Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Objections to new content

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.

---

I have been adding material that is pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style. Newimpartial has reverted some of these changes with the sole explanation of no consensus. Please discuss. Sennalen (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, it was reverted for WP:BRD as it "departed from the consensus of sources and talk page consensus". So per WP:ONUS lets start with, why do you think the edit is an improvement? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

BRD is a behavioral guideline about reverting and is not by itself a reason for reverting. The rest can be paraphrased as merely "no consensus".

The edits are an improvement because they convey verifiable information about the topic from some of the best academic sources, thereby increasing a reader's understanding of the topic. The additions cannot depart from the consensus of sources, because they are drawn from those very sources. Contrasting views are are appropriately represented in the article per the neutral point-of-view policies. Sennalen (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The first issue I ran into is at the top of your proposed §Conspiratorial interpretations, which would start with "Cultural Marxism as part of critical pedagogy can help students resist media manipulation. I'm worried this blurs the lines between the conspiracy theory and the philosophical school of thought. Also, the source attributes the possible improvement in defense against media manipulation to "cultural studies", not just "Cultural Marxism" (the school of thought). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we could probably do without that bit anyway tbh.  Tewdar  22:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

philosophical school of thought oh wow, now you're in trouble! 😂👍  Tewdar  22:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I was going to say "the philosophical school of thought that Jamin calls "Cultural Marxism", but my cat stepped on my keyboard. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

What Sennalen said. One change I would suggest to the edits would be that '[C/c]ultural Marxism' (scholarly analysis) should be more carefully distinguished from 'Cultural Marxism' (object of conspiracy theory) but other than that, I think that the reverted version was incomparably the best version of this article to have ever existed.  Tewdar  21:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, whoops, I forgot, of course there is no [C/c]ultural Marxism' (scholarly analysis), because Joan Braune says so.  Tewdar  22:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, Sennalen, my explanation was Subsequent edits depart from the consensus of sources and Talk page consensus, and could confuse the reader, which is quite a bit more than a sole explanation of no consensus as you suggest.

My concerns are centred on the paragraph you added in this edit, which reads:

Cultural Marxism as part of critical pedagogy can help students resist media manipulation. Scholars associated with the Frankfurt School sought to create a better society by struggling against patriarchy and capitalist exploitation, goals that could seem threatening to others who have an interest in maintaining the status quo. Objections to Cultural Marxism have come from varied sources. Some authors work within academic literature and "claim to produce a legitimate knowledge" while others operate on a speculative basis driven by nationalist ideologies, Which of these categories a work belongs to is not always clear, and many authors operate on a continuum between them. Accepted interpretations and conspiratorial interpretations of Cultural Marxism share a common basis of facts about the identities of the Frankfurt School scholars and their major works, but Conspiracy theories diverge from consensus reality when it comes to:

as well as the bullets that follow; the passage is all sourced entirely to Jerome Jamin. As I have previously noted, this article is not supposed to be Jerome Jamin's views about Cultural Marxism - attempts to add much more of his commentary in this article is UNDUE, particularly because he is almost alone in the RS literature in using "cultural Marxism" as the label both for the Marxist humanists and for the object of the conspiracy theory. Unlike the status quo version of this article (which I restored), your added text uses Cultural Marxism in wikivoice to designate the Frankfurt School and other practitioners of "critical pedagogy". (This is in alignment with your several previous proposals to alter sourcing or otherwise restructure this article, e.g. this one. Community-wide consensus, as expressed at AfD and other venues, have consistently opposed changes that would lead to reader confusion about the main usage of "Cultural Marxism" - namely, as the object of a conspiracy theory. A selective reading of Jamin to say "this is what how Cultural Marxism in the conspiracy theory differs from real (sic.) Cultural Marxism" is prone to confuse the reader in precisely the way the community has warned against. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Jamin is qualified and disinterested, and the work is a survey. Those qualities make it the ideal source to frame the issue following WP:YESPOV.

For the first sentence Cultural Marxism as part of critical pedagogy can help students resist media manipulation. the source in Jamin is

Cultural Marxism thus strengthens the arsenal of cultural studies by providing critical and political perspectives that enable individuals to dissect the meanings, messages, and effects of dominant cultural forms. Cultural studies can become part of a critical media pedagogy that enables individuals to resist media manipulation and increase their freedom and individuality. It can empower people to gain sovereignty over their culture, and to be able to struggle for alternative cultures and political change. Cultural studies is thus not simply another academic trend, but can be part of a struggle for a better society and a better life (Kellner, 2013, p. 15)

For this Jamin cites Douglas Kellner's Cultural Marxism and cultural studies. There is room for compromise on the phrasing, so long as everyone understands that the current phrasing sticks closest to sources.

It isn't the case now and was never the case that fringe sources are distinguished from legitimate sources by the use of the phrase "Cultural Marxism". The boundaries between Cultural Marxism, Western Marxism, Critical Theory, the Frankfurt School, and related terms are ill-defined. Scholarly sources use all of these, and we have secondary sources commenting on the use saying that they can be interchangeable. Minnicino's essay meanwhile - the very definition of the conspiracy theory - does not use the phrase "Cultural Marxism". There is even less support for the notion that the capitalization of the C matters. Wikipedians in 2014 or whenever major RfCs took place did not have the benefit of as many searchable digitized texts as are available now, and they drew the wrong conclusions.

In the literature, Cultural Marxism often means particularly British Cultural Marxism that entails more post-structuralism than Critical Theory, but this is not exclusively the case. Frederic Jameson for instance crosses those lines and is called a Cultural Marxist. In the 1980s, Henry Giroux and Stanley Aronowitz reunified both of these strands of Western Marxism in the course of popularizing critical pedagogy. As Issaac Gottesman writes, Education scholars thus increasingly preferred a cultural Marxist lens that looked at the ideological structure and content of schooling as opposed to the political economic Marxist lens that theorized capital and assessed quantifiable inputs and outcomes of schooling’s reproductive tendencies. Although we'll never know for sure, it's possible the ensuing arglebargle about political correctness is exactly the form in which William Lind encountered the phrase.

