User talk:Tewdar/Archive Feb2023

Cultural Marxism references
As you may know I used to argue with the powers that be on the Cultural Marxism article. However, I concluded that no references will be good enough and so I dropped it. However, occasionally I take a look at the talk page, more for my own amusement than anything else, and to justify my decision to drop it. I recently saw the RfC by that contained a reference to your page listing references to cultural Marxism.

There are actually more sources than the ones you included. If you go to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ and search for “cultural marxism” within all libraries you will turn up a cornucopia of references, 1,523 to be exact, many of which are references to it as a legitimate term with a connection to the Frankfurt School. Perhaps this was the source that you used. My recommendation is that before another RfC is begun, https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ be thoroughly searched and all relevant references culled and included in the listing that you have begun. Perhaps this work could be split up among different people, e.g., each person taking 300. For example, there is Thesis on Cultural Marxism in Social Text, Spring - Summer, 1983, No. 7 (Spring - Summer, 1983), pp. 19-33, https://www.jstor.org/stable/466452, by John Brenkman, which says:
 * It is in this context that cultural Marxism undertakes its theoretical project: to revamp the social, psychoanalytic, and aesthetic elements of theory. These three theoretical fields do not come ready-made in the form of partial inquires that need only to be combined. Nor does cultural Marxism embrace the intellectual ideal of some unified set of concepts that would subsume these distinct inquiries and their objects.

Then there is the review of Dworkin’s Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain by Mark Gibson in the International Journal of Cultural Studies · April 1999:
 * Dworkin does not offer quite so many surprises. His history of ‘cultural Marxism’ is a critical history, but the material he deals with is better known and his assessments of positions are more predictable in following those which have been widely accepted elsewhere. There is, however, a significance which should not be missed in the fact that Dworkin writes as a historian.

There are also many references available on Google Scholar, such as a review of Dworkin’s Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain, by Dan Schiller in Left History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Historical Inquiry and Debate 6.2 (1999), https://lh.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/lh/article/download/5405/4600, which says:
 * To comprehend the significance of an evolving "cultural Marxism" requires examination of two intertwined issues: The history and current character of Marxism's intellectual engagement with cultural theory, and the changing status of "cultural" practice within the capitalist political economy. ...Cultural Marxism created itself by fighting to reorient a Marxist orthodoxy that, it charged, relied on selective and reified designations of base and superstructure, and equally reified notions of economic determination.

The above is just the tip of the iceberg. Best regards.— Swood100 (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links. Sennalen (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Reliable source: [Western Marxism] also started to focus more on cultural rather than economic problems and it is for this reason also known as "cultural Marxism"


 * Unreliable source: "Cultural Marxism" cannot possibly be a synonym for "Western Marxism"


 * The second option will win every time here. I believe my mental health will suffer if I continue to participate in these discussions.  Tewdar   04:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you, Swood100. Interesting as your handful of sources might me, I'm not sure any of them will be as entertaining as the discussion on your Talk, where you seemed just unable to hear what I saying about your misreading of your sources.
 * Happy editing! Newimpartial (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

IE
I hate Google. They have it even when we can't get it yet from CUP ☹ Austronesier (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm having an anthropomorphic stele like the one on the front cover put on top of my pit-grave, unless my loved-ones decide to spend the money on something less extravagant. I expect it'll be 3 inches high and made of Fimo.  Tewdar   20:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm looking forward to the embargo on this ending, too.  Tewdar   20:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you tried WP:RX for the thesis? Austronesier (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I only just found out about RX from you just then 😁. Maybe I'll give it a try if you think it's worth a shot.  Tewdar   22:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * RX is always worth a shot. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

30 page watchers?
That's probably the total number of people I've ever interacted with here. Must be an exciting talk page! 😁  Tewdar   14:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This fact must be userboxified, together with ranking 7398th⇗ among the most prolific editors. –Austronesier (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know any user boxes that do that, apart from the centijimbos. Most of my edits were probably correcting my own spelling errors and marjup to be honest. It's nice to see yoy here, what have you been up to lately? 😊  Tewdar   22:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Brittonic language in Galicia
Hello Tewdar. I would like to know your sources about any remnant of a Brittonic language in Galicia because there are not and the only bishop having a Celtic name is Mailloc. Regards. Nortmannus (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * For a start, your addition is quite the COATRACK, having marginal relevance to the article. The cited source in the Britonia article, Young, Simon (2001). "Note on Britones in Thirteenth-century Galicia". Studia Celtica. XXXV, states that there is the meanest proof of its existence, a handful of short notices and a single place name: Bretoña (in the Galician province of Lugo)...At least two other place names seem to recall the colony: Bretonia, a hamlet, also in the province of Lugo; and Bretoña, a hamlet in the parish of Currio in the Galician province of Ponte Vedra, and also cites a 1233 charter from Lugo which states that the word britones found therein is likely connected to the ancient British colony. So there is evidence, but not much. Again, putting this debate on a map of the consensus view of Brittonic 6th century settlements is not a good idea...  Tewdar   11:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Take this to the article talk page instead of reverting, please.  Tewdar   11:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Bigger person
If Newimpartial can't bring themselves to regulate their interactions with you, I suggest you just stop interacting back. Won't help you when people don't understand your sense of humor when you try to deescalate situations w/ them. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 21:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * But that wasn't their fault! It was me who brought up Crossroads, and SandyFeorgias reaction really took me by surprise. I had no idea that my patgetic joje would be interpreted as some sort of personal attack, and I haven't the goofggiest clue what all that talk about 'baiting' and 'partisqn* was about. I really don't wany to twlk about this anymore, and I won't make any more atremptes at humour here ever againx see if that helps solve chroniv behavioural problems that existed years before I got here  Tewdar   21:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is Ixtal - and Tewdar can speak for himself - but I think the two of us do understand each other well, and kind of like each other, even though we so often disagree. The problem that arises a bit like public BDSM - it looks non-consensual and can freak out spectators even when it is fully consensual. Which is why people basically don't do public BDSM - and Wikipedia is essentially a fishbowl, as I never cease to forget. Newimpartial (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I hesitatingly agree with this analysis and dubious analogy.  Tewdar   22:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Dubious analogies R us. Newimpartial (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

All ok?
This edit seems to have been posted by you and an unsigned2 notice has been placed. Did you mean to submit this edit, or was this a mistake that should be deleted? — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 22:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * No it must have been a mistake, thanks.😁👍  Tewdar   22:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Just wanted to check. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 23:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)