Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Sources to Consideration re: antisemitism and conspiracy theory labeling

Asked and answered. Please refer to the FAQ if still in doubt.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A. The Frankfurt School is well-documented as being a major driving force in social and political philosophical thought of the 20th and 21st century. See Sources 9, 10, 11, and 12 B. The Frankfurt School is well-documented as being noteworthy for its support of utilizing a “cultural” approach for popularizing Marxism. See Sources 8, 10, 11, and 12 C. It cannot be stated with any definitive authority that the present-day controversy on “cultural marxism” is inherently anti-semtitic, as the subject of discussion is in no way inherently related to Judaism, is not hostile towards Jewish people, and is not hostile towards Jewish beliefs. The subject of controversy in "cultural marxism" debates is Marxism, not Judaism. See Sources 5, 7, and 10. D. Some of the most influential Marxist thinkers of all time have explicitly advocated for the popularization of Marxist through the overpowering of hegemonic thought through mainstream cultural avenues. This is undeniable fact. See Sources 4, 5, 6, and 10 E. Marxist thinking has indeed been growing in popularity. This is undeniable fact. If the Frankfurt Schools is understood as being the driving force of contemporary Marxian thinking (see point A) with a cultural twist (see points B and D), then it is only logical to connect this growth to Frankfurt School roots. See Sources 1, 2, 3, and 9 Amlans (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC) References  Not done. I'm sorry that you have put so much work into this proposal only for it to fail at the most fundamental level rendering all that work moot. This is not the article about Marxist cultural analysis or the Frankfurt School. Those both have their own articles (linked). This is a completely separate article about an antisemitic conspiracy theory with a similar name which people sometimes conflate with Marxist cultural analysis, either out of genuine confusion or with the intention to confuse others. We have done our best to avoid any confusion. Anybody arriving at this article by mistake will see a note, right at the top, saying "Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For the Marxist approach to social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis." making it easy for readers to find the correct article that they want. Anybody visiting this Talk page is greeted with a FAQ explaining the situation. We have tried to make this as prominent as possible but it seems that you might have missed it. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Then remove the redirect because it's clearly not working as intended. 2804:14C:5B72:8C7D:6486:B606:D246:3E40 (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Its working exactly as intended and as it should. 95-99% of people who search for the phrase "Cultural Marxism" will have the conspiracy theory in mind so it is correct that they get redirected here. The few others are quickly notified of where to find the other article that they want. If we removed the redirect then somebody would swoop in, possibly in confusion but more likely in bad faith, and make a new redirect pointing at the Frankfurt School in the hope of obfuscating the conspiratorial nature of the term as it is currently used. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Of course it's working as intended. The intent is to strawman anyone who mentions Cultural Marxism (as almost all Conservative media personalities do, now) as an antisemite and a conspiracy theorist. The bias is clear here. > 95-99% of people who search for the phrase "Cultural Marxism" will have the conspiracy theory in mind Citation needed, bub. 184.83.109.74 (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC) People who embrace conspiracy theories do lose their credibility. Not our problem to fix. And I'm not a leftist, but a classical liberal. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC) "> 95-99% of people who search for the phrase "Cultural Marxism" will have the conspiracy theory in mind." No, they won't. They'll have "Cultural Marxism" in mind. I think a more accurate statement is "we want 95-99% of people to associate Cultural Marxism with antisemitism and conspiracy theories" That's fine, I guess, but let's not pretend that framing Cultural Marxism as a "conspiracy theory" is some sort of above-the-fray, objective approach. I think that this article is a POV fork, and should be combined with "Marxist cultural analysis" to form one article, simply called "Cultural Marxism", which would discuss Cultural Marxism as an analytical framework, while also mentioning that some people have attached the term to ideas that have been described as "conspiracy theories".Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Previous post with sources for consideration was disregarded and shut down without any substantive engagement with content. Please do not shut down my discussion before I have the chance to respond. I did not ask any questions, I did not miss the FAQ, I am not confusing this page with Marxist cultural analysis, and my work is not failing at the most fundamental level. I am providing legitimate, substantive information for consideration that very clearly undermines the present page's assertion of the controversial Cultural Marxism theory as factually being A) a conspiracy theory and B) wholesale antisemitic. Again, please, the sources I am putting forward, that I did indeed spend a lot of time gathering, in goof faith, in combination, clearly provide substantive evidence to support that the present page is in need of editing as present assertions are not objective, are not taking the full scope of information on the subject into consideration, and therefore appear to support a blatant bias - A. The Frankfurt School is well-documented as being a major driving force in social and political philosophical thought of the 20th and 21st century. See Sources 9, 10, 11, and 12 B. The Frankfurt School is well-documented as being noteworthy for its support of utilizing a “cultural” approach to popularize Marxism. See Sources 8, 10, 11, and 12 C. It cannot be stated with any definitive