Jump to content

Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Guardian article about Nigel Farage

Extended content

I read the Guardian article [1] closely before I made the change about Nigel Farage, for which you thanked me. It says: The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.’ and ‘Amanda Bowman, vice-president of the Board of Deputies, said: “If Nigel Farage continues to trade in dog whistles and tropes about George Soros and Goldman Sachs, his decline into obscurity will continue apace. Mr Farage would do well to remember that this proud country has always rejected this sort of prejudice and fought wars to defeat it.” These are the only references to ‘dog whistles’, and they are both from the Board. The Guardian does not state this as a fact. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you noted I 'thanked you', but I use that even for things I may disagree with while appreciating the effort. One can also change one's mind. I do not think the addition of "the Board of Deputies of British Jews said that she is 'not in any way antisemitic'" is relevant to this article since the Board of Deputies of British Jews are saying that she is not antisemitic, not that she did not promote the conspiracy theory, which is indeed antisemitic. You would have had a point if our text argued she was antisemitic, but we are just reporting she promoted the conspiracy theory; that the Board concludes she is not antisemitic does not change this and they do not say she did not promote it. As for Farage, The Guardian gives a plethora of examples and states "Farage said the UK faced 'cultural Marxism', a term originating in a conspiracy theory based on a supposed plot against national governments, which is closely linked to the far right and antisemitism." The Guardian does not attribute this to the Board, about which it says only what you quoted. My understanding is that it is misleading to say it is the Board who has characterised Farage as promoting the conspiracy theory, as The Guardian gives a plethora examples, without attributing them to the Board or others. So my understanding is that the Board has condemned him over antisemitic tropes, not that the Board "has said that Nigel Farage has promoted the cultural Marxist conspiracy" like your wording does. In short, this is not just the Board's opinion. Davide King (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Replying re Nigel Farage only:
i) You have quoted the Guardian article saying: “Farage said the UK faced 'cultural Marxism', a term originating in a conspiracy theory based on a supposed plot against national governments, which is closely linked to the far right and antisemitism." This is already in the article: Farage said "the UK faced 'cultural Marxism', a term originating in a conspiracy theory based on a supposed plot against national governments, which is closely linked to the far right and antisemitism.". This is not quite correct, as this is not a direct quotation from Mr Farage, but from the Guardian. So this should be reported speech: Farage has said that the UK faced 'cultural Marxism', a term originating in a conspiracy theory based on a supposed plot against national governments, which is closely linked to the far right and antisemitism.
ii) There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The wording which needs attribution is not that Mr Farage has promoted the conspiracy theory, which is not in dispute, but that he has promoted it as a dog whistle for anti-semitism. It is only the Board which is reported to have said this. It is misleading to have this statement before the general statement which comes from the Guardian. It would make sense to have the ‘dog whistle’ statement moved so that it is immediately after the statement in (i). The Guardian article refers to many people and organisations, but it is only the Board which talks about dog whistles. The Guardian article is very careful about this (presumably they employ libel lawyers) and we should be equally careful. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
You write "[t]he wording which needs attribution is not that Mr Farage has promoted the conspiracy theory, which is not in dispute, but that he has promoted it as a dog whistle for anti-semitism." But the conspiracy theory itself is a dog whistle for antisemitism, hence I do not really see the issue. So that you write "it is only the Board which talks about dog whistles" misses the point the theory itself is a dog whistle for antisemitism as this article clearly shows. I think it is your suggested wording that is misleading and redundant, not mine, which reflects the extensive literature of the conspiracy theory itself being an antisemitic dog whistle. Either way, it would be helpful if more users could weight in, so I ping Aquillion, Bacondrum, The Four Deuces, Grayfell, Newimpartial et al., hoping we can get more input. Davide King (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
You say: But the conspiracy theory itself is a dog whistle for antisemitism, hence I do not really see the issue.You are making a judgment that the conspiracy theory is a dog whistle for antisemitism. It is not for Wikipedia editors to make judgments of this kind. We can only follow the sources, and the source only says that the Board says Mr Farage is using the theory as a dog whistle. Wikipedia must follow the sources. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
This ignores the extensive scholarly analysis that the theory is an antisemitic dog whistle, hence why we say it is an antisemitic theory. I also disagree that it is just the Board saying that about Farage. Davide King (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
It's an antisemitic, globalist conspiracy theory. It begs credulity to suggest right-wing politicians just bumble around throwing the term about without understanding its meaning. Like the Peterson section, I see no issue as is. Bacondrum (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Bacondrum, thanks for your comment, I agree. I have reworded it like this, although I think saying that this has been condemned by other MPs and Jewish groups, when "[i]t begs credulity to suggest right-wing politicians just bumble around throwing the term about without understanding its meaning", may incidentally give credence that the theory is true, especially since we already report "Farage's spokesman 'condemned previous criticism of his language by Jewish groups and others as 'pathetic' and 'a manufactured story.'" Davide King (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Davide King: I am basically in agreement with your latest edits – thank you. I have slightly amended the wording – I hope you agree. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Sweet6970, I am glad to hear that, although I am still unsure why we must say the Board said when, as noted by Bacondrum too, the conspiracy theory itself is an antisemitic dog-whistle. Davide King (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: I deny that I’m a sealion; I’m no good at balancing balls on my nose. I’ve read the essay: I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. I’m not pushing any POV, just trying to get the wording of the article to align with the sources. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is becoming an essay