Let there be no mistake that the conspiracy theory is wrong, but it is wrong because it is mistaken in the facts, not because of its choice of terminology. The conspiracy theory is a conservative criticism of Western Marxism as it exists and is known to all scholars. The criticism is wrong, not because they hallucinated Western Marxism, but because Theodor Adorno did not invent methods for mind control, Herbert Marcuse was not an agent for the CIA, and Walter Benjamin did not push LSD. Everyone would do well to focus on these substantive matters, not by taking positions that anyone could refute by opening a copy of Eros and Civilization. This was a theme deftly taken up by The Point[1].

Editors are right to be wary of potential abuses of Wikipedia, but the response is to adhere to reliable sourcing and neutral point of view. Consensus on Wikipedia can change, as consensus in sources can change. Martin Jay is rightly one of the guiding lights for structuring our article, given his expertise and how many of the other sources ultimately lean on him. In the 2019 expansion of his essay, he concludes, [...]It would be counterproductive to pathologize their politics too quickly and subsume them under theoretical categories that rob them of any critical self-reflectivity or ability to alter their views or behavior. Instead a willingness to empathize with their dilemmas and hear their grievances may well be a more constructive way to address the increasing polarization of our body politic[...] Lütticken also deserves a close reading. Sennalen (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Sennalen: we do readers a disservice if we use terms inconsistently in an article, when the respective sources use terms consistently but in ways that may be specific to each source. The status quo version of the article doesn't treat "Cultural Marxism" as the name of an actual movement, and you don't get to do so because one anomalous RS uses the same label (some of the time) for real scholarship and for the object of a conspiracy theory. And BTW, WP:YESPOV is not a license to take a non-mainstream POV (such as, "there is a real 'Cultural Marxism and a conspiracy theory that distorts this real thing") and present it as the spine of an arircle section, particularly when (as in the text you added) you are trying to present this non-mainstream POV in Wikivoice as fact.

Re: In the literature, Cultural Marxism often means particularly British Cultural Marxism that entails more post-structuralism than Critical Theory, but this is not exclusively the case (in your reply to me) - this statement is horse excrement, unsubstantiated by competent sources. Jamieson (who, unlike most of these authors, I have met as well as read) by no means crosses these lines - understanding and writing about postructutalism by no means makes anyone a poststructuralist. Your often claim here simply isn't true, and the vast majority of the sources for the Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, Marxist Humanism and the cultural turn in Marxism (or, as you seem to imply here, new social movement theory) either never put the word "cultural" in front of "Marxism", or only do so incidentally to designated an activity - "cultural" as opposed to "economic" or "trade union" or "political" Marxism. That isn't the name of a school or a movement, and pretending that the main sequence of sources is designating a movement, when they do not, strikes me as incompetent intellectual history to give the very utmost of WP:AGF.

The idea that The conspiracy theory is a conservative criticism of Western Marxism as it exists and is known to all scholars is, again, unsubstantiated by the reliable sources. Not even Jamin goes this far, and the rest of the sources don't even concede the token "this is what the conspiracy theorists were referring to" that Jamin does. But evrn Jamin does not at any point conclude that the conspiracy theorists have been engaging with Western Marxism as it exists, and the fact that they grabbed hold of a lesser synonym, "Cultural Marxism", turned it into an imaginary movement and a conspiracy, doesn't imply - as you proposed that Wikipedia state in its own voice - that a common basis of facts links the conspiracy theorists with legitimate scholarship. That isn't even what Jamin is saying, and it certainly isn't what Jay is saying, but for some reason it is what you want Wikipedia to say.

CONSENSUSCANCHANGE certainly is Wikipedia policy and is also in some sense grounded in a defensible ontology and epistemology, but your argument that "I've been right about this for years but nobody but Tewdar paid attention!" isn't an argument at all likely to move the consensusometer, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

In fact they didn't originally grab hold of a lesser synonym, they literally invented it, possibly as an alternative to "cultural Bolshevism," and only later found scattered use of the expression in Marxist literature. That's why the two concepts are separate and the conspiracy theory is not actually about the "cultural Marxism" as understood by critical theorists, but about an imagined conspiracy of Marxists to undermine Western civilization as a means of taking power. TFD (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You might be right, but do you have a source for that first sentence? Even a totally unreliable one would be better than nothing.  Tewdar  16:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: You've made arguments of this form before: either never put the word "cultural" in front of "Marxism", or only do so incidentally to designated an activity - "cultural" as opposed to "economic" or "trade union" or "political" Marxism. That isn't the name of a school or a movement. It seems fairly central to your thinking on this topic, and while it's true on the face of it, it doesn't seem to be an important distinction. As the article on Western Marxism says, Less concerned with economic analysis than earlier schools of Marxist thought, Western Marxism placed greater emphasis on the study of the cultural trends of capitalist society, and that's no different than the sense in which Minnicino uses it. Cultural Marxism is a synonym for Western Marxism. Academic sources use it that way, conspiracy theorists use it that way, and academics say conspiracy theorists use it that way. If this is really the crux of your objection, it does not do too much harm for the Wikipedia article to follow suit and say "Western Marxism" in place of where I said "Cultural Marxism". Sennalen (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the key point that the topic of this article is neither "Western Marxism" nor is it even "the Western Marxism conspiracy theory". Many Western Marxists could be found wearing lovely coats (and hats), but let's not WP:COATRACK this article with off-topic content. Wikipedia articles on other antisemitic conspiracy theories are not primarily concerned with the question, "what real phenomena is the conspiracy theory 'based on'?", nor should this one be. Newimpartial (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cover a topic, not a term. WP:NOTDICT. The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory about Western Marxism. All articles on fringe topics should place the subject in the proper context.