authority that the present-day controversy on “cultural marxism” is inherently anti-semtitic, as the subject of discussion is in no way inherently related to Judaism, is not hostile towards Jewish people, and is not hostile towards Jewish beliefs. The subject of controversy in "cultural marxism" is Marxism, not Judaism. See Sources 5, 7, and 10. D. Some of the most influential Marxist thinkers of all time explicitly advocate for the popularization of Marxist thought through the overpowering of hegemonic thought via mainstream cultural avenues. This is undeniable fact. See Sources 4, 5, 6, and 10 E. Marxist thinking has indeed been growing in popularity. This is undeniable fact. If the Frankfurt Schools is understood as being the driving force of contemporary Marxian thinking (see point A) with a cultural twist (see points B and D), then it is only logical to connect this growth to Frankfurt School roots. See Sources 1, 2, 3, and 9 Amlans (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC) = Is the conspiracy theory antisemitic? = There are no solid and widely established left wing academic definitions of what the words 'cultural Marxism' mean, if anything. The two words sometimes act as a vague illusion towards The Frankfurt School. Other times, such as in Jameson's Conversations on Cultural Marxism, they're just used in the title and don't appear inside said book. There's even a British version "British Cultural Marxism", which doesn't focus on The Frankfurt School. The point is, it's not a well defined or well established left wing concept, idea, school of thought, ideology, movement, or plan to take over as far as solid, academic sources go. It also has little to nothing to do with Identity Politics, Progressive Politics, or whatever else the right accuse it of causing. So let's look at those accusations, and how the phrase became popular in right wing discourse (and spoiler alert, some of your sources are purely from right wing sources with little to no academic standing or expertise in Marxist academic discourse). The first usages of Cultural Marxism on the right, were by Paul M. Weyrich (in 1999) founder of The Free Congress Foundation, and co-founder of The Heritage Foundation, and his friend and employee - William S. Lind. Lind has stated that Weyrich asked him to construct a version of what Cultural Marxism means, and write a history of his concept (so he did). Later Lind represented The Free Congress Foundation at a Holocaust Denial Conference put on by their mutual friend and a confirmed White Nationalist, a man named Willis Carto for his historical revisionist magazine The Barnes Review. That was in 2002. Obviously White Supremacists are into that sort of antisemitic historical revisionist publication (WW2 Holocaust revisionism being the focus of The Barnes Review), and this led to the right wing conception of Cultural Marxism finding early popularity among American White Nationalist communities and websites like Stormfront.org. Somewhere around the time of this talk, Weyrich and The Free Congress Foundation also funded a short documentary to be made on the subject of Cultural Marxism, starring William S. Lind, and at one point featuring Laszlo Pasztor - a former member of the Fascist Hungarian Arrow Cross party and actual Nazi Collaborator, who worked with those political parties in Berlin when they were both performing mass killings in their respective countries. He served 5 years in prison after WW2, having being convicted of Crimes Against Humanity for his war time activities. Here is a screen shot of Laszlo Pasztor from The Free Congress Foundation's political "documentary" on their conception of "Cultural Marxism". That screen shot's from the KnowYourMeme website, which has also documented a bunch of the alt-right's memes on the topic, many of which are from the websites 4chan.org, and 8chan.org, and many of which are antisemitic. That's the basic trajectory of this conspiracy theory, the people who came up with it advertised it to White Nationalists. Those White Nationalists were already working with the think tanks that came up with the concept (1, 2, 3). They were friends and colleagues, that's just the baggage the Republican party brought along with the concept. That's why they had employed a Nazi Collaborator. None of that is Wikipedia's doing. Here are some examples of the conspiracy theory being used as an antisemitic conspiracy theory in the wild: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. So because of this, because it's both a concept which never found a mainstream or singular definition within Leftist academic sources, and because of its early White nationalist, White Supremacist, and Nazi connections, we have to tread very carefully with what we say on the topic, and how much we're seen to bolster or validate it as a concept. Personally, I haven't seen a strong, linear, well sourced, and causal description/argument for the conspiracy being "true", and have only seen the red string and pin board versions of it laid out - ones that require leaps between decades, and only the loosest of connections between individuals. It's often an "argument of influence" claiming 'this person or concept was clearly influenced by this person/idea' without any actual causal evidence.... and that's not even getting into whether 'leftists existing in culture' or 'leftists influencing leftists' constitutes anything other than the normal functioning of politics. = Are your sources any good? = Now let's quickly go through your sources and see what you've got: 1. Is housed on a wordpress server and doesn't use the phrase "Cultural Marxism". Whilst it's probably a legitimate organisation it's off topic, and you're using it to back a subjective opinion that isn't really relevant to the contents of the page (I'm sure you'll argue it's relevant, but you probably don't realize that it isn't in Wikipedia's view - it would only be if the conspiracy theory was already proven and established as fact, it isn't). 