elements, but it's hard to paraphrase because the precise wording is important. Truthfully we should probably look for more sources on that list and give it much more focus elsewhere in the article; it's waaay more important than the list of names at the end. Probably the list of names should also say which elements each figure mentioned focuses on (the paper goes into detail on that, although most focus on multiple elements.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that basic approach and much of the proposed text. Where I do *not* agree is that the elements of the conspiracy are waaay more important than the names mentioned. While I didn't like the early drafts of this article that presented CT "promoters" in list format, I think that if too few of the proponents are mentioned - and from the full relevant range of eras and national contexts - this article ceases to meet the needs of readers. A great account of the logic of the conspiracy that doesn't also give readers a sense of the range of venues and figures promoting the CT is on a trajectory to reader irrelevance, in my view. Newimpartial (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I endorse Aquillion's suggested changes, there's a fair bit of undue content included based on the reasoning that the article would otherwise be to US centric, I don't think that argument holds water. Bacondrum (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, we can go into more detail on the names if you want. I think this source is good enough to justify that and we can probably find more sources on some of them in any case; it does provide a bit of context on each of them to explain why they matter and how they fit into the larger ideological ecosystem surrounding the conspiracy theory. But I think that we have to do a better job explaining that ecosystem for that summary to make sense. --Aquillion (talk) 22:22, January 17, 2021‎