Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

Oh the irony :o

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory->(Redirected from Cultural marxism), which has been sent down the memory hole :o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.112.204 (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Separate article for cultural Marxism

As the FAQ notes, this article only covers the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory dating to the 1990s:

Q3: Dworkin (1997) has the term in the title of his book, so the field clearly must exist.

A3: Not if he's the first one to talk about it. Dworkin said (on page 3) that "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline". If he's the first, then either it's not a preexisting field, or no one has discovered or named it before him. Either way, that would be a different topic; this article is about the conspiracy theory dating to the 1990s.

My question is, does the more general concept of cultural Marxism meet the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY to have its own article? It would appear so, as there are quite a few reliable sources that discuss the general concept (without the conspiracy theories):

• Dworkin's Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain
• Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology by Richard Weiner
• Trent Schroyer's use of the term in his The Critique of Domination
• Davies, I. "British cultural Marxism". Int J Polit Cult Soc (1991)[1]
• Oittinen's discussion of the term in The Encyclopedia of Political Thought (2014)
• Jamin, J. "Cultural Marxism: A survey". Religion Compass (2018)[2]

This article[3] in Tablet magazine also speaks directly to the fact that cultural Marxism is a notable concept beyond just the conspiracy theory.

I understand that there used to be a standalone article for cultural Marxism that was deleted at some point, but I'm not sure why. Was it due to a perceived lack of notability, or some other reason? Does someone have the link to that discussion? Stonkaments (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there are only two topics and hence no need for a third article. Marxist cultural analysis covers all the real Marxist stuff and this article covers all the conspiracy stuff. I don't think there is anything else. I'll wager that everything on that list refers to one or the other.

The conspiracy theory use of the term may date to the 1990s but it is not limited to that time period. In fact it only exploded in popularity well afterwards and continues to this day. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cultural_Marxism_(2nd_nomination)

Google books says this of Richard Weiner's Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology (as per its blurb):

A thorough examination and analysis of the tensions between political sociology and the culturally oriented Marxism that emerged in the 60s and 70s is presented in this volume. In order to create a strikingly original synthesis, Weiner considers the work of theorists as diverse as Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Alain Touraine, Anthony Giddens and Alvin Gouldner, many of whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement.

Due to that it can't be considered a rigorous source, it seems to be discussing a "culturally oriented Marxism" (as a general concept) rather than a solid definition of a unified group/movement going under the name "Cultural Marxism" (note the capitalization, indicating a proper noun).

Trent Schroyer uses lower case "cultural Marxism" also indicating he's talking about a more general concept, and not a set or well defined idea... this seems to be the case for Davies, and Oittinen too.

The Jamin source (perhaps because it's the most recent, and so more familiar with the conspiracy theory usage) actually makes Wikipedia's position a bit clearer, the term is used for both a Conspiracy Theory, as well as a type of analysis associated with a specific set of thinkers (The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School aka British Cultural Marxism, and E.P Thompson). This page is for the conspiracy theory. For other usages, you should check out Marxist cultural analysis (as the other responder suggests).

As a final point, Tablet Magazine wouldn't be a suitable source for this topic, as it's a conservative magazine. It's also been suggested that they're fairly friendly to the Alt-right who are affiliated with the conspiracy theory, search the talk page archives for the authors surname "Zubatov" for further details. 117.102.135.76 (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

All those sources, except Jamin's 2018 article, were mentioned in a Wikipedia editor's 2015 article defending the existence of cultural Marxism as a topic.[4]

None of the original sources define the term and there is no evidence they mean the same thing. Only three of them are writing about the topic in general, rather than cultural Marxism in the UK. They also seem to be using the term interchangeably with cultural analysis.

Notice also that the first use of the term was in 1973, long after the school's heyday. None of the main characters, or their critics, used the term or were even aware of it.

In order to write an article, you would have to begin by saying what the topic was. But there are not sources for this. TFD (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• There is also David Auerbach's 2014 Slate article found in the Press section of this talk page that illuminates the issue. link 87.116.178.252 (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It only uses the term in passing, without enough context to determine whether the author is bemoaning the loss of a page on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (but believes some aspects of the theory have merit to it and therefore shouldn't be described as one), bemoaning the loss of what is now our page on Marxist cultural analysis, bemoaning the fact that we now have only one page on Critical theory, or bemoaning the loss of a page on some third thing. Realistically everything of value on that page was distributed over those three. --Aquillion (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

To quote from the Slate article:

Recently, an adequate and fairly neutral page on “Cultural Marxism,” which traced the history of Marxist critical theory from Lukács to Adorno to Jameson, simply disappeared thanks to the efforts of a single editor. Rather than folding it into the narrower but deeper “Critical theory” page, the editor replaced the page with one on the “Frankfurt school conspiracy theory,” which obsessively and somewhat offensively dwells on the Jewish presence in these schools of thought and the right-wing and borderline anti-Semitic conspiracy theories around them. (The reason the editor dwelled on these irrelevant conspiracy theories instead of the thinkers themselves is unknown, but the changes are certainly troubling.) After bewildered complaints, Wales restored the original page and asked for an extra week’s debate on the sudden and drastic shift, sparking outrage from a cabal of editors who favored the change. Whether the change will win out will be determined less by truth and more by the stubbornness and comparative popularity of the editors and the administrators backing them.