2. A New York times opinion piece from 1989, which again doesn't use the term "Cultural Marxism" and actually states "in the past decade, while the prosperity of Western economies has made Marxism irrelevant to many, new rival radical theories have arisen to challenge the Marxists themselves." and "It's been diluted to the point where it's a very thin gruel," the article can be read as going against your point, as it notes that there's a lively discourse against marxist viewpoints. Meaning it's a matter of the market place of ideas, rather than some subversive take over. Marxists are allowed free discourse just as much as anyone else... but as this source says they're a "very thin gruel" in academia. 3. The Washington Times - is a right wing conservative publication owned by Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. It's known to put out inaccurate and politically charged information, and isn't a reliable source. The author appears to have been a priest at some point, no indication of any expertise or background in Academia, Sociology, or any of the fields relevant to the topic. 4. An article in The New Left Review about Gramsci, not particularly relevant, and actually discusses the difficulty decoding Gramsci, given his major work was written under censorship. Gramsci isn't particularly popular in my view, but the author gives their own subjective opinion. The source doesn't use the phrase "Cultural Marxism" in the text. 5. An opinion piece in the right wing conservative magazine - Tablet Magazine, the first source to use the term, but there's no indication it's being used by an expert in any relevant field, or even that the author is particularly well known or notable. Right wing sources aren't likely to be used for supposedly left wing concepts. 6. Wikipedia page for the phrase "Long March through the institutions" which although somewhat praised by Marcuse after The Frankfurt School ended, has little to do with them, and came after their hay day. It's also a phrase that came along at the end of Marcuse' career - he only wrote one book after this phrase came along so it has little to nothing to do with The Frankfurt School proper. Can't be said to be from them, or to be one of their influences (having not come in their time, or from them). You could perhaps argue that it might have influenced Marcuse' last book, but the school wasn't operating in a coordinated fashion at that point. The man who came up with the phrase died from injuries incurred in a right wing assassination attempt some time later. There is no indication a movement formed around this phrase or that it's particularly significant (it's obviously derivative of the more well known Maoist position, which eclipses it in historical significance). 7. An opinion piece from the "Let's Talk" section of The Jewish Chronical - it states specifically "In short, Cultural Marxism can be and has been used as an antisemitic phrase, to confer antisemitic meaning or as an antisemitic dog whistle. Because of that, it should be avoided."' - this confirms the current page's usage and description. 8. Is from a "post-christian" blog out of Atlanta, it indicates no expertise in Academia, Sociology, or Marxist discourse. The author was at some point a seminarian, has also written for the Libertarian website Reason.org. His writings are mostly focused on religion and the fighting of a perceived "culture war" (which he has written a book on). The website also has writings on the ills of critical race theory, and he seems to be firmly on the Christian Right side of things. His religious education doesn't suggest any expertise in Sociology or Marxist discourse. Although it's unclear what topic area, he may have a background in history it's still just his uncredentialed and self-published personal blog. 9. Is a somewhat interesting essay from someone seemingly with relevant credentials - but it doesn't use the term Cultural Marxism and in its conclusion states specifically "As an intellectual movement within a disciplinary context, neo-Marxism affected sociology but was ultimately constrained and marginalized within it." and "In the confrontation between sociological Marxism and the empirical mainstream in American sociology, sociological Marxism's initial insights in the 1970s have pushed the field in a novel direction, but nowhere has Marxism consistently maintained an adjudicatory advantage." - so it's actually arguing against your point (the 3rd or 4th of your sources to do so). 10. Is from The Colson Center, which was set up by Charles Colson "Once known as President Nixon's "hatchet man", Colson gained notoriety at the height of the Watergate scandal, for being named as one of the Watergate Seven and also for pleading guilty to obstruction of justice for attempting to defame Pentagon Papers defendant Daniel Ellsberg." - so is obviously not a reliable source on this topic area. 11. Whilst Kellner is an academic, and can be considered a reliable source with relevant credentials/expertise, this particular essay doesn't use the term "Cultural Marxism" that I can see - he does have writings on the topic, but doesn't strictly offer a definition that disagrees with Marxist cultural analysis. This source falls into the "Marxists have a right to exist, and yes there are writings about them" category. 12. Whilst hosted on scribd, this source probably falls into a similar category as the above. I can't see the term "Cultural Marxism" used, but sure it's probably a valid description of some of the history of Marxism. Conspiracy theories include some of that history, but what makes them conspiracy theories is when they go off the script, and decide that Marxists existing = proven Marxist take over of the mass media. So in conclusion, MOST of your sources don't use the phrase "Cultural Marxism". Many of your sources are opinion pieces (eg. just someone whose writings are on the internet, often self-published). Some are from Christian non-experts. Some are from right wing organizations or publications, and don't have expertise or any academic background that warrants their inclusion as sources on this Wikipedia page. Some of your sources are from academics with relevant backgrounds, but none of those bolster your claims. Unfortunately for you, the most valid sources you offered went against your claims. All your sources were checked. None of them warranted substantive changes to the page... and as stated earlier, some of your most valid sources support the current contents of the page. 2405:6E00:22EE:7EE0:F9ED:A4D4:C6DE:B3A5 (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Current Reliance Upon Unreliable Sources