WP:FRINGELEVEL Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community.

WP:EVALFRINGE Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations.

Sennalen (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

But sources do not support your assertion that the proper context for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is actually existing "Cultural Marxism" or, for that matter, "Western Marxism". Scholarship does not support your implication that the originators and developers of the conspiracy theory actually read primary or secondary texts by or about the Frankfurt School or the Marxist Humanists, or Critical Theory or Post-Marxist texts for that matter - not to any significant extent. Nor does scholarship suggest that they were reacting to "Western Marxism" as an intellectual movement, or to "political correctness" as you have proposed - similarly, your attempts above to lump in "post-structuralists" as some kind of grey area that might possibly be Cultural Marxism as well simply show you following the sloppy thinking of the conspiracists. The only RS that supports even part of your interpretation is Jamin, and you had to ignore roughly half of what Jamin actually says about that relationship to produce the tendentious paraphrase you proposed for this article (nor does Jamin support your woolly thinking about poststructuralism).

Cultural Marxism, the object of the conspiracy theory, cannot be described "clearly and objectively" because no such object ever existed - the mishmash of Western Marxism, the Birmingham School, the Long march through the institutions, "political correctness", post-1968 liberalism, feminism, and postmodernism that makes up the object of the conspiracy was never called "Cultural Marxism" by anyone until the conspiracy theory came along, and no part of this complex and diffuse Venn diagram was ever known primarily as "Cultural Marxism". There is simply no there, there, and it is not the role of this article to conjure up a POVFORK history of Marxist thought to create "context" for conspiracists that does not otherwise exist. Newimpartial (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

...the mishmash of Western Marxism, the Birmingham School, the Long march through the institutions, "political correctness", post-1968 liberalism, feminism, and postmodernism that makes up the object of the conspiracy - well, that's not what our awesome lede says: The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that Western Marxism is the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture (my emph.)- perhaps someone could add those other fellows to that sentence?  Tewdar  12:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

We have to simplify for the lead (and "Western Marxism" stands better here than other competing terms), but if this article suggests anywhere that Western Marxists actually do practice "political correctness", or the Long March, or postmodernism, then please point those passages out so we can fix them. The conspiracy theory posits a movement "based on Western Marxism" that does these things, but its claims are baseless. Newimpartial (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with something like "...claims that Western Marxism, liberalism, political correctness, and postmodernism are...blah blah blah"? The conspiracy theory does not only blame 'Western Marxism', and it would probably be better to say so in the lede.  Tewdar  14:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to any revisions to the lede that do not make it worse. Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Since lede follows body, it would be premature to do much while body revisions are pending. When the body fully reflects the consensus of reliable sources, then it will be time to rewrite the lede. Sennalen (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You're trying to wage a one-person war against the existence of synonyms. That's not the real locus of dispute on Wikipedia or in the sources. Sennalen (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we (continue to) follow the sources, which do not generally treat these terms as synonyms. Newimpartial (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

follow the sources - LOL, this article was riddled with demonstrable fictions at the start of the year, and the consensusometer fought tooth and nail to try and keep them.  Tewdar  14:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a diff for the tooth? Or the nail, even? Newimpartial (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Look, I don't really want to be singling people out here while we're all getting along so well 😂, but anyone who's been paying any attention at all to this page probably wouldn't need to ask for diffs.  Tewdar  15:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Cultural studies can become part of a critical media pedagogy." is future tense opinion, and thus shouldn't be said in Wikivoice. Also, this article is for the fringe Conspiracy Theory usage. If you wish to discuss some other more legitimate usage, I recommend doing so in Marxist cultural analysis. "The boundaries between Cultural Marxism, Western Marxism, Critical Theory, the Frankfurt School, and related terms are ill-defined." then you shouldn't be writing as if there's a hard boundary. "Editors are right to be wary of potential abuses of Wikipedia", indeed, and trying to scrap together a coherent school of thought or movement out of a hodgepodge of disconnected authors across large amounts of time - is just that. Again, we have pages for Critical Theory, critical pedagogy, The New Left, Western Marxism. Pushing the "Cultural Marxism is a widely accepted term" stuff isn't right for this page. Consensus on this has not changed. This page is for the conspiracy usage, because there's not enough shared consensus or notability for any other shared usage. You'll have to put in a request for deletion review if you think otherwise (see: WP:DRV). 194.223.51.184 (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

trying to scrap together a coherent school of thought or movement out of a hodgepodge of disconnected authors across large amounts of time - is just that Indeed. That's a point that I made in the disuputed edit, using Jamin, and it was part of what Newimpartial reverted. Sennalen (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That's the point you thought you'd made. Personally it didn't read that way to me. 194.223.51.184 (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That's because it wasn't actually the direction the argument was facing. Newimpartial (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

From reverted version: In popular language, the phrase "Cultural Marxism" has been used imprecisely and interchangeably with other terms, including political correctness, critical theory, socialism, postmodernism, intersectionality, identity politics, and cancel culture.[26] It is typically used to criticize a target for alleged illiberalism.[26] Conspiracy theorists often fail to differentiate the exact contributions of different philosphers and collapse distinctions between them. - looks like it did a better job explaining this than the current version.  Tewdar  19:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Without wanting to cast race-based aspersions on trolls, I will simultaneously point out that I do not hold the Hanlon source in high regard, recent as it may be. Also, I don't really care how "Cultural Marxism" is used in popular language since (as with most other conspiracy theories) people express tropes of the conspiracy theory without being conscious of the underlying framework. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

If you're serious, keep it in. If you're not, delete (not strike) it please make this clear. I shouldn't have written it.  Tewdar  19:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Check the page history.  Tewdar  19:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I tried.  Tewdar  19:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, any "race of trolls" is purely fictional. Does that answer your question? Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I am very satisfied with this answer, but still would have preferred to delete the whole diversion. 🧌 Tewdar  20:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, it was funny. I think my humour levels must be a bit low today.  Tewdar  20:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