87.116.178.252 (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but note that not only does that quote contradict what happened (there were extended discussions on the initial deletion; no single editor could do such a thing), it also contradicts itself. In that paragraph alone, they state that the page simply disappeared thanks to the efforts of a single editor, yet a few sentences later Wales' decision to unilaterally restore it sparked outrage from a cabal of editors who favored the change - so apparently even the author realized it wasn't just one editor? In any case, it reads to me like an opinion piece; and given that it's by a non-expert it's not useful for much. My advice is to read better sources. --Aquillion (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Something deeply ironic about David Auerbach suggesting there's a conspiracy theory to take over Wikipedia headed by a lone editor backed by administrators. That's just more conspiracy mongering. In actual fact you can find the talk page of the deletion discussion quite easily - and you can review the accounts of the administrators who closed the discussion - and check whether they were impartial as per WP:UNINVOLVED and WP:COI. Wikipedia has these policies to ensure there's not collusion or a conspiracy. Wikipedia also operates on facts, and requires people to do proper research - it doesn't operate on opinions, hearsay, and conspiracy theories. David Auerbach should put some research in if he wants to prove there's a conspiracy going on here. 117.102.157.210 (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Auerbach has a BA in computer science and is not an expert. The problem remains that the few sources that the conspiracy theorists were able to find are insufficient to establish it is a notable topic. TFD (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Slate is generally regarded as RS, but setting that aside, I hope you’re not implying that anyone supporting the CM disambiguation is a conspiracy theorist. 87.116.178.252 (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Slate might be generally regarded as RS, but Auerbach has a personal involvement with Wikipedia (stemming from his involvement in GamerGate) and ought not to be used as a source on anything Wikipedia-related. MrOllie (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Sort of? The 2014 dispute you're talking about (when an article that functionally endorsed the conspiracy theory was deleted and eventually replaced with this one) was related to Gamergate (harassment campaign); modern sources are extremely clear that the use of "cultural marxism" in that context was part of the conspiracy theory described on this page - see the relevant section here and its sources. That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who got caught up in some part of that campaign saw the whole thing, or endorsed the entire conspiracy theory with all of its twists and turns, or were even fully aware that they were being fed a conspiracy theory; but the sources in the article are clear that the term, as it was used in the context of that campaign, was used to invoke the conspiracy theory in order to try and recruit people deeper into the radical movements that believe in it. So if your position is "hey I heard a bunch of stuff about Cultural Marxism in 2014, why isn't there an article about that, why is there this article about a conspiracy theory instead?", the answer is that this article is the article about what people were telling you back then. --Aquillion (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a source that Slate is generally reliable. It isn't listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Similar publications listed are reliable "for news."

Please see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The nature of the publication determines whether it is reliable for specific claims.

Imagine you were writing a chapter about a philosophical school for an encyclopedia. Are you going to consult books and articles written by experts with PhDs and university professorships and published by academic publishers, or are you going to base it on a computer scientist writing in a magazine?

Similarly, would you base an article about nuclear physics on something written by someone with a BA in hotel management? Or would you decide on what medical treatment you needed based on an article by someone with a BA in architecture? TFD (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• In 2014, the AfD deleted the page "Cultural Marxism" and redirected it to...? The article "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" was created in 2017, while this Talk page was created in 2020. Could someone clarify the gaps between these events? This talk page is generating significant engagement, and I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation for both gaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.178.252 (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hey, I suspect you're new to Wikipedia, so: Welcome to Wikipedia! I believe this is what you're looking for: [5] - you can click the history button and see the history of the page (eg. where it's been redirected to) since the closing admin of the AfD wiped it. Looks like the first place it redirected to was Frankfurt School#conspiracy theory

  If I recall correctly, it was eventually decided that the conspiracy theory section of that page, didn't really relate to what The Frankfurt School actually said, or did, or was about in any way (it was also getting too expansive). The conspiracy theory proposes that they took over the media, culture and society, to control it as political propaganda... but in actual fact they were vehemently against propaganda, and believed that cultures should be localized, and have lots of different humanistic voices, perspectives, debates, poetry, and art (even Avant-garde art that's clearly not going to be popular with everyone, which was a theme of Adorno's music - his point was that it didn't have to be commercially viable to be valuable or meaningful to the artist/human experience).

  Likewise, Marcuse's theory of the One Dimensional Man is that making culture into a profit driven, or political apparatus, inevitably led to a mechanical system of Capitalist hegemony that was impossible to escape - because all attempts at escaping would be folded back in if/when they become popular enough (this is perhaps evidence in the fact that all Youtube videos ultimately contribute to Google's profits, same for other social media cites, we can't help but feed them in click/view profits so the mechanical reproduction of culture on an industrial level serves the Capitalist system in total). So there was really not much of a path for value systems to escape that.

  Perhaps tangentially, the conspiracy theory doesn't just get those facts/viewpoints wrong, but it also doesn't mention other schools of Marxist cultural analysis that have been discussed as "cultural" forms of Marxism - such as those of The Birmingham School, or Labor theorist E.P. Thompson. For instance, where the conspiracy theory claims The Frankfurt School totally dominates society, The Birmingham School theorists had a much more hopeful idea that modern viewers (circa, 1973) could encode and decode the meanings within mass media, to produce new versions and understandings of the messages within it. They could modify, subvert, make fun of, respond to it (again, you probably recognize this on Youtube).