This article is presently employing unreliable sources that fail to meet a number of basic wiki conventions.

These sources are not being used in a way that acknowledges their unreliability and/or makes use of their unreliability a point of conversation. Rather, these unreliable sources are being used as foundational evidence/knowledge. This seems like an obvious problem in need of correction.

Source 4 - Jeffries, Stuart - This source does not meet basic guidelines for identifying independent sources WP:IIS Verso Books is an openly radical publishing group with a vested interest in the Frankfurt School.

Source 5 - Braune, Joan - This source does not meet basic standards for WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The “Journal of Social Justice” is published by a fringe, non-profit group and is not supported by an accredited scholarly institution or well-regarded academic press - it does not meet standards for “reliable scholarship.” The journal is not included in relevant, high-quality citation indexes (Elsevier Scopus, ScienceDirect) - it falls into the category of “predatory journals.” The journal mimics the name of established journals - it falls into the category of “hijacked journals.” Overall, the journal is clearly not respected or reviewed by the wider academic community and should therefore “not be considered reliable” according to “POV and peer review in journals” criteria. Additionally, a review of citation index data shows that the article has not entered mainstream academic discourse - it does not meet basic “citation count” standards.

Source 6 - Woods, Andrew - Authored by a pre-PHD university graduate student with no reputation for legitimacy, no history within the field/discipline, no credits...

Source 13 - Woods, Andrew - Same author as Source 6…See discussion above. Additionally, this is published by a magazine that so very obviously does not meet basic standards for independence or basic standards for scholarship. Aside from the obvious bias/partisan/POV issues that are not addressed when the source is used, at less than five years old, the magazine has little to no history of legitimacy. Not regarded in any way in the field, by legitimate scholars, by reputable institutions. No oversight. Furthermore, to make matters worse, leadership has been accused of disturbing predatory behavior. Overall, highly questionable.

Source 14 - Jay, Martin - Verso Books again. See Source 4 discussion.

Source 23 - Berkowitz, Bill - The reputation of the SPLC is well-documented as being questionable at best, wholesale corrupt at worst. An unrelibale source in many ways.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/us/splc-leadership-crisis/index.html

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2018/11/08/feature/is-the-southern-poverty-law-center-judging-hate-fairly/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-nawaz-v-splc/562646/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-law-center-liberals-islam.html (yes, it’s an op-ed. I know.) Amlans (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Source 4, Verso Books is a very large publishing house, with a good reputation, there's no indication that they allow authors to edit their own books. But if you have further questions/issues with this source, the proper place to raise them is the Reliable Sources Notice Board (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard). That notice board has Wikipedians who specifically deal with verifying whether sources are reliable, perhaps equally importantly they're not involved with discussions here or the politics of this talk page, so can act as an objective sounding board to discuss sources with, and whether they're reliable.

Source 5 The Journal of Social Justice is published out of Gonzaga University, in Spokane. So is a legitimate journal with oversight from that academic institution. DOCTOR Joan Braune is a PhD in Philosophy, credentialed from the University of Kentucky, and specifically wrote her PhD Thesis on Eric Fromm who was a part of The Frankfurt School. So both the Journal and Braune are qualified, credentialed, have editorial oversight, and have expertise/education on the topic in question. But again, if you have further questions of this source, you should raise them at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard so someone external can asses them and tell you about them.

Source 6 Andrew Woods is a PhD candidate at the Centre for the Study of Theory and Criticism located in The University of Western Ontario, so has some level of post-graduate qualification below PhD (you have to, to become a PhD candidate). Whilst a PhD is nice to have as a source, it's not required, a bachelors degree, or some other form of post-graduate level of education in a relevant area, combined with having been published can suffice. In this case, I believe Woods is being used with other sources. Either way, he qualifies. Wikipedia accepts all sorts of sources, but it ranks some higher than others, and has some rules around what each type can be relied on or quoted for. Extraordinary claims might need stronger sourcing (as per WP:NN and WP:Fringe), but here, Woods is simply agreeing with the academic consensus, so doesn't need to be a strong source (he has backup). But again, if you disagree you should raise this with the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.

Source 13 Andrew Woods again, but here, he's actually being quoted by name, this is called an in-text attribution. Andrew Woods (as someone with published writings on the topic, and a background from a relevant academic institute), gets a sentence quoted in the article. Andrew Woods is thus being used to give Andrew Woods opinion, it's attributed to him so that it's not in "Wikivoice" - something we're purporting as an objective fact, but is quoted in this way so readers can know this is Woods opinion.

Source 14 Martin Jay is not just some guy at Verso books. He's the key academic historian of The Frankfurt School and has relevant and long standing qualifications concerning their history. An extraordinarily well qualified academic with relevant credentials from Harvard and Berkley. It is ridiculous of you to raise him as an issue, and shows that perhaps you're not here to WP:BUILD an Encyclopedia, but are perhaps here to just throw mud and see what sticks?

Source 23 The SPLC is a perennial source ranked as reliable on Wikipedia's list of WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Again, basic research would have told you this. The SPLC has a history of employing academics and credible research methodologies to investigate hate groups, terrorism, and conspiracy theories. So they have a strong track record in this area (which is why Wikipedia accepts their work, because they have editorial oversight, and have employed many credible and credentialed people to form a long standing database of articles, cases, and expertise). The internal personal politics of a place doesn't matter to Wikipedia - whether they produce credible, verifiable, and well constructed reporting, does. We're not interested in their politics, we're interested in how accurate their reporting, journalism, and editorial standards are.

You do not appear to have done basic due diligence in researching your false claims. Every single issue you've brought up has been addressed and refuted. Earlier you were accused of WP:Sealioning - and if you persist in only aiming to tear down, rather than find out, investigate, research, and report (eg. WP:BUILD a reliable encyclopedia) that claim of WP:Sealioning will look more credible. So a friendly piece of advice: Do more research and put more thought into your approach if you're planning to persist. Quick fire mudslinging is not an approach that works well on Wikipedia. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

These accusations you are making against me are inappropriate and uncalled for. You are entitled to your own opinion, but I have done due diligence to the best of my capacity. You are entitled to your own opinion, but I am attempting find out, investigate report, and again, I am doing so to the best of my ability. Whether you believe otherwise is nothing but your own personal opinion.

I am not quick fire mudslinging. I put hours on end into my researching and my thoughts; you are not the ultimate arbitrator on whether or not that is true. You are not the ultimate arbitrator on whether my work is good enough. You are the not the ultimate arbitrator of standards.

This is a place for community discussion and contribution for and by all who would like to attempt to do so in good faith, as I am, and it is inappropriate for you, or anyone on here, to act otherwise.