So aaaaaaanyway... you may not have liked the sourcing, but you can't claim that Sennalen wasn't trying to make that point.  Tewdar  20:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is still some dissensus about what the point was. I've already registered my issue about popular language. I have an analyticaly distinct issue with Conspiracy theorists often fail to differentiate the exact contributions of different philosphers and collapse distinctions between them - while this statement is accurate prima faciae, Sennalen's framing lends it the implication that there is a version of "real Cultural Marxism" characterized by certain "exact contributions" and "distinctions", and then a sloppier version put forward by conspiracy theorists. This is still implying more there than is actually there, IMO, which has been the problem with Sennalen's main line of contributions since they arrived. Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You may want to review the citations and quoted text at Marxist_cultural_analysis#"Cultural_Marxism"_conspiracy_theory that you negotiated for at length. You have been shown the evidence. Your continual refusal to acknowledge the evidence is disruptive. Sennalen (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Your WP:BOLD edit here does not align with While the term "cultural Marxism" has been used in a general sense, to discuss the application of Marxist ideas in the cultural field, the variant term "Cultural Marxism" generally refers to an antisemitic conspiracy theory, which is the lead sentence of the passage you just linked. Your insistence on your WP:POV over the past year, including your tendentious use of sources and your refusal to acknowledge evident consensus, is the source of disruption. Newimpartial (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the article text (which was softened and made vague to suit you), but the citations behind it. You make pronouncements about consensus this and community that, but you have never yet engaged with what the sources say. Sennalen (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. I read all the sources these articles use (as well as many they don't), and have corrected your text proposed at Marxist cultural analysis so that it aligns with the BALANCE of the sources, compensating as necessary for your selective presentation of sources when they happen to coincide with what you "know" to be true (i.e., the WP:POV you bring time these topics). If you didn't see me engaging with the sources, then you weren't paying attention. If, on the other hand, the only mode of engagement with sources you would recognize is arguing with you about what specific sources mean by specific passages - that is something I only do when it is unavoidable, and it is rarely unavoidable. Insisting on that, in my experience, is typically a WP:SEALION tactic. Newimpartial (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The only sources you care to cite are Braune and the time you got Terry Eagleton's autograph or something - whatever it was, it's OR. Yes, you do actually need to read the words on the page here. Sennalen (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Please strike your inaccurate accusation about The only sources (I) care to cite .... In this discussion last year, I quoted at you from Jamin (at length, to remedy your selective appropriation) and Busbridge as well. But I need not WP:SATISFY you just because you taunt. Speaking of which, re: you do actually need to read the words on the page here - either you are just being snide, or you have utterly failed at reading comprehension when approaching my comments for content. Neither would bode especially well for your future as a WP:SPA contributor. Newimpartial (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You linked a thread in which I scoured the sources, I highlighted quotes, and I proposed edits - while you simply said, no, the sources don't really mean what the text plainly says. Then as now, you only stonewall, and despite your claims to have special insight you apply none of it to building articles in this topic area. Sennalen (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

"I've been right about this for years but nobody but Tewdar paid attention!" - nice. The consensusometer seems to consist mainly of the Holy Writings of RfC participants from 2014 who confuse Sage Encyclopedia entries with self-published sources and who may or may not be retired or dead, and SPAs who show up once every three months solely to revert changes to this article (no offence, but WP:DUCK etc.). So perhaps the consensusometer could do with a few replacement parts. The reverted edit was not perfect, but if we can include 'academic' Joan Braune and 'academic' Stuart Jeffries' comparisons of the Frankfurt School with the conspiracy theory, we can include 'academic' Jérôme Jamin's comparison too.  Tewdar  14:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Jamin content is already in the article; it would be UNDUE to add a new section to further emphasise his work.