This is a nice work despite the difficulty of writing on the subject, but this article is mostly an essay, and precludes information of the reader on cultural marxism (major marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci is not mentioned even once in the article).

I'm not offering any readymade solutions to avoid pandering to the antisemitic conspiracy theory in question, but the whole concept of this article should be in question. Pm3003 (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe you may be looking for Western Marxism, the Frankfurt School, the Birmingham School, etc. Are these links not as prominent as they should be, given that this article concerns the conspiracy theory? Newimpartial (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
That's because cultural Marxism isn't something that exists or existed in the real world but only in the imagination of conspiracy theorists. We can therefore only give as much attention to Gramsci as they did. Usually they provide a superficial analysis of Marxist writers, then tie them to current issues such as transsexuals using bathrooms. TFD (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk page mention

Please note that this talk page has been mentioned (and mischaracterized) here. Newimpartial (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh my. What a tantrum. Oh well, bye...WP:NOTCOMPULSORY That thread makes me want to quit, what a bunch of whinging bullshit. Bacondrum (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Bacondrum, somewhat unkind. It is undeniably true that the right has a number of shibboleths that we reflect as false. The error is to assume that this is a problem of Wikipedia, rather than of the right adhering to false beliefs, but any veteran of the creation / evolution wars will recognise this and at least sympathise with those who have been fed bullshit by people they trust. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey Guy, it's true I am being somewhat unkind, but it's a response in kind. You are right as usual. It's true we should pity those who buy into bullshit, but I'm not in the pity game...if one was born in a rich country, got to go to school, had a warm bed, three meals a day, has a brain, can read and write etc...then there's really no excuse. For me ignorance is only excusable in cases where one has experienced serious deprivation. No Nazi's. Bacondrum (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Bacondrum, not pity, but empathise. After a few years when the privilege of the white male has seen some resurgence, the arc of the moral universe appears to be bending once more toward justice. That has to hurt. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Hahaha! I'm not so sure about which way we are heading, but it's a nice thought. Bacondrum (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Bacondrum, JzG and Newimpartial, that is precisely why we should highlight what I wrote here, so that the readers can understand how a conspiracy theory "with no basis in fact" has been 'mainstreamised' and that now it is not only the far-right that "get[s] upset about it and make up excuses." And that "[b]eing part of the mainstream doesn't stop it being bullshit. [...] [T]hat some people are rightly embarrassed to find out they have been regurgitating a Nazi era antisemitic conspiracy [...]." Davide King (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Davide King, I think I understand your point, but it's unclear to me how, for example, something like the blood libel could be transformed by being mainstreamed by grifters into anything other than an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Scratch any of the pseudointellectual defences of the existence of "cultural marxism" and you'll find the name George Soros almost immediately. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
JzG, the blood libel has not been 'mainstreamised' like 'Cultural Marxism' is, that is the point; my point is that the far-right, antisemitic 'Cultural Marxist' conspiracy theory has been propagated by more mainstream media and unfortunately is now no longer held just by the far-right fringe (just to be absolutely clear, the theory is still far-right and antisemitic; just because it is now held by individuals who are not far-right on other issues, it does not mean the conspiracy theory is no longer inherently far-right and antisemitic as several IPs or users have been wrongly led to believe). I am not sure you did understand my point (we already state in body that "[t]he conspiracy theory of Marxist culture war is promoted by right-wing politicians, fundamentalist religious leaders, political commentators in mainstream print and television media and white supremacist terrorists."), which is