Please keep baseless insults and accusations to yourself. It is out of line, unbecoming, and unnecessary. And please, leave me alone. Amlans (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of WP:Sealioning I referenced an earlier accusation (see the talk page history for details), and said you need to do better research if you are to persist making claims here, otherwise that accusation may appear accurate. Finding out whether authors have credentials from actual universities, and whether those credentials are relevant to the subject matter is something you've seemingly overlooked. It's something you can do to figure out whether Wikipedia will accept those sources/authors.

It's easy to feel personally attacked, but I merely intended to remind you that your claims need to be substantive if you want to be heard and agreed with. My advice is slow down. Get use to Wikipedia and the INTENTIONS behind the policies, ask around on notice boards and at the WP:village pump. Get used to how things work, and how to build a consensus. Arguing with basic and established facts, or flying in the face of a page's history and current consensus is not the best approach.

You'll find this particular Wikipedia page is well researched and established, because it's been through all sorts of challenges. You can flick through, or search the talk page archives at the top of this page - you'll find these discussions go back a while (and are further archived on the Frankfurt_School talk page). The page is how it is, because Wikipedia aims to report the academic viewpoint on the topic, and that Wikipedia strives for accuracy and quality research. Good luck in future endeavors. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I never said anything about sealioning. Only you have mentioned that.

Please see my response below. You initially addressed me, and are continuing to address me, as if you unquestionably know what you are talking about and I unquestionably do not, and that is very clearly not the case.

It appears that you may need to take a good chunk of your own advice. Please leave me alone, and please do not engage with me on this article anymore. Amlans (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I will continue to interact in WP:GoodFaith, with the contents of this talk page. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Re: Source 4 - It does not matter that Verso Books has a "good reputation." I don't deny that and that is not the basis by which I am challenging their inclusion. As I already very clearly pointed out, their use on this page very blatantly goes against basic standards of reliability based upon their vested interest in the Frankfurt School, the core of this article's subject matter. It's straightforward.

Re: Source 5 - You are incorrect. Please do your due diligence in good faith before attempting to shut people down in this manner.

Dr. Joan Braun is employed at Gonzaga University. The Journal of Social Justice is published by the Transformative Studies Institute - an organization that, as I already shared above, is a fringe, non-profit group not supported by any accredited scholarly institution.

It does not matter that DOCTOR Joan Braun has a PhD in philosophy if this article + the publisher of this article fail to meet, as I already very clearly stated, all of these other WP:RS standards for, as I already explained, 1) reliable scholarship, 2) predatory journals, 3) hijacked journals, 4) POV and peer review in journals, and 5) citation count.

Standards pulled from the WP:RS you are attempting to point me to as if I didn't pull these standards I used in my critique directly from that page already...

Source 6 This Andrew Woods is cited individually in many points of this article. Numerous large chunks of text are being solely attributed to this source.

Again, please do your due diligence before attempting to shut people down in this manner.

Source 13 Please see the above comment. The same applies to this Woods source, though to a lesser degree, as the extent of portions of text solely relying upon this source is lesser.

Source 14 - Please see my commentary on Verso Books and their vested interest in the Frankfurt School, a central topic of this article. Martin Jay's great reputation as an author does not undermine the fact that, as very clearly spelled out across WP:RS, that Verso Books cannot be trusted as a reliable source for THIS particular topic.

Source 23 I provided a diverse set of articles detailing a broad range of SPLC issues including ones detailing issues with reporting, journalism, editorial standards, and reputation at large. But you are attempting to wholesale shut criticism of this source down by only referring to the couple of sources that did reference internal personal politics. Sure, those may not be the most relevant...but their irrelevancy doesn't discount the relevancy of all the others. Again, please do your due diligence before attempting to shut discussion down in this manner.

-

In sum, please do your due diligence before attempting to wholesale shut people down. Careless argumentation is not conducive to productive conversation and goes against the spirit and guidelines of this platform. Amlans (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the academic credentials of authors does count to their reliability. If you have further issues with these sources, you should raise them at the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, rather than WP:Sealioning here. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The University of Gonzaga, has also housed a publication titled Journal of Social Justice.

However, your claims are still dubious, as the one hosted on the transformativestudies website, still lists a Chief Editor, Edition Editor, and Associate Editors here - indicating there is an editorial board with academic oversight and academic standards. This combined with Braune's PhD in philosophy, and specifically on the topic of Frankfurt School member Eric Fromm, means it's still a valid source (especially as we're using an in-text attribution, as described in WP:CITETYPE). So again, Wikipedia's bases are covered there. Feel free to contest this at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard if you don't still agree (but you might want to read WP:CITETYPE first). 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

-Again, please do your due diligence. The title of the social justice journal published by Gonzaga is "One World," not the "Journal of Social Justice."

- I did not say that academic credentials don't matter wholesale. I said they are not a valid standard to base source reliability upon IF a host of other standards, that, again, I already very clearly listed out, are not met. This is, as I already very clearly explained, explicitly outlined on WP:RS.

"A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals."

"Predatory journals – Some journals are of very low quality that have only token peer-review, if any (see predatory journals). These journals publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of established journals (see hijacked journals). The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should at best be treated similarly to self-published sources. If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant high-quality citation index"

"Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."