And you can scarcely blame the possibly dead 2014 RfC participants for the continued finding in community processes in 2019, 2020 and 2021 that "Cultural Marxism" isn't, y'know, a real thing. Newimpartial (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not blame the dead for that. Hey, academic Joan Braune's uninfluential single article is cited 12 times here in this article, perhaps someone should take a look at that, per WP:DUE or WP:ETC...  Tewdar  14:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No comment is the new impartial, huh? 🤐  Tewdar  23:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I am trying not to chase the squirrels, and your presentation of citation counts out of context when you don't like certain sources - well, it's not one of your more endearing qualities, innit? Newimpartial (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, at least I've never resorted to WP:TOO_BELGIAN as a reason to marginalize a source.  Tewdar  08:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think my main problem with Sennalen's version was how it started. That start part (regarding Critical Pedagogy) needed to be framed as Jamin's opinion. For myself, Cultural Marxism is such an interesting topic, because half of me wants to stand for it, and say - yes, the Frankfurt School's analysis of culture was legitimate and should be expounded on, whilst the other half is very wary of how conspiracy theorists have twisted these terms beyond repair. There is a trend in post-Frankfurt culture studies to use cultural Marxism as a euphemism for parts of Cultural Studies. This is somewhat the view of Kellner, Jameson (as noted in this pamphlet [2]), and here with Jamin referencing Kellner... However, I don't think there's enough room in the article to understand the idea. None of these authors say it outright, or really define what they mean... perhaps Jamin is the most solid of the three when he states Cultural Marxism refers to a part of cultural studies focusing on the “built” dimension of culture, and new ways to act, to affect, and to influence its substance. - a vague reference to Marxism as coming from the historical materialist perspective. But ultimately this creates a problem with including such sentiments here, as the article for Marxist Cultural Analysis is far more clear in saying that Marxist Cultural Analysis focuses on "those aspects of culture which are profit driven and mass-produced under capitalism.". So as I've already stated, I think Jamin might be more well suited there. Besides which, having a heading for "Conspiratorial interpretations" and then leading with an academic... well, it's all a bit vague. However, I do think the latter parts of Sennalen's version were worth while, particularly those parts noting that conspiracy theorists collapse distinctions between schools and philosophers... as well as the stuff on Post-Modernism. It all just needs a clearer lead/framing. Other than that, it was quite good work! 194.223.51.184 (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Having heard feedback from several sources, I will revise a few elements. To keep the peace, I will not follow the RS in using the phrase Cultural Marxism on these particular matters right now. The first sentence was not essential and has been dropped entirely. Some other uses of Cultural Marxism have been replaced with the synonym Western Marxism. I've "finished" working the existing material into Jamin's tripartite structure for the kinds of errors the conspiracy theory makes (scope, goals, and successfulness). I put "finished" in quotes because the section is not truly finished, just structured to begin to receive more citations about why the conspiracy theory is wrong. Sennalen (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Still feels like a hamfisted attempt to link The Frankfurt School to feminism by way of your OR claim that they were "struggling against patriarchy". I don't believe that was one of their goals, more just a tangent to the work of Marcuse. 194.223.51.184 (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and agree with some of your criticism here, especially the bit about the first couple of sentences.  Tewdar  08:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I see MvBaron has reverted the last attempt. Fine. Why not just add the comparison of interpretations of the Frankfurt School (conspiracy theories diverge from consensus reality when it comes to:...) and the bit that starts Conspiracy theorists position themselves as defending "Western civilization"? The second part seems unobjectionable and is well sourced, and the only person objecting to adding Jamin's comparisons is Newimpartial, and the reasons given seem to be exceptionally special pleading to me, even by the standards of this talk page. It's not even just Jamin, the section uses Jay, Jeffries, and Woods too.  Tewdar  08:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Mvbaron should know that Not an improvement, unclear language; maybe some parts can be added individually (the added paragraph) but in general I think this is not an improvement is inadequate justification for reverting a block of pertinent well-sourced text. I'm calling on them to restore the text and engage in policy-based discussion. If you perceive a problem, there is also the option to make your own edits to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Sennalen (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

why? it's perfectly reasonable. Your additions struck me as not an improvement (especially the additions right in the beginning at Conspiratorial interpretations). It's best to add the rest individually so that the changes can be judged individually, but I can do that as well, if you want. Mvbaron (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You have not given any reasons.

not an improvement Why not an improvement?

It's best to add the rest individually so that the changes can be judged individually The changes can be judged just fine. It's only after you form a judgement and actually have reasons that you should start making changes. Sennalen (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

No, that is a reason: your changes (especially the additions starting with Scholars associated with the Frankfurt School sought and but conspiracy theories diverge from consensus reality when it comes to: are less readable, less clear and not an improvement over the existing text. I have no objections on the added paragraph (starting with Conspiracy theorists position themselves as). The rest I am more neutral on, but I didn't find it as a great improvement either. Mvbaron (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with adding the second bit (senallen can do that, since they added it), but I object to adding conspiracy theories diverge from consensus reality when it comes to:...: what is "consensus reality", "swaths of space and time" reads odd. The current text is much more clear. Mvbaron (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that's something that can be worked with and it can be fixed without mass reverts. Sennalen (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is the diff between my successive versions.[3] Sennalen (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The Frankfurt School weren't focused in any consistent way on "fighting the patriarchy". The term doesn't appear at all in say Repressive Tolerance [4], and only appears twice in passing in Dialectic of Enlightenment [5]. Yet this page is now claiming "Frankfurt School sought to create a better society by struggling against patriarchy" - why is that? Can anyone show where this was part of their work? 27.33.201.239 (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The article never states that - the article only states that conspiracy theorists claim that the FS struggled against patriarchy… Mvbaron (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does, it's wedged in there with Jamin as the ref: "Scholars associated with the Frankfurt School sought to create a better society by struggling against patriarchy and capitalist exploitation, goals that could seem threatening to others who have an interest in maintaining the status quo.[24]" 27.33.201.239 (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Marcuse said a few things that were supportive of feminism. I wouldn't say the rest of 'em were exactly known for it, and you could probably make an argument, using *secondary* sources mind, that some of them weren't all that keen. Jamin (the source of this assertion) here is talking about 'Cultural Marxism', which for the purposes of our article officially does not exist, not specifically the Frankfurt School here anyway, as far as I can see, so I'm not sure what you party want to do with that. Hey, perhaps Jamin is a believer in the... no, wait, probably not, eh?  Tewdar  08:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Jamin (the source of this assertion) here is talking about 'Cultural Marxism' hey then, how about we remove the false claim about The Frankfurt School. 27.33.201.239 (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

How about we just change the phrasing "Scholars associated with the Frankfurt School" to "Cultural Marxists", like the source says? 😂  Tewdar  15:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's not introduce inconsistent and misleading terminological usages that have been repeatedly rejected by the community. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks like "Scholars associated with the Frankfurt School" will have to do, then, if we are prohibited from using the language of the highest quality reliable sources.  Tewdar  17:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

So now, in the vaguely titled section "Conspiratorial Interpretations", there's just a random mention of anonymous "scholars associated" with The Frankfurt School "struggling against patriarchy"... and it's stuck there with no attribution to a specific academic's opinion (ie Academic Jerome Jamin) like we have for the statements of "Academic Joan Braune".