  Finally there's E.P. Thompson, and his work in Labor history and books like The Making of the English Working Class where his practice of a Marxist approach to culture is involved with tracking down historical records of a hidden history, a hidden social consciousness that is outside of popular culture and exists in a more traditional mode, discussions in pubs, in union meetings, in human interactions, in certain families, in cultures which aren't commercial - but still worth documenting.

  All of which stems from Gramsci - who is complicated and expansive, but was vitally saying; we need a working class hegemony, a place to preserve and hold our human values in the face of a culture which is manufactured and pushed and propagandized. In his era, this was a reference to Fascist propaganda (keep in mind, he was writing from prison, put there by Italian fascists). Lots of these authors are responding to fascism... where as the conspiracy theory selects out just The Frankfurt School, and claims they were the fascists, and that they're the ones trying to construct an authoritarian mono-culture. To anyone whose actually familiar with what The Frankfurt School actually wrote, said, did, this makes absolutely no sense - and is in many ways the opposite of them. They were trying to preserve and provide their ideas on a more humanist and varied type of culture, where a hegemony (and its causes) could be pointed out, and voices of criticism could be heard. This is why they were against fascism, because it silences people. So the one voice they thought should be stopped, was the fascist voice - this is because they'd experienced fascism first hand in Germany and Italy.

  Anyways, hopefully that redirect link will help you investigate whatever it is you're trying to find out further. 117.102.157.210 (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  The AfD references two previous RfCs, but I can't find them since "Talk:Cultural Marxism" prior to 2014 is inaccessible. To make matters worse, the Internet Archive is also down today. Perhaps history doesn't matter after all.😒 87.116.178.252 (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  An RfC is just a "Request for Comment" and is usually just one editor asking the opinions of other editors to get a consensus on a change to be made to an article. That's not likely to be a deletion discussion, just a change someone is uncertain about. There is apparently 2 AfDs (article for deletion discussions) for this page - but the first one was a clerical error. An editor accidentally nominated the talk page to be deleted, rather than the actual article. That discussion (which is very short as it was a misfiling) can be reviewed here: [6]. 101.115.139.171 (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  I couldn't find these references in the AfD.[7] In any case, it has little relevance to re-creating an article about cultural Marxism. You need to show that sufficient sources exist.

  Also, how is cutural Marxism different from Marxist cultural analysis? TFD (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  There was originally a ‘Cultural Marxism’ page with a section for the ‘CM conspiracy theory.’ Due to disagreements, this page was formed, and I guess at some point the cultural marxism page itself was moved/deleted. 2601:547:B00:483D:9463:B657:DCFC:9665 (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to have a separate article for cultural Marxism Steven1991 (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You're looking for Marxist cultural analysis, there's a hatnote about it atbthe top of the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Rather than a separate article, should we make a disambiguation page for cultural Marxism? Both pages have significant usage and long-term significance, so I don't think there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for cultural Marxism, and therefore it seems the base page should be the disambiguation page. Stonkaments (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The pageview stats are clear, this is the primary topic. - MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the primary topic because there is no disambiguation and because the original cultural marxism page has since been deleted. Suggestions for a disambiguation page date back at least to November 2023.

There should be a disambiguation page now if the academy is increasingly using the term Western Marxism in the way Dworkin was using the term Cultural Marxism. I am a Leaf (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

"There should be a disambiguation page now if the academy is increasingly using the term Western Marxism in the way Dworkin was using the term Cultural Marxism." - it's not and never was. Western Marxism is a broader term including a myriad of Marxists that fall out of the common or most prevalent usage of cultural Marxism, its self a niche term in Academia (which refers to The Frankfurt School, Birmingham School, and occasionally E.P. Thompson). Western Marxism covers a lot more that's out side of that.

Also, I don't know why you'd choose one source as the be all and end all for defining the term - especially seeing as your chosen sources is focusing on BRITISH cultural Marxism alone. So that's a sub category of a sub category (and is already covered on the Marxist cultural analysis page, as both The Birmingham School and E.P. Thompson were British, and that's the reason they're repeatedly referenced in Dworkin). So if you're going to claim things like that all Western Marxism is now Cultural Marxism - you really need more than one niche book... and that book its self states that it's the first attempt at manufacturing an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism anyways (see the FAQ at the top of the talk page). 101.115.143.188 (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that there's only two pages to disambig, and that they're related in an abstract sense - the current hatnote on the article is probably enough. It directs users to Marxist cultural analysis if that's what people were looking for, and likewise that page has a section on the conspiracy theory, if that should be their interest. Wikipedia is doing a good job of respecting both viewpoints, and keeping them separate due to their opposing content. Obviously (and as mentioned in my longer comment above) these two pages are saying opposite things, with only one being rational, and as a consequence, truer to what the Marxist cultural theorists accused of being part of the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy were actually on about (again this is further discussed in my long comment above this one). 101.115.139.171 (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the primary topic, and it includes a hatnote to Marxist cultural analysis if that is what readers are looking for. It's just unfortunate that most readers will have heard of the term in relation to the conspiracy theory rather than the fairly boring real nature of cultural analysis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

History of "Cultural Marxism" Article/Redirect/DAB

Since this topic emerged in our previous discussion, and given that some relevant pages on Wikipedia have been purged, I consulted the Internet Archive to recover missing information. Here are my findings, which may be pertinent to current and future discussions:-

• Cultural Marxism was originally a Wikipedia article, with the earliest snapshot available from 2006. [8]

• From September to December 2014, the article underwent rapid changes, shifting its focus. Notable snapshots include August 2014 and December 2014.

• On 29 October 2014, there was a brief discussion about whether to delete or merge the article with the "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" article. No conclusion was reached. [9]

• Between 5-22 December 2014, an extensive debate regarding merging the article with "Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory" took place, with Jimbo Wales actively participating. Ultimately, two uninvolved administrators determined there was no consensus to merge. [10]

• From 22-29 December 2014, after a contested AfD, three uninvolved administrators sided with the delete-and-redirect proponents, concluding that "Frankfurt School" or "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" would be the most suitable targets for redirection.

• Shortly thereafter, a redirect was established from Cultural Marxism to Frankfurt School#Conspiracy theory. [11] Both the old article and its talk page were purged (essentially, both pages were deleted and recreated, which accounts for the lack of complete history for these pages). [12] [13]

• The Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article, which existed from May 2013 to December 2014, was also folded into the Frankfurt School at this time. Its prior history and talk remain available.

• From 7 May to 17 August 2019, a Request for Comment (RfC) regarding the splitting of the content from "Frankfurt School#Conspiracy theory" section resulted in no consensus. View discussion.

• Between 12 August and 11 September 2020, a similar RfC proposal was debated and deemed to have a clear consensus by the closing admin, the same one who closed the AfD in 2014. View discussion.

• On 11 September 2020, the conspiracy theory content was moved from "Frankfurt School" to a new article titled "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory." The redirect from "Cultural Marxism" was updated to point to this new article, where it remains today. [14]

• On 28 September 2020, the article "Marxist cultural analysis" was created. [15]

• Regarding the creation of a "Cultural Marxism" disambiguation page, my search did not uncover any RfCs, though I did find two unclosed discussions from 2021 and 2022. [16] [17]

Is this historical information useful? Should any of it be added to the FAQ? 87.116.182.140 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"... given that some relevant pages on Wikipedia have been purged, I consulted the Internet Archive to recover missing information." If you didn't know that all these discussions are archived on Wikipedia and are easily navigatable with the links at the top of this page, then there's nothing more for anyone to say other than good effort and I'm sorry you wasted your time? Archiving old and closed discussions is routine on most talk pages when the total amount of text on a talk page gets too big. Do you really think there's some nefarious "purging" going on or are you playing innocent with the old "I'm just asking questions, definitely not implying anything here." Yue🌙 21:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Not strictly true. During the closing of the AfD, Admins decided to WP:SALT the old history of the page because it contained questionable conspiracy theory content being passed off as fact. This was done to prevent any misinformation propagating from Wikipedia or being reused. The history for the page is probably still out there, but I think only the Admins of Wikipedia would have it (and I'm not even sure if they keep it). There are probably versions of archive sites though. 101.115.130.228 (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

«During the closing of the AfD, Admins decided to WP:SALT the old history of the page because it contained questionable conspiracy theory content being passed off as fact» => This sentence make no sense. WP:SALT is not about purging history of a page but about «prevent the creation of pages. This type of protection is useful for pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated.» Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The process of purging was disorganized. I didn’t go into details because it is a tangential issue. Here are some pertinent pages and discussions, in case you’re interested: [18] [19][20] 87.116.182.140 (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

A major thing I think you're missing out on - is the fact that BEFORE concerned Wikipedians started to look into the page in late 2014... say even immediately before that (before the graph on the webarchives starts to go up) - say the September 2014 version and everything before then... the page only had 9 sources. Of those 9 sources, only two authors actually used the term (Douglas Kellner, and William S. Lind). Their takes on the term are WILDLY OPPOSING.

Kellner says "Hey, some Marxists have commented on culture, this might be a kind of cultural Marxism, but it's not a set school, or movement, or ideology, I'm just going to write about which Marxists have been cultural or dealt with culture in their writing... and they all seem to believe there's a Capitalist hegemony in the west." that's Kellner.

William S. Lind says "Cultural Marxists" (he capitalizes both words, indicating he's formed a proper noun, or label identifying a concrete movement/group/ideology) - "Cultural Marxists are behind every Ivy League school, which are becoming more and more like North Korea! Cultural Marxists put gay people on Television! [21] Cultural Marxism is political correctness, and gives you intellectual AIDS [22]. Cultural Marxism was created by The Frankfurt School who didn't serve in world war 2, but instead worked in Hollywood! Karl Marx is behind modern progressive liberalism! They're also all Jewish!" - that's William S. Lind... and he'll go so far as to do this at Holocaust denial conferences.

Later versions of the article have more sources that perhaps touch on the term, but they're from both of these conflicting camps. So Wikipedia didn't do anything in this debate, it merely observed (quite rightly) that these two camps existed, and were saying UTTERLY DIFFERENT things. Wikipedia doesn't like having pages where only 2 sources are actually relevant, and one of those sources - is kind of a conspiracy nut. We don't like to use conspiracy theories, as if they're WP:RS reliable sources. So Wikipedia now has two different pages, one for the kind of paleoconservative Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory that Lind largely is responsible for having started, the other for the type of Marxist cultural analysis that Douglas Kellner was writing about. That's what happened here, it just took a long time. The various moments of bureaucracy you've catalogued were part of Wikipedia's process in making sure we were respecting the sources, and their subject matter.

Because The Frankfurt School are the actual subject matter for the conspiracy theory. People like William S. Lind can say things about The Frankfurt School - but if those things aren't true, if they're verifiably false (for instance, the Frankfurt School never "worked in Hollywood" as in the movie industry, as Lind suggests. They had no part in putting gay people on Television as Lind suggests, they're not even all Jewish as Lind suggests - Habermas was not from a Jewish background, most of them weren't practicing Jews). So I believe ultimately Wikipedia did its best to situate and differentiate between the conspiracy theory version of "the facts".... and the actual facts. That's what's happened here. That's why I can point to these two drastically different sources on the 2014 version, because it's the facts of the matter. It's how things went down, and where they'll likely stay. 101.115.130.228 (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

«some relevant pages on Wikipedia have been purged» => I don't think so. What are you alluding to and can you show evidences? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

«Is this historical information useful?» => It is misleading as long as you do not mention the history of Frankfurt School conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out! I wasn’t aware that the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory was an article before it became a redirect. I’ve updated the timeline to include that information. [23] 87.116.182.140 (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect is no longer to an appropriate location.

Due to changes to the Marxist cultural analysis page, it's no longer an appropriate redirect. That page (it has been determined by two editors who are claiming consensus), is now just for the general discussion of all things cultural by any Marxist theorists, so will no longer be specific to The Frankfurt School. I'm suggesting the hatnote at the top of THIS ARTICLE, now direct users to the The Frankfurt School article, rather than the page for Marxist cultural analysis (which is now essentially set up to become a duplicate (or even broader form) of the Western Marxism page). 101.115.145.140 (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't see any such consensus on that talk page, and given that it's such a controversial topic a consensus of just two editors doesn't seem appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I would also point out that the conspiracy theory and those who believe it have no idea what cultural analysis or the Frankfurt school really is. The conspiracy theory is about made up nonsense, so point towards Marxist cultural analysis is the most appropriate target. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This IP comment seems to me to make at least two problematic assumptions: (1) that the scope of the Marxist cultural analysis article is wider than the relevant scholarship supports, such that it is too vague to be a useful disambiguation from this page; and (2) that the disambiguation for this page "ought to be" to the Frankfurt School, as though the CM conspiracy theorists are "really talking about" the Frankfurt School when they invoke the Cultural Marxism trope.

I believe neither of those assumptions survives a confrontation with the relevant scholarship, which means a proposal based on one or both of these assumptions doesn't really merit consideration. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There are no references to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory that DON'T refer to The Frankfurt School, Antonio Gramsci, and other forms of Gramscian cultural analysis (this is mentioned in the AfD).

Show me one reference to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory that references Trotsky as a founder of it. You can't Newimpartial, you just can't. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This IP comment does not carry any relevance that I can see: the inclusion of Trotsky - or not - does not define this article one way or another. Newimpartial (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism disambiguation page

Someone created Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) last week. How do other editors feel about this? Newimpartial (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a multi-page WP:CROSS-POST [24][25][26]. I suggest moving the discussion to Talk:Cultural_Marxism_(disambiguation). 87.116.177.103 (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

When that dust settles, is there any support for renaming this article to Cultural Marxism (conspiracy theory)? (which already exists as a redirect to this article). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that there will be; there certainly hadn't been significant support for similar ideas the last five or six times they were proposed. Newimpartial (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I still support this disambiguation page.

While i'm here, some argued in this talk page that there was never a Cultural Marxism page, and I found it.

There was a Cultural Marxism page, but it was (as this page is) contentious, and became renamed 'the Frankfurt School', and then, after much debate by revisionists, to the current "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy theory" page.

I think worth a read for those who have been watching this page:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140519194937/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism I am a Leaf (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

One possible approach is to rename "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" to "Cultural Marxism" and "Marxist cultural analysis" to "Cultural Marxism (academic use)." Another option is to rename "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" to "Cultural Marxism (conspiracy theory)," rename "Marxist cultural analysis" to "Cultural Marxism (academic use)," and have "Cultural Marxism" redirect to "Cultural Marxism (disambiguation)." None of these options has been explored, as far as I understand. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

They've been explored (and rejected) before, several times. A move proposal along those grounds has essentially no chance of gaining consensus. MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think good idea. Been a while since the legitimacy/existence of any nonconspiratial use of the term cultural marxism has been argued, but I believe the disambiguation page leaves less room for argument about the topic.

When was the last time anyone brought up Douglas Kellner, a so-called third generation Frankfurt School theorist using the term 'cultural marxism' to describe Marxist cultural analysis (in a non conspiratorial way)?

'Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies' - https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf I am a Leaf (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe the last time this was discussed was October 30 (currently visible on this page). So it hasn't really "been a while" since this issue was discussed (and a related proposal was rejected). Newimpartial (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

2024-11 sources

The Salon article https://www.salon.com/2019/05/05/a-users-guide-to-cultural-marxism-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theory-reloaded/ that i already mentionned in this talk page quote and link an article by Bruce Wilson in his blog: https://4thgenwar.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/trumpcultural-marxism-4gw-and-terrorism/ which can not be used as reliable source in Wikipedia in my opinion. Salon also published an interview with Bruce Wilson at https://www.salon.com/2016/07/16/donald_trumps_weaponized_platform_a_project_three_decades_in_the_making/ which can be used as reliable source in Wikipedia in my opinion. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Salon is not a particularly reliable source per Wikipedia:Perennial sources, if I’m not mistaken Dronebogus (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome Dronebogus. Relevant link: WP:SALON.COM. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

According to the interview, Bruce Wilson co-founded the blog Talk To Action. According to Wikipedia, Talk to Action was co-founded by Frederick Clarkson, so i ping User:Daask. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism DAB

Should the hatnote be changed to {{redirects|Cultural Marxism|other uses}}, which links to the Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) page? 10:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• To be clear, we are not discussing the redirect from Cultural Marxism to the conspiracy theory article. If you're unfamiliar with that debate, refer to this historical overview. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• The Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) page was recently created by Howard Alexander (the same editor who created the Marxist cultural analysis page) and has since been updated by JMF, Firefangledfeathers, and myself. Feel free to make further improvements. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  The Marxist cultural analysis page was patched together from this editor's sandbox [27] and still contains elements of it. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• WP:ONEOTHER makes a strong case against using the dab page, but there are exceptions to the guideline worth considering. Having a Wiktionary link on the dab page is a valuable enhancement that wouldn't be possible without it. Including the link allows us to acknowledge the right-wing meme usage of the term 'cultural Marxism' -- without compromising Wikipedia’s standards -- which helps reduce disruptive edits and repetitive discussions. The 34 pages of archived Talk discussions clearly demonstrate how much time this issue has consumed. A simple hatnote and a prominent Wiktionary link on the dab page would address concerns from a significant portion of the readership, making this a more user-friendly solution, while also saving valuable time for editors by reducing repetitive debates. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• The current hatnote reads: "Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For the Marxist approach to social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis. Does anyone else find this a bit cumbersome? A casual reader without a social science background might struggle to understand. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly it seems very clear and direct. Do you have a suggestion? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think it'd be fine to drop "social theory and" for brevity. Casual readers without a social science/philosophical/historical background are going to have a bad time at that article anyway. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's a good start. To make it even clearer, I'd suggest one of these:

  For the Marxist view of culture, see Marxist cultural analysis.

  For the Marxist theory of culture, see Marxist cultural analysis.

  87.116.177.103 (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I would support dropping the "social theory and", removing cultural studies may be a bit to far. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Who knows, maybe Marxist cultural analysis will be merged with Cultural studies one day, since they overlap to a large extent. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  If I thought I could pull it off I'd nominate Cultural studies for AFD because it is an extremely badly written article that probably violates WP:NOT. TarnishedPath^talk 01:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Pinging ActivelyDisinterested, Firefangledfeathers, and TarnishedPath in case you want to participate in the poll below. Thanks for your earlier input. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Survey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• No that disambiguation page should be removed, as per my comment on the poll on the disambiguation talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  The disambiguation should remain.

  This article literally has YEARS of argument about whether the topic sentence is too contentious, and whether this article is appropriately neutral. The disambiguation page accurately covers basically anything which the term “cultural marxism” may mean, and to deny that the term is used in the ways presented on the disambiguation page is demonstrably false and there is a decade worth of edits on this page (including the fact that this article was created using the nonconspiratorial title ‘cultural marxism’) displaying as much.

  All nonfrivolous arguments about the content and POV of this page are made null and all complaints are rectified by a disambiguation page. I have not seen a bona fide argument against it. It simply is a solution which works for everyone. I am a Leaf (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  No the dab page is solely a solution for those on one side of the argument. Quite obviously therefore it is not an acceptable compromise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  What do you mean one side of the argument? The side of the argument that recognizes that the term's use very well is ambiguous?

  This should be the only side of the argument, as stated, because there is well over a decade of people complaining about how the conspiracy is not the only way to use the term. I am a Leaf (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  And what is a good "compromise?" Because as stated in my reply, no argument has been made against the disambiguation page aside from people who are plainly ignoring the use of the term outside the conspiracy theory context.

  Is the solution not to compromise at all and to delegitimize the ambiguous nature of the term because anyone who disagrees is part of the ravenous revisionist horde? That seems to be the position you are taking, and that is a position which is plainly called bigotry. I am a Leaf (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  A good compromise would be the current setup, where readers are not misinformed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  A disambiguation page is a list of extant Wikipedia articles. Even if it were to be kept, it it's not going to be turned into a WP:COATRACK covering basically anything which the term “cultural marxism” may mean - that is not the function of a disambiguation page. MrOllie (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  The disambiguation page as it remains is perfect. I am a Leaf (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  It is disambiguates to exactly two articles. There's nothing perfect about that. Per WP:ONEOTHER a DAB page is not needed. TarnishedPath^talk 01:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Hahaha what do you MEAN??? A term can be ambiguous due to only two different uses of the term. What would you recommend changing? I am a Leaf (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I see, my response to WP:ONEOTHER is that the two topics which are being disambiguated are so different as to not be subtopics of a main topic.

  That is, either the conspiracy theory is a subtopic of the western marxism or marxist cultural analysis page, or marxist cultural analysis is couched as a subtopic of the conspiracy.

  NEITHER of these are adequate solutions, and therefore WP:ONEOTHER is not the correct issue to be bringing up here. I am a Leaf (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  WP:DISAMBIG has nothing to do with 'subtopics' or 'main topics'. It's a navigation page, so readers can find articles when names are similar. If there are only two articles we don't need a navigational page. Perhaps you've been confused by the page's reference to 'primary topics' - WP:PRIMARYTOPIC just means that most incoming web traffic should be routed to one of the articles. It is purely about page views and what the readers are expected to be looking for. MrOllie (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  In this case all a disambiguation page would be is an extra click. Someone ends up on this article, but they wanted Marxist cultural analysis, so they would have to click on the hat link to the disambiguation page, and then from there there is only one other option they would be headed to. We should just send them to their final destination right away and save the extra click. MrOllie (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is a frivolous argument.

  You think it would be worse that people are presented with an overview of what a term might mean, instead of immediately being presented with the most pejorative and conspiratorial possible use of the term?

  How exactly is the conspiracy theory being presented first better?

  Would it be best if, when someone searched “moon landing” that they were immediately presented with “moon landing conspiracy theory” page?

  To respond to another criticism from another in this thread - From the WP:ONEOTHER page:

  Disambiguation helps readers quickly find a desired article in cases when a term could reasonably apply to more than one article.

  In this case, we have

  1. a now nonexistent page called ‘Cultural Marxism’ which was about Marxist cultural analysis, and has since become “cultural marxism conspiracy theory”

  2. a decade worth of people saying that “cultural marxism” as used in the lede is unreasonable, contentious, revionist, and so on. If you’ve been here long enough you’ve seen probably hundreds of arguments to this tune.

  3. Evidence of academics (Dworkin, legal scholars like Kevin Roberts, and yes, even the hack psychologist cultural critic Peterson) using the term to generally mean Marxist cultural analysis, post structuralism, Frankfurt School and so on and so forth.

  Is it that you think that all these people do not ~reasonably~ use this term? Or is it that you think that this use of the term “cultural marxism” could not ~reasonably~ apply to more than one article? It must be one or the other, if not, the disambiguation is entirely appropriate.

  I am a Leaf (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  You're arguing about stuff that is simply irrelevant. Perhaps the term could apply to some hypothetical third article, but since we do not have an actual third article to list, the topic doesn't need a disambiguation page. MrOllie (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  It is irrelevant that the term Cultural Marxism was the page under which this page was originally created, and that the topic of the page was Marxist cultural analysis? It is irrelevant that many academics use the term cultural marxism in a non conspiracy theory way? This argument is not simply handwoven away. I am not speaking in hypotheticals. I am a Leaf (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Since this discussion is about a hatnote and a disambiguation page, yes, that is all irrelevant. We have two pages to link, no more and no less. MrOllie (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  What is your issue with the disambiguation page? There is no rule stating that if there are only two that the disambiguation page must not exist. This is a grossly strict reading of WP:DISAMBIG and is not supported by the text of the article. I am a Leaf (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, there is. It was linked for you earlier in this thread. MrOllie (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  And I quoted the language in the article which supported my position, and you did not. I am a Leaf (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, WP:ONEOTHER is directly on point. You came up with some irrelevant stuff about 'subtopics' that in no way undercuts the obvious point of that guideline. If you want to stick with irrelevant arguments, be my guest. We're just repeating ourselves, so it seems useful conversation is at an end. Feel free to take the last word in this sub thread if you need it, I won't reply here again. MrOllie (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  WP:ONEOTHER is literally about the distinction between primary topics and other (if you will, sub-) topics.

  Do you read these articles? Or do you just cite them fervently in the hope that the person challenging your ideas does not read them too?

  In addition WP:DISAMBIG states plainly

  You suggest only one article is insufficient for a disambiguation page, yet the WP:DISAMBIG page and WP:ONEOTHERboth plainly state that that is not such a strict rule as you suggest. I am a Leaf (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• No. This RFC shouldn't have been opened in the first place, and the disambiguation page should go to AfD. - MrOllie (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) Cultural Marxism refers to the conspiracy theory. Readers should be directed to Marxist cultural analysis if they are interested in reading about that subject. TarnishedPath^talk 13:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. This RfC is inappropriate, and the bogus dab page should be in AfD by now. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Orangemike, it certainly is. TarnishedPath^talk 14:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes if we keep the dab, and No if it's deleted per the afd; isn't that straightforward? What MrOllie said, I guess. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (disambiguation). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  The AfD was initiated immediately after the RfC started, presumably because the nominator wanted to shorten the discussion from 30 days to 7. However, this resulted in the discussion being split between two locations, which is far from ideal. Speaking of split discussions, see my WP:ONEOTHER comment in the Discussion section above; it relates to your comment in the AfD. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Presumably it was initiated because the nominator thought that the page should be deleted, something the RFC process does not do. MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Correct. RFCs and AFDs are entirely different discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 01:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Given the consensus that the conspiracy theory article is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term Cultural Marxism, the only permissible use for the disambiguation page is via the hatnote in this article. In other words, updating the hatnote is a prerequisite for using the dab page. This is why it's appropriate to address the hatnote discussion first, and why that discussion should take place on this talk page. Additionally, since the dab page was created only a few days ago and no other articles link to it, making it effectively invisible to readers, there is no compelling reason to rush its deletion. Using the AfD to influence the outcome of the RfC doesn't seem like the most constructive approach. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  7 days is more than enough time to demonstrate that it is needed per WP:D2D and WP:ONEOTHER. TarnishedPath^talk 07:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  By simple logic deciding if the page should exist should happen before deciding how to use the page. If the page doesn't exist then deciding how to use it is nonsensical, only if the page is exists does discussing how it's used make any sense.

  That's not using AfD to influence the RFC, that's doing things in their logical order. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Because this DAB has only two pages, I lean towards deleting it. However, I've seen an increasing tendency among conservatives to use "Cultural Marxism" for its plain meaning of "Marxism in culture" (or at the very least, aspects of culture they perceive as downstream of Marxism). This terminology is now reflected in secondary and tertiary sources, e.g. here in the OED (which notes its roots in the original antisemitic conspiracy theory, but also notes the way it's taken on a broader meaning). My suggestions would be to split this into two pages (maybe Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and something like Cultural Marxism (phrase)), which could both be included in a DAB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Closed Limelike Curves (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, I support simplifying the hatnote and linking to the disambiguation page. Some editors argue that the "See also" articles are irrelevant or merely padding, but I respectfully disagree. Cultural Bolshevism is historically and topically related to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, as both articles explain, and similarly, Western Marxism and Cultural studies are closely linked to Marxist cultural analysis, with all three overlapping to a significant degree. One unique link, which isn't available in the other articles, is the Wiktionary entry, which is particularly important given that the term cultural Marxism has over time become a highly politicized meme. None of the articles directly address this aspect (nor should they, as this is the role of Wiktionary). Including both the Wiktionary link and the "See also" articles not only aids navigation but offers readers valuable context that isn't provided elsewhere, making this a reasonable exception to the WP:ONEOTHER guideline. As with any guideline, exceptions may apply, and in this case, I believe it's necessary to help ensure that Wikipedia remains accessible for all readers, regardless of their political views. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• As the original poster, I am withdrawing the RfC because the issue is now moot following the deletion of the Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) page during the AfD process. For reference, here is the archived dab page that was deleted. I will also add a subsection below to address an outstanding question about the hatnote that a few of us discussed earlier, and welcome any additional input from others. Thanks to everybody for participating in the RfC. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-AfD Hatnote Poll

The current hatnote reads: "Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For the Marxist approach to social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis.

Should the hatnote be simplified to make it easier for a casual reader to understand?

1. Do nothing.
2. Simplify to: For the Marxist approach to cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis.
3. Simplify to: For the Marxist view of culture, see Marxist cultural analysis.
4. Simplify to: For the Marxist theory of culture, see Marxist cultural analysis.
5. Something else (please specify).

Feel free to list your options in order of preference, if you'd like. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4, followed by Option 3, then Option 2, because they are clearer for someone without a social science background. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, the current hatnote is clear enough. TarnishedPath^talk 23:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Pinging @ActivelyDisinterested, @Firefangledfeathers, @I am a Leaf, @MrOllie, @Orangemike, @ErikHaugen and @Closed Limelike Curves as editors involved in above discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 23:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1: no need to dumb it down further. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 The current version seems clear. "The Marxist theory of culture" isn't wrong but seems like a slightly misleading over-simplification. CAVincent (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  While I partially endorsed option 4 I agree it’s an over-simplification and think it would be much better stated as “Marxist theories of culture.”

  The discussion on the cultural analysis page shows that Marxist cultural analysis is not entirely homogenous and it is slightly misleading to suggest it as such with Option 4’s language. I am a Leaf (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 but I also find Option 4 adequate. I am a Leaf (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Nullification Just to re-iterate my concerns expressed elsewhere, Marxist cultural analysis is a WP:coatrack of not particularly orthodox "Marxists" (some of whom aren't Marxists at all), which two authors are attempting to WP:OWN in order to force the appearance that Sociology is by definition Marxist. It's no longer a suitable hatnote for the page. I'd suggest no hatnote. 117.102.150.254 (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@117.102.150.254 do you mean WP:POVSPLIT? If so I agree, because when I hear the term Marxist cultural analysis I think Frankfurt School (the WP:COMMONNAME) and not what occupies that article. If someone were to propose a merge I'd support it. TarnishedPath^talk 10:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The IP is arguing at article Talk that only Orthodox Marxists should be considered "Marxists", that the Frankfurt School were not (mostly) Marxists, and that instead of "Marxist cultural analysis" WP ought to have a "Gramscian cultural analysis" page that somehow includes Frankfurt. I doubt vety much that this IP's concerns are the concerns of other editors - but who knows, at this point? Newimpartial (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Newimpartial, when they state Orthodox Marxists do them mean Marxism–Leninism? Not that I'm going to get involved, but if so that strikes me as No true scottsman. TarnishedPath^talk 11:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1, although I wouldn't oppose option 2. Any issue with Marxist cultural analysis should be discussed at that article's talk page, while issue with editors behaviour should be discussed at WP:ANI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)