"One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ. Works published in journals not included in appropriate databases, especially in fields well covered by them, might be isolated from mainstream academic discourse, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context."

I have very clearly done my due diligence on this subject. Please assume as much. If you are doubtful, please re-read my posts. At this point, I am just repeating the same things over and over again in different ways because you are either intentionally ignoring or accidentally overlooking work that I have already done. Take care. Amlans (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, you should read WP:CITETYPE, for "in text citations", and then before you further WP:Sealion here, you should ask WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard about in text citations. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sealioning; I am not "civilly pushing for a POV." I am pushing for closer adherence to the most basic tenets of WP:NPOV. That's it. Plain and simple.

Please, no more unnecessary allegations or assumptions of bad faith. Thank you. Amlans (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"I have very clearly done my due diligence on this subject. Please assume as much." let's test that in some small way. You quoted a policy that tells us to "check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant high-quality citation index" let's test that for the Journal of Social Justice editorial board. The stuff about citation index scores isn't as relevant here because it's a humanities subject, so any citations that aren't by the author themself is a good sign. You can check this yourself by looking up academics you agree with on the topic and checking their citation scores. Having a citation score is better than having none, just as having some academic qualification in a relevant subject is better than having none.

So proceeding with this, the chief editor of the Journal of Social Justice is John Asimakopoulos, a PhD in Sociology, his citation index is difficult to find (because this is a humanities subject, not a science subject) but it's suggested here works of his authorship have been cited over 100 times. Again citation indexes aren't really used as a measure of quality in humanities, the accuracy and relevancy of statements made are. John Asimakopoulos, is a PhD in a relevant field.

The edition editor is Deric Shannon - who has a PhD from the University of Connecticut as well as other qualifications. Deric has a citation index of 39.

Let's save a little time here and just read the Associate editors who are easy to find and list their credentials next to their names: Dana Williams (California State University Chico, Sociology), Jake Alimahomed-Wilson (California State University-Long Beach, Sociology). As you can see they both have relevant qualifications, here's Dana Williams a PhD in Sociology again... and another PhD for Dr. Jake Wilson, this time in Sociology from The University of California, Riverside.

So there you go, four PhDs on one editorial board. They all check out in line with the policy you claim to have done due diligence on. You told me to Please assume as much... but when I checked that assumption, it turned out the "editorial board" of the journal was "based in a respected accredited university," (multiple of them in fact) "and that it is included in the relevant high-quality citation index.". Turns out the editorial board WAS from relevant areas of study, with relatively high quality citation indexes. So your suggestion for us to just assume you were right, was bad advice. We can just check! No biggie, nothing personal.

Again, if you keep begging the question, question flooding and WP:CPOV pushing, then that's what people are going to think you're doing here. Face it, we've dotted our i's and crossed our t's here. The research done on this topic appears to be well sourced, accurate, and based in Wikipedia's policies for determining reliable and appropriate sourcing on a topic. Those policies aren't flawed. The content isn't flawed. The research isn't flawed. It's all aiming to accurately represent the facts around The Frankfurt School and their writings. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:F136:28B7:1B72:FAB9 (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This WP:WALLOFTEXT appears to be an exercise in WP:IDONTLIKEIT - the sources objected to here (4,5,6, etc.) are high-quality, peer-reviewed sources; the arguments made against them by Amlans apprar to be purely ad hominem in nature - or, even more, are arguments "by contagion" of a kind associated with conspiracy theorists themselves. Verso is not some kind of partisan "house organ", which appears to be Amlans' main point here.

What is more, these sources are used in the article to support the mainstream scholarly view of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which is the topic of this article. These are the opposite of extraordinary claims, so WP:EXTRAORDINARY standards do not apply. Again, this appears to be an (extraordinarily muscular) effort by Amlans to engage in a WP:CPOV push by excluding sources they simply don't like. Newimpartial (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You are not engaging in substantive discussion of the feedback I am providing re: these sources. You are instead assuming bad faith and attempting to wholesale dismiss me by making use of baseless, personalized claims against me. This is not in accordance with this talk page's policy.

My arguments are not ad hominem or are not arguments by contagion. I have very clearly made arguments rooted in basic Wiki policy, and very clearly pointed to all of this basic policy with great attention to detail. Nothing at all extraordinary.

Re: Verso - I already very clearly explained that I am not making a case for Verso being across-the-board unreliable. I am showing that they are not reliable within the context of this article, which is exactly how sources should be assessed. To suggest Verso is not a blatantly ideological entity, with vested interest in the Frankfurt School at that, is laughable. They very explicitly are by their own admission. And that's okay! Just not for this article.

Again, I'm happy to engage in substantive discussion re: the reliability of sources, but have no desire, interest, or responsibility to engage in status quo stonewalling. Conversation in that vein goes against the guidelines, purpose, and spirit of this talk page. Please refrain from pulling me into discussion of that sort here. Amlans (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Amlans, you have asserted without evidence that Verso Books is an openly radical publishing group with a vested interest in the Frankfurt School (emphasis added). I understand that you believe Verso publications have a conflict of interest with respect to the topic of this article, but your view appears to be original research on your part, so we can't take that view into account in deciding on article text. I would recommend the following, with respect to venue:

• If you believe restrictions should be placed on the use of Verso publications on Wikipedia because of conflict of interest, the correct venue for that would be WP:RSN.
• You appear to believe that it is against basic Wiki policy to cite publications from major academic presses within their area of specialization, but that is not the case. The correct venue for that discussion could be the Teahouse, or WP:VPP.
• If you believe editors of this page are engaged in status quo stonewalling, that is a conduct issue and is not relevant on an article Talk page (in fact, you appear to be casting WP:ASPERSIONS). The place to raise such an issue is at a centralized forum like WP:AN or WP:ANI.
• If you believe there is something specific to this topic in particular that makes the use of Verso publications unsuitable, you can make that argument here, but unless you find independent, reliable sourcing that supports your position there is no reason for other editors to engage in substantive discussion because your belief is not grounded in evidence or enwiki policy.

I referred to your arguments as "ad hominem" and "contagion" because that appears to be their nature. To propose that we should not use articles from peer-reviewed journals because you don't approve of the academic affiliations of their authors is an argument reflecting both ad hominem and contagion. This is especially ironic because you have proposed, elsewhere on this page, that we ought to reflect in this article the views of writers without relevant credentials published in non-peer-reviewed blogs and 'zines.

Given this context, I don't think I am assuming bad faith when I point out that your evaluations of sources seem to be influenced primarily by whether or not you like what they have to say on this article's topic. Your evaluations certainly do not reflect the policies of Wikipedia about source quality outlined at WP:RS and elsewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure whether it's accidental or intentional, but this response misrepresents or misinterprets very straightforward statements I have made.

Point 1. I already clearly stated that I am not wholesale discounting Verso as a source across Wikipedia in its entirety. I am stating that present use of Verso within the confines of this article does not meet Wiki policy.

This page is indeed the correct venue for this discussion.

Point 2. This inference is incorrect. That is not what I believe. See Point 4.

Point 3. You're accusing me of inappropriately using this page to discuss personal conduct...in response to my request that you not use this page to discuss personal conduct...that I made after you used this page to make disparaging suggestions against me...That is twisted.

Point 4. This is incorrect. I'm reviewing this article's sources...in tandem with Wikipedia's policies...to see if said sources meet said policies...and I'm pointing out exactly what discrepancies I'm finding. That's exactly how assessment of source suitability is to be done.

RE: Verso - Verso does not just publish about the Frankfurt School, Verso is a publisher for the Frankfurt school including Adorno, Benjamin, Marcuse, and Habermas. And this article's content in defense of the Frankfurt School...relies upon this Frankfurt School publisher (Verso)...to defend the Frankfurt School. It's that simple. This is unacceptable by the most basic of standards. Please see WP:ISP if you would like a reference and further clarification - the "Examples" section may be particularly helpful for this specific conversation.

Misc.

Misc. 1. I never proposed that we "not use articles from peer-reviewed journals because [I] don't approve of the academic affiliations of their authors."

You do not know what academic affiliations I personally disapprove of...because I've never stated what academic affiliations I personally disapprove of...because that information is not relevant to this discussion...which is exactly why I have not brought it into my assessments and have instead focused on what is appropriate to rely upon...which is Wikipedia policy...which I've pointed to as needed.

Misc. 2. I have, at times, presented non-credentialed work in accompaniment to credentialed work to point out the existence of diversity of viewpoints, and that's a fine thing to do. I am, except when in accordance with Wiki policies, which is rarely, not of the belief that non-credentialed work be used authoritatively.

Misc. 3. Again...

Your assumption about the primary influence of my assessments is incorrect.

Your assumption about what I like and dislike is also incorrect, though that is none of your business anyway.

And it was already unquestionably out of line from the beginning. But at this point, in light of the excessive ends I have gone to name, link, and point to these valid primary influences, any further attempts to assess, characterize, or inquire into personal characteristics of my own on this, or any page, unless explicitly prompted to do so by me, is not welcome. Please respect that.

Misc. 4. As I have now directly stated multiple times, my evaluations of sources certainly do reflect the policies of Wikipedia because the only tools I am referencing in source evaluations are the policies of Wikipedia outlined at WP:RS and elsewhere. These references are explicit and extensive.

-

If editors are unhappy with Wikipedia's standards, that is not my burden to bear or problem to solve. Amlans (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

We are back to a WALLOFTEXT situation here. The major premise of the WALL seems to be that Amlans understands and is correctly interpreting enwiki P&Gs while all other participants in this discussion are not. This premise is unproven and to me it seems unlikely. Concerning the numbered "points":

• points 1, 2 and 4 - enwiki P&Gs do not call for us to discount an academic publisher (as biased, or wherever) because of its back catalogue. The result of Amlans' proposed principle - used to argue against the inclusion of Verso sources in this article - would be that specialized academic journals could not be used within their area of specialization (because such publications serve the interests of the publisher by promoting the specialty). This style of argument is incompatible with Wikipedia's assessment of reliable sources.
• I would point out in particular the telling language used in point 4, to defend the Frankfurt School. In the context of this topic, the only interpretation I can come up with here is "to defend the Frankfurt School against claims made by proponents of the conspiracy theory". But this Wikipedia article can't be reasonably construed as a "defense" of Marxists against those claims - for one thing, that would give the "arguments" of the CT far more credence than they deserve. Also, the main use of Verso publications in this article is to analyze the CT and not to interpret Marxism or the Frankfurt School. So Amlans's argument says more about their perspective on the "debate", IMO, than it does about source considerations for this article.
• point 3 - accusations of STONEWALLING are a behavioural issue and out of scope for this forum; accusing editors of inappropriate behaviour in the wrong forum, and without evidence, is what WP:ASPERSIONS means onwiki. Amlans, please stop doing that.
• misc 1 - Amlans proposed that Andrew Woods's peer-reviewed contribution to an anthology published by Springer not be used because Amlans did not approve of their credentials. I suppose "affiliations" wasn't the precise term for me to use, but my point stands - Amlans offered an ad hominem argument to exclude relevant, peer-reviewed sourcing.
• misc 2 and 3 - if there is one thing I have learned on this Talk page, it is that using unreliable sourcing to point out the existence of a diversity of viewpoints isn't very helpful when some of those "viewpoints" are based in reality and documented in reliable sources, and other "viewpoints" are not. Editors have frequently moved from, "X viewpoint exists! See (unreliable) source Y!" to "this article should reflect X viewpoint as well as ABC", where ABC is the range of perspectives offered by reliable sources. In such a situation, enwiki P&Gs don't actually allow us to relativize ABC by situating X as an "alternative viewpoint" to it.
• misc 4 - this assertion appears to be false, because enwiki P&Gs do not actually support the exclusion of Verso sources, Woods, etc. What is more, no explanation has been offered why to exclude these sources while paying attention, e.g., to the unreliable sources offered within Amlans's source list on antisemitism. If this isn't an exercise in WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT - then, well, I am open to another explanation, but "just reflecting the policies of Wikipedia" is not a plausible interpretation of Amlans's choice of sources to use and to disparage here.

Barring direct questions, I intend for this to be my last contribution in this exchange; I don't think there is anything left to discuss that is in-scope for this Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

That is not the basic premise of my "wall."

The premise of my "wall" is that you have failed to substantively engage with debate of my interpretations of P&Gs. Instead, you have repeatedly attempted to write me and my thoughts off, not just for yourself but as some supposed all-powerful authority of this article + page, by repeatedly throwing out arguments and accusations based upon blatant misrepresentations/misinterpretations of my words. Just as you have done here, once again. Amlans (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I already refuted all your points, and as you've been told, left wing academic sources are used for left wing academic concepts. That's not a conflict of interest so much as the idea that you need to have studied some Marxism to know what's true and false in regards to Marxism. You need to have studied The Frankfurt School to know what's true and false about The Frankfurt School. Claiming that "Verso books is too leftist to be used as a source" or "Stuart Jefferies is in on The Frankfurt School so can't be used as a source" - is just a sign that you don't understand Wikipedia. We use sources that are relevant to the topic at hand, and we don't spread conspiracy theories - like the idea of a left wing mind virus that infects authors or institutions - Verso books isn't suddenly a "Frankfurt School publisher" just because they've published books on The Frankfurt School. Just like you wouldn't suddenly be an Oxford professor if you were to write a book about Oxford professors. If you can't distinguish between publishing writing about a topic, and professing a belief in line with that topic (or having a membership to an organization that is about believing in that topic) - then WIKIPEDIA is NOT the place for you. Now please stop using this page as a WP:FORUM to make your conspiracy theorist "mind virus" infection claims. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:6D02:FF03:7182:3E92 (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

But all of this is somewhat moot, as The Frankfurt School AREN'T on trial here. It would be perfectly acceptable to have their complete works in the sources of this page, just as we have them on the page for The Frankfurt School. We know exactly what they did and didn't say because they're a well studied, documented, and published group. The factuality of what they did and didn't say isn't in question. This is why we can say Stuart Jefferies gives an accurate account of their history, where as a Catholic Rightwing conspiracy publication doesn't. This is the nature of the WP:FRINGE policy. It gives weight and the benefit of the doubt to factual academic sources, and allows Wikipedia to disparage those that can be shown to not be factual, or to be misinformation. This can be done across all conspiracy theories from the Moon landing conspiracy theories to John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories to 9/11 conspiracy theories - because they too are all well documented, and we have a good idea of what can and can't be said to be true of those events and the people involved. This page is no different. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:6D02:FF03:7182:3E92 (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You have not refuted all of my points simply because you state that you have refuted all of my points.

You've engaged in substantive conversation with one of my points, namely Dr. Braun's article, and as shown in black and white, you were incorrect about a number of very basic facts on the author and journal. Amlans (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure, if you don't know what an in text citation is. But, if you do, you'll understand your point was refuted. All your points have been. They've all been addressed in line with policy. The policy based explaination for each point you've raised has been explained to you. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:51AB:A68C:EA45:D784 (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, that's the thing isn't it - you've claimed all these sources are biased without being able to show any factual errors or incorrect statements they've made about The Frankfurt School. Because you don't have any, because they're accurate sources familiar with what The Frankfurt School wrote about and did. Their bias is towards knowledge of the topic. That's a bias all sources on Wikipedia have. The nature of good sourcing is to be accurate. This is why you've not shown any inaccuracies in the sources you're complaining about and saying are "biased". 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:BD50:7899:BF60:4720 (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Amian is confusing reliability and bias. A PhD thesis is deemed to be reliable even if it is biased. That's because facts are verifiable, that is, they are either true or false, regardless of one's opinions. Whether or not the Frankfurt School's approach to cultural studies is good or bad is a matter of opinion. Whether or not they are central to a conspiracy to overthrow Western civilization by encouraging gender reassignment is a matter of fact, that is, it's either true or false. TFD (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)