...I'm not sure how this contributes to anyone's understanding of the conspiracy theory. I'm not sure why anyone wants it wedged in there. 27.33.201.239 (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought "Academic Joan Braune" was just a bit of peacockery? Also, when academic Joan Braune says something, we have other sources that contradict what she says, and so her claims require attribution. If we add another source which contradicts Jamin's analysis, we would then have to attribute the assertion to "Academic Jérôme Jamin". I do have such a source, but I have taken a vow not to edit the article for a while.  Tewdar  21:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

we would then have to attribute the assertion to "Academic Jérôme Jamin". Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. If we add another source which contradicts Jamin's analysis we already have one, Academic Joan Braune who says Cultural Marxism isn't a thing at all. 110.175.188.252 (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Braune is not contradicting Jamin on this point, because she doesn't talk about it at all. As you say, she explicitly states that 'Cultural Marxism' as a scholarly tendency isn't a thing, which actually seems to be an extreme minority viewpoint held by Braune, some Wikipedians, and a couple of others, against circa 50 sources, including numerous scholarly articles and books, Sage encyclopedia entries, and an OED definition. But I digress. Simply present a source that says "scholars associated with the Frankfurt School didn't struggle much against patriarchy, it wasn't really their thing", and I'm sure someone with EC powers will add it to the article at some point, without needing to call an RfC or take it to the OR noticeboard.  Tewdar  08:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Braune does say this, though, about Critical Theory mind you:in reality, Critical Theory does challenge capitalism and intertwined unjust social structures such as the patriarchal family, but as a project, Critical Theory aims to liberate humanity, not destroy with abandon. So we can't use this in support of Jamin, but nor does it contradict what he writes.  Tewdar  09:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The role of the father in the family was one of Fromm's preoccupations, and it influenced most of the Frankfurt School thinkers in one way or another. Horkheimer picks it up mainly in Authority and the Family. Marcuse really runs with it in Eros and Civilization and continues the thread somewhat in One Dimensional Man and of course Marxism and Feminism. I've added a couple of secondary references to the article. Sennalen (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Habermas wrote some good stuff on feminism, too. I guess you'd probably call him "second generation" Frankfurt School, or something like that...  Tewdar  17:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Marxism and Feminism [6] was a one time lecture by Herbert Marcuse alone, made in 1974, well after his time in The Frankfurt School. This was in between 2nd wave feminism (starting in the 1960s) and 3rd wave feminism (starting in the 1990s)... and hardly constitutes "The Frankfurt School struggling against patriarchy" - which is not generally thought of as part of their project. So to my mind, your point does not stand. 110.175.188.252 (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

All you need is one single solitary *secondary* source, preferably but not necessarily discussing the conspiracy in some way, and we can write "Whether scholars associated with the Frankfurt School struggled against patriarchy is debated. Academic Jérôme Jamin thinks this, whereas academic X thinks that..."  Tewdar  08:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Here on page 13 of "The Discourse of Domination: From the Frankfurt School to Postmodernism"[7], Sociologist Ben Agger notes that Marcuse alone was interested in the topic of Feminism. This is the majority viewpoint in reliable sources on The Frankfurt School. To quote another paper (by Barbara Umrath) "There is a widespread sense that the Frankfurt School theorists either did not say much about gender or when they did, it was traditional rather than critical". Here, she accurately captures the majority viewpoint of Frankfurt School scholarship, and mentions later how little influence The Frankfurt School had on feminism, stating "within the fields of gender studies and feminist theory; ...other traditions of critical thought far outweigh the Frankfurt School’s influence". [8] Accordingly Wikipedia should reflect the majority viewpoint within analysis of Critical Theory and Sociology, rather than giving undue weight to Jamin as it is currently. It's pretty straight forwards, and I'm not sure why so much debate is being required. 110.175.188.252 (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The world's real best philosopher Jürgen Habermas certainly was interested in, and influenced, feminism: Although we cannot know a priori what the good society will be, we know more than enough about what it will not be to provide a current agenda. It will not be a society with wide gender disparities in status, power and economic security. Nor will it be a society that limits women's reproductive freedom, tolerates substantial poverty, violence, and racial injustice, or structures its workplace without regard to family needs. Cultural Marxists Scholars associated with the Frankfurt School can hardly be blamed for feminism mainly going down the Butler path, so I think we should keep what they wrote about separate from how much influence they had, which was not part of your original complaint. 😁👍 Tewdar  19:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

There's no mention of "struggling against a patriarchy" in that Habermas quote. Do you have any quotes which mention "patriarchy" ??? 110.175.188.252 (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

There's no mention of "struggling against a patriarchy" in that Habermas quote - of course there isn't. That's because it's a response to what you wrote, which also had nothing to do with "struggling against a patriarchy" 😁👍 Tewdar  05:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The struggle against patriarchal oppression and for the redemption of a promise that has long been anchored in the acknowledged universalistic foundations of morality and law gives feminism the impetus of an offensive movement, whereas the other movements have a more defensive character. The resistance and withdrawal movements aim at stemming formally organized domains of action for the sake of communicatively structured domains, and not at conquering new territory. There is an element of particularism that connects feminism with these movements; the emancipation of women means not only establishing formal equality and eliminating male privilege, but overturning concrete forms of life marked by male monopolies. - TCA Vol 2, pg393 😁👍 Tewdar  05:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

frankfurt+school+were+not+feminists - LOL! 😁👍 Tewdar  19:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Goes to show how easy it is to find out that the widespread viewpoint is that The Frankfurt School were not intentionally (as a group) considered to be "struggling against the patriarchy". It's a silly claim for the article to be stating in Wikivoice. I don't know what to tell you. 110.175.188.252 (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

In fact, looking a little more closely at your sources / quotes, none of 'em hold water really. They are unusable:

Sociologist Ben Agger notes that Marcuse alone was interested in the topic of Feminism - this is not what Agger says, perhaps you should quote the bit you believe is about Frankfurt School vs patriarchy

There is a widespread sense that the Frankfurt School theorists either did not say much about gender or when they did, it was traditional rather than critical - nothing to do with Frankfurt School vs patriarchy

other traditions of critical thought far outweigh the Frankfurt School’s influence" -nothing to do with Frankfurt School vs patriarchy

Please present a source that explicitly argues that scholars associated with the Frankfurt School were not struggling against patriarchy. 😁👍 Tewdar  04:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

How about I just let the article fester with misrepresentative, undue claims like you want. You're asking me to prove a negative by the way. 110.175.188.252 (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

prove a negative - Bullshit, you just can't find a source - I already fixed it, didn't I (unless it got lost in the fecking reverts)? Take a look. Are you satisfied, or do you still want changes? You were perfectly happy for the article to fester with misrepresentative, undue claims until very, very recently. 😁👍 Tewdar  09:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

And start a new section if you have further complaints, this section is a shambolic mess right now. 😁👍 Tewdar  09:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It's been pointed out that the theme was developed by at least four principal members in multiple works spanning decades. The word patriarchy is not owned by 2nd wave feminism. Sennalen (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

What theme? Principal members of what? Feminism as a theme? A theme for society? What are you talking about? 194.223.50.101 (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2022 (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.

Moved from other space

Sorry I wasn't trying to reopen a closed discussion so much as start a new one.

Could you please explain why the cited sources are sufficient to prove that this is the connotation with which the term is necessarily used and not "The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a center-right viewpoint that Western Marxism is the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert classical liberalism. The Frankfurt School is seen to distort modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness, in order to posit zero-sum oppressor-oppressed relations and deny the existence of objective truth or the possibility of deductive reasoning and problem solving independent of one's position in a "power structure" leading to the subversion, accidental or deliberate, of classical liberalism and undermines classical liberal values and replace them, accidentally or deliberately, with the values of the Frankfurt School that first rose to prominence through the New Left in the 1960s". And positing that such a concept exists, whether or not you agree or disagree, is certainly not anti-Semitic, as responding to this concept is a big part of how prominent intellectuals such as Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and Don Kagan, who happen to be Jewish, got "mugged by reality" as Kristol said. Also, people who follow this ideology itself almost always posit a zero-sum oppressor-oppressed relationship between Israelis and Palestinians in which they side with the Palestinians which often requires them to be anti-Semitic, while if you negate this ideology you can care about Palestinians without being anti-Semitic, but I am pretty sure the Israeli government, which irrespective of its stance on the Palestinian issue, is most certainly not anti-Semitic, would also recognize the existence of this ideology and be hostile to it, as with Kristol, Podhoretz and Kagan, contradicting that positing its existence is an "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory". People who debate whether or not "Anne Frank benefited from white privilege" as an Ashkenazi Jew belong to this ideology - that is, they are students of the Frankfurt school - and that is anti-Semitic, not realizing that the Frankfurt School causes people to consider such despicable things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.137.102 (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually I think the main source of neutrality issues for this article are that it cites sources which are not necessarily neutral themselves. I think the way to do that would be to say "this author claims this" in the body of the page rather than state any of these author's perspectives as an objective fact. And then one can present opposing arguments from other authors such as

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/just-because-anti-semites-talk-about-cultural-marxism-doesnt-mean-it-isnt-real

and also talk about how this "conspiracy theory" resembles concepts responded to in places such as here

https://www.commentary.org/articles/george-lichtheim/new-left-marxism/

https://www.hoover.org/research/why-there-culture-war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.137.102 (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No Wikipedia editor is obliged to WP:SATISFY you. What the article has to do is follow the best available sources on its topic - which it does - and follow previously established consensus - which it does. Your original research about what account resembles other concept is not strictly relevant here. Newimpartial (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

"Could you please" doesn't necessarily imply obligation :P

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the definition of "best available sources" and I am not sure if "previously established consensus" refers to Wikipedia editors or is more general. Thank you for the feedback about "original research". I do not think my point is "original research" though my framing might be. But fortunately for you, since you appear to want me to shut up, I won't have time to devote further effort to this. 100.8.137.102 (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We have to follow Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which excludes the sources you provided. If you have a different opinion on what are best sources, you have to get Wikipedia to change its policies. TFD (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first time Tablet Magazine has been accused of anti-antisemitism. 194.223.54.91 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that the article could benefit from a more even handed, or nuanced, treatment of the subject. For instance, it claims right from the start that it is a far-right , anti-semitic conspiracy. However if so many jewish public figures adhere to the idea, it should at least suggest that the concept of "cultural marxism" is vague or polysemic enough to allow for different definitions and usages by different groups, wether they are neo-nazis or conservative jewish commentators. I believe ther article would greatly benefit from this kind of nuance. It also seems to posit that "scholarly consensus" revolves around the positions of self proclaimed Critical Theorists which would hardly imply neutrality. Take for instance this sentence in the article: Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact.[7][10] Source number 10 is an article by Dr. Joan Braune who seems to self-identify as an advocate for Critical Theory, which happens to be one of the main issues of "Cultural Marxist" narratives. From the start, this alone would hardly suggest an unbiased and neutral appraisal of the phenomenon. I understand the difficult and polemical nature of this subject, but from the purely objective standpoint of source selection and treatment of the matter, this article could be improved. I don´t dispute here wether this is a conspiracy theory. I dispute source bias and subject treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.37.69.231 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The supposition that the conspiracy theory might be partly right is not a policy-relevant reason to modify adricle text, here or elsewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I just argued. I did not suggest the theory might be partly right. I quite clearly stated otherwise. 189.37.69.231 (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Then maybe casting doubt on Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact wasn't really the right move for you to make. Newimpartial (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take your time reading what I wrote instead. I questioned source bias, not the conclusion. Maybe you should stay out of this discussion since you seem more passionate about it than necessary scholarly impartiality (look up that word if you will, you seem confused about its meaning) would allow. 189.37.69.231 (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of a source has absolutely nothing to do with the author's opinions. Opinions are opinions, while facts are facts. Saying that the conspiracy theory has no basis in fact is itself a fact. Whatever Dr. Braune's personal views, she is an expert and her article was published in a peer-reviewed journal. If it was factually incorrect, it would not have passed peer review. You of course are free to read and believe whatever you choose. But policy requires that articles are based on facts from expert sources and represent expert findings. It may well be that those sources are all secretly controlled by the cultural Marxists, but until policy is changed, that's what articles will state. TFD (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If it was factually incorrect, it would not have passed peer review. oh, sweet summer child Sennalen (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The policy page for Verifiability used to read, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Of course what we accept as fact may turn out to be untrue, in which case we can amend articles. Similarly, the "facts" established in a court of law may turn out to be false. In the meantime, as far as we are concerned, they are the facts. TFD (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

«It also seems to posit that "scholarly consensus" revolves around the positions of self proclaimed Critical Theorists» => What are your evidences that Martin Jay, Jérôme Jamin and Andrew Woods are self proclaimed Critical Theorists? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

This is incredibly one sided. First problem is that everyone who uses the term Cultural Marxism is lumped together. The second is the way criticism of cultural Marxism is assumed to include a belief that what is involved is a conspiracy rather than an influential set of ideas that the speaker disagrees with. Suella Braverman for instance seems to be referring to postmodernism/poststructuralism rather than the Frankfurt School and yet solely on the use of the term she is deemed to be antisemitic. I'm not keen on the term Cultural Marxism - it is the way right wingers often refer to postmodernism in a way that is directed solely at there base and hence often used of ideas that aren't remotely Marxist but the inference being drawn from use of the term goes far beyond what can be justified.Dejvid (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

"Suella Braverman for instance seems to be referring to postmodernism/poststructuralism" - that would be original research on your part. Perhaps she was getting the term confused with Jordan Peterson's "Post modern neo marxism"... at any rate, Jurgen Habermas of The Frankfurt School "Cultural Marxists" is (according to Standford's encyclopedia of philosophy) "The most prominent and comprehensive critic of philosophical postmodernism". So I think you're looking to make sense of the nonsensical here. Especially considering Postmodernism its self is the study of the limits of authority over meaning. It's a rabbit hole that perhaps falls out of the purview of this article. If you want to argue that Postmodernism is Cultural Marxism, you'd be better off doing that on the Postmodernism article's talk page. I believe after Suella Braverman's usage The Board of Deputies of British Jews had a talk with her to clarify her meaning. So clearly they thought it was worth discussing for some reason. She has subsequently switched to the term "Woke".[9] 194.223.51.184 (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Great point Dejvid. This happens a lot; racists/anti-semites will endorse some relatively mainstream political view (like higher trade tariffs, as another example), then opponents of that view use that to lump everyone who holds the position together with the racists. Anyone who isn't an anti-semite who argues for those policies or ideas is accused of "dog whistling". (Do a search for globalism and anti-semitism, I am not kidding, it's that ridiculous.) The fact that many prominent Jews express the idea also is just called "puzzling" and brushed under the rug, nobody stops to wonder if maybe the idea is actually totally orthogonal to anti-semitism. That's the pattern of this article, too. Not Wikipedia's finest. Also great point about the term being used sloppily by conservatives to describe e.g. what Jordan Peterson talks about. I similarly avoid the phrase for that reason. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Look, we're doing our best, alright? Once a few editors finally receive their gold watch and enter Wikiretirement, maybe we will be able to accurately summarize what the reliable sources on this topic actually say, instead of just the 25% of their content that is deemed to be WP:ACCEPTABLE + nearly 100% of Joan Braune's stuff (unless she goes off message of course, then it's SNIP! for her too!) 😁  Tewdar  18:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Oops, didn't realize that WP:ACCEPTABLE actually linked to something...  Tewdar  18:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Can everyone please observe WP:NOTFORUM? In fact, this whole talk page is just one big notforum mess. Mvbaron (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought my comment definitely was focussed on article improvement! 😂 Get the old OneClickArchiver out if you don't think these discussions are worthwhile...  Tewdar  19:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, most of it seems to be about article improvement. Is there any correlation between the NOTFORUM violations and the editors participating? 🤔  Tewdar  19:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

For my part, any discussion of retirement inducements for editors is likely to be off-topic for this page, and more appropriately directed at the TEAHOUSE.

Also, assertions about "percentages" of the content available from the best sources vs. content included in this article, which are not backed by actual RS that perform such content analysis, are WP:OR and therefore inadmissible. Tewdar, if you are aware of any high-quality (Belgian or non-Belgian) sources on the Conspiracy Theory that are underrepresented in this article, I suggest that you make explicit statements or suggestions rather than casting unsubtle WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Please. Newimpartial (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Either a source is reliable, or it is not, even if that source is written by a Belgian (for anyone reading, yes, that seriously has been used as an argument to marginalize Jamin's analysis of this topic). If it is reliable, don't just summarize the bits you WP:LIKE, and leave out the bits that contradict academic Dr Joan Braune or whatever. Also, as a mere dojo-sweeper, I wouldn't want to argue with a 9th dan expert in WP:UPPERCASE-FU, but I don't think that WP:OR applies to talk pages, does it?  Tewdar  08:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Some FU masters say yes, some say NO. Newimpartial (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The IP's post is all over the place, and they have clearly read material by some people who actually believe in this conspiracy theory. Their post reeks of Jordan Peterson's "post-modern neo-Marxism", which is evident from the quote that: [Cultural Marxists are supposed to] deny the existence of objective truth or the possibility of deductive reasoning. Marxism doesn't deny objective truth or deductive reasoning, quite the contrary, it forms the basis of its methodology, at least in my understanding (I'm not a Marxist); this quote seems to more vaguely refer to postmodernism. Also, a side note: Just because people are Jewish doesn't mean they can't hold or support anti-Semitic beliefs—these two things are not incompatible, see for example the Association of German National Jews.

I would classify the IP's behavior and arguments as apologetic for this conspiracy theory, and request that an uninvolved editor or admin close this discussion, because it will lead nowhere. TucanHolmes (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)