simply noting that the conspiracy theory has been propagated by more mainstream right and that even mainstream media did not always made it clear that it is an antisemitic conspiracy theory and that even had opinionists rebranding it as 'political correctness'. I believe this is worth adding and expanding. I am referring to what Newimpartial lamented here and I believe that not only should that content be restored but perhaps it should be expanded because it has not only been The Times and The Spectator in the United Kingdom that had opinionists promoting the conspiracy theory. Fox News (̈*shocked Pikachu face*), The Daily Caller, Pajamas Media, The Federalist and Spectator USA propagated the far-right theory to the mainstream right and individuals such as Peterson and Brooks have been described as rebranding and essentially whitewashing the conspiracy theory as 'political correctness'. All of this may be undue, but I believe what I am arguing for has not been properly understood. Davide King (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
JzG, "Cultural Marxism: far-right conspiracy theory in Australia’s culture wars" says that "[t]hrough the lens of the Cultural Marxist conspiracy, however, it is possible to discern a relationship of empowerment between mainstream and fringe, whereby certain talking points and tropes are able to be transmitted, taken up and adapted by 'mainstream' figures, thus giving credence and visibility to ideologies that would have previously been constrained to the margins." This is what I am saying and arguing. Davide King (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Davide King, that makes sense. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, that does make sense. I reckon you can go ahead and add that. Bacondrum (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Bacondrum, JzG, thanks! But I do not know yet exactly how to word it or where to put it. Do you have any idea or suggestion, using Template:Talk quote inline, of how should we do that? Davide King (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Davide King give it a crack, I'm sure you can write well and know how to reflect sourcing. If there's any issues we can discuss and work on it. Go for it! Bacondrum (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Smashed it Davide, nice work! Bacondrum (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
It's similar to a lot of false theories propagated by the right on global warming, homosexuality, Islam, recreational drugs, gun control, prison sentencing, the death penalty and other topics. They formulate beliefs based on little or no evidence then accuse "liberals" and "leftists" of promoting views based on a hidden agenda. Note that a number of these views were popular among liberals too until recently. While we should acknowledge fringe views, I don't think it is our role to explain to people why they are wrong. We just say this is what experts say and if you disagree get policy changed or go away. TFD (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Objections

I object to the use of of the term far-right and antisemitic. Neither one of these assertions is supported in the article, nor supportable in reality. TidyPrepster (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Both of these terms are supported in the reliable sources given in the article. Reals over feelz, people! :p Newimpartial (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually no. The terms in questions are not specifically cited in the article. I would further posit that the sources cited in the article are less than reliable. A quick perusal of the source page yields sources only from 2000s. Cultural Marxism is a concept that was first described by its proponents much earlier than that. See Herbert Marcuse. TidyPrepster (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Both terms are used in the sources cited in the article, which is the way verifiability works on Wikipedia. Also, policy on WP is to rely primarily on recent, reliable, secondary sources, as this article does. If your interest is in the cultural turn in 20th-century Marxism, perhaps read Marxist cultural analysis as suggested by the hatnote at the top of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent yes. Reliable no. This is easy to understand given that the term far-right does not have a consistent definition. Farther than whom? Is Jordan Peterson far-right? Is Ben Shapiro? How about Ronald Reagan? What would qualify as “medium” right or “middle” right? What distinguishes “far-right” from “conservative?”

The term far-right is effectively a pejorative used to describe whomever the writer happens to disagree with. It does not belong in an article purporting to offer objective information.

Further to your point about sources: this amounts to a game of telephone, or hearsay. That the fact that another source makes a claim, is not evidence for the veracity of that claim.

The term far-right should be removed for this reason. The same goes for the charge of antisemitism. In the sources provided, this amounts to guilt by association, and tenuous association at that. TidyPrepster (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Moving back from the archive as this is an ongoing and relevant discussion about whether the terms far right and anti Semitic are appropriate in this article. The archiving of this thread is an act of vandalism TidyPrepster (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are people so anxious to get rid of discussions as to the use of the term "anti-Semitic" with this article? Let people make their arguments. The fact that they have consistently lost when it comes to a vote doesn't make the topic out-of-bounds. — Swood100 (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
That is as may be, but I had a very long discussion with this editor at their Talk page, and they were quite clearly unwilling to find or to discuss sources in a meaningful way. It was as though they had brought linguini to a sword fight, IME. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Just tell TidyPrepster that the only way to get the article changed is to show that the source given for the assertions do not fulfill citable WP requirements, or to supply reliable sources to the contrary. You don’t have to interact with him on this page unless he supplies the above. Unfortunately, his reliable sources will be voted down as predictably as the minority party in the U.S. Senate is voted down unless the reliability of his source has reached an unimpeachable level not required of the other side, but this is a flaw in Wikipedia for which no solution has been found. Nevertheless, success is not impossible and he gets a chance to try to prove his case by demonstrating the flaws in existing sources or supplying his own. — Swood100 (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes it does, as per WP:NOTFORUM Bacondrum (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Hi Dimadick, I see you reinstated links to Wikiprojects Skepticism and Alternative views. Maybe I am not understanding something about WikiPorjects, but neither seems to be fitting here. For Alternative views, I don't see how this conspiracy theory is an "alternative view" to anything really. (what's the alternative?) For Skepticism, I don't see a rationale at all. This has nothing to do with Skepticism? Also relatedly, I don't see how this Conspiracy Theory has anything to do with Judaism - yes, it is antisemitic, but certainly not everything that is antisemitic, is related to Judiasm? Maybe you can explain your reasoning here? Thanks --Mvbaron (talk)

The main article conspiracy theory is covered by Wikiprojects Skepticism and Alternative views, which also cover most conspiracy theories. Antisemitic canards such as this are covered by either WikiProject Judaism or WikiProject Jewish history. Dimadick (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah interesting! So by default, all other CTs should also be in Skepticism and Alternative views? Okay then, fair enough. Thank you! Mvbaron (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Braune and Braune2

What is the difference between the source Braune and Braune2? They look identical, but obviously someone else must have seen this if they numbered one of them as 2. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

no difference, just someone working further down the article not realizing that it was already used up top? Can just be unified. Ill do it. Mvbaron (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly analysis section

I object to the creation of a "scholarly analysis" section as if the rest of the article shouldn't contain scholarly analysis; obviously, the entire article consists of scholarly analysis (this is a similar problem to one of the issues with WP:CSECTIONs, in that the implication of creating a section of this nature is to confine to one section something that ought to be worked throughout the the article.) The material there is better covered elsewhere, such as in the origins or aspects section. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec)I agree, there should be a section "Overview", or no section at all after the ToC, or the material in question culd be part of the "Origins" section, but we have to rely on high quality sources anyway, so a "scholarly analysis" makes no sense unless it is significantly different from just a normal descrition of the conspiracy theory. --Mvbaron (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The reason I proposed such a section in the first place is that there was no obvious section in which to include the kind of high-level overview analysis for which the Braune piece was cited in the lede, and the previous situation - in which the lede made claims that were not substantiated in the article body, using a source that was not cited in the article body - was not compliant with policy.
I am not wedded to this solution - much less the section heading text - but I have noticed that some of the subsections preceding the "Analysis" (in current placement) move quite awkwardly from more or less thick description to high level analysis as they move from claim to claim. It is my view that - using the best sources available at all times - the article would work best for readers if the high-level analysis were all gathered into the one section, which could then inform the lede. The relationship between lede and body on previous drafts of the article (since the split) has not been close to ideal. Newimpartial (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the solution for now is to keep analysis in the appropriate parts of the body (adding new, more specific subsections if we have analysis that doesn't fit squarely into an existing subsection) and to rewrite the second paragraph of the lead to broadly summarize high-quality sources discussing the conspiracy theory rather than focusing on just one such source. See the section I created below for discussion about that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. Please see my reply under your new Talk section heading - why you have insisted on splitting this discussion into three locations on the Talk page, I have no real idea. Good thing I have some practice with WAC-a-mole. :p
Also, in addition to what I say below, my sense is that adding new, more specific subsections would tend to make the article worse, rather than better, in terms of my sense of ENCyclopaedic treatment. What we have is already both choppier and more pointillist than it could be, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, what was (redacted) from the talk page and why?

Bacondrum, you should explain in good faith rather than just having a knee jerk reaction. This is a matter which concerns the proper functioning of the talk page, and hence relates to the namespace page. Any editor is welcome to second this notion, and help form a consensus on Bacondrum (redacting) other users comments in bad faith. WP:GOODFAITH 194.223.45.89 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean? An IP removed some comments from the talk page, and has subsequently been reverted. Mvbaron (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The IP is gaslighting. Bacondrum didn't redact anything, the IP edited Bacondrum's comments to make it look like they did. That's why they were blocked, and why this new IP has also been blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Mvbaron and Ivanvector Just checked the IP and 121.45.240.191, 194.223.45.89 and 194.223.46.197 are the same person. Maybe semi-protect the page? Bacondrum (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: I just said you weren't redacting users' comments, but then you went and redacted a bunch. It is disruptive to remove comments for no reason, and especially disruptive to remove comments that have already been replied to. You're probably right that the 121.45.x.x IP user is the same as the 194.223.x.x editor, but they were not blocked when they wrote the earlier comments. Regarding protection I'll wait to see if there is more disruption. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Ivanvector I'll restore them, I thought it was okay to redact them as they were personal attacks by a blocked user - sorry about that. Thanks for your help.Bacondrum (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
If they're personal attacks then you can use {{npa}} to show what you're doing. You should remove just the personal attack while maintaining the intention of the comment, if you can. Given 194.223.x.x's edits today I'm not too concerned if you restore them at all, to be honest. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again, and thanks for directing me to the {{npa}} tag, will use that if needed in the future. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Bacondrum, your confusion about what to do in this situation is understandable, and not at all uncommon, even for long-term editors. If it's all helpful, there are specific templates to identify socks and SPAs in small text, to be inserted after their comments, if you weren't aware. Along with the {{npa}} template and strike-throughs. Especially useful in an RfC situation. I know you're a regular editor, but in case you hadn't encountered the templates before, I thought that I'd chime in. Like I said, I've found them the be useful from time to time. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, yes still got plenty to learn, I didn't know about any of those templates. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Second-paragraph lead summary.

I don't disagree that the second paragraph of the lead shouldn't focus exclusively on Braun; but we do need a paragraph focused on the fundamentally inaccurate and invented nature of the conspiracy theory as described by reliable sources, since that makes up basically the entire body and almost all reliable coverage. Other sources from the body that I would summarize in that lead paragraph are Martin Jay ("demagogic propaganda") and Matthew Feldman (especially describing it as a reiteration of the Nazi-era charge of "Cultural Bolshevism"); Andrew Woods and Samuel Moyn describing it as an antisemitic; Jérôme Jamin describing it as something invented by American ultraconservatives after the fall of the Berlin Wall to replace the "red menace" of communism and as a way for racist authors to avoid racist statements, and probably a few others. These can reasonably be summarized into a paragraph in the lead summarizing the conspiracy theory's fundamental focus as described by the highest quality sources in order to avoid putting so much weight on Braun. (Of course, this would be in addition to Braun, not excluding her, though we'd probably summarize her much more briefly.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of this, but I do think that putting together a better "Scholarly analysis" section first, then editing the Lede, would be less likely to produce SYNTH than trying to edit this on the Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
But most of the things I mentioned are already in the body in more appropriate sections. Are you suggesting we pull all the analysis out of each section (leaving much of the article just a reiteration of the conspiracy theory in the words of the people promoting it?) Or are you suggesting we duplicate all the existing analysis, which comprises most of the article, into a second section? My point is that there's already supposed to be a part of an article that summarizes all the scholarly analysis in the article, and that is the lead, since it summarizes the article and most of the article should already be scholarly analysis. We could add headers to individual sections summarizing them, perhaps but - what do you see the "origins of the conspiracy theory" and "aspects of the conspiracy theory" sections containing, in your proposed rewrite? Since it feels like the only source we're having trouble placing is Braun, rather than drastically restructuring the article to move all the scholarly analysis to one section, I think it would make more sense to create a subsection in "aspects of the conspiracy theory" for "Relationship to the Frankfurt School" or the like, and put Braun there. --Aquillion (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
No, I do not think we should pull all the analysis out of each section (leaving much of the article just a reiteration of the conspiracy theory in the words of the people promoting it?) For one thing, we should be using PRIMARY sources as little as possible, and sourcing descriptive claims from secondary sources. Secondly, I am distinguishing between "high level" analysis dealing with the CT as a whole, and more thick description or mid-level analysis that is more specific to the CT's aims, typical moves, tropes etc. To me this distinction seems quite clear, and that the article would be less of a dog's breakfast if we tried to maintain such a distinction - both the "origins" and the "aspects" can be described without high-level analysis, and they mostly are already.
And I really do think SYNTH can better be avoided by making the distinction I'm talking about and writing a new section than by editors performing their own high-level summary, especially in this politically charged topic.
It might be possible to separate the high level analysis into "origins" and "aspects", but I'm not sure how much credence I'd give that distinction, to be honest. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it is important to capture the current consensus (on WP, which I disagree with) that the Conspiracy Theory is anti-semitic. Further I think we should include an up-front indication that the Conspiracy Theory is widely refuted by Academia. Consequently I am proposing the following language for the first two lead paragraphs:
Paragraph 1: Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory with strong ties to anti-semitic and far-right groups which claim that Western Marxism is the basis for an on-going academic and intellectual conspiracy to subvert Western Culture. Conspiracists claim that Marxist theorists and Frankfurt school intellectuals are subverting western society with a culture war intent on undermining Christian values and traditionalist conservatism. They further claim that conspirators work to promote the cultural liberal values of the 1960s counterculture, that multiculturalism, progressive politics and identity politics are part of the conspiracy, and that political correctness was created by critical theory.
Paragraph 2: The conspiracy theory originated in the United States in the early 1990s and though widely-debunked by academia as steeped in implicit racism, anti-semitic tropes, and misinformation, the conspiracy theory is nevertheless a frequent talking point of alt-right, far-right and neo-nazi groups. 47.197.54.139 (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a conspiracy theory which is false, or a hoax. This theory is refuted by many reliable sources, not just academia, so Wikipedia treats it as wrong. The article must be based on reliable sources. Moving "widely-debunked" to the second paragraph would be missing the point. This theory is covered by reliable sources exclusively because it's a conspiracy theory. The theory does not merely have strong ties to antisemitic groups, it is antisemitic. Some groups which push this theory are not inherently antisemitic, but the theory itself is an almost naked antisemitic canard. Since pretty much everything proposed by this conspiracy theory is wrong, or at least strongly contested by more qualified sources, it would be a bad mistake to present it on its own terms. Per WP:FRINGE, we need to spell-out that this theory is wrong. We cannot presume that readers who only browse the first paragraph will realize just how batshit this theory is on its own merits. Sources are clear, and so we should be clear as well.
As an additional note, the paragraph 2 proposal is editorializing. Nevertheless is an editorializing term which implies that it is somehow unexpected that "alt-right, far-right and neo-nazi groups" would push an antisemitic conspiracy theory. It's completely expected. alt-right, far-right and neo-nazi groups are not known for their academic rigor, they are known for antisemitic conspiracy theories. Grayfell (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
"With strong ties to anti-Semitic and far-right groups" is weasel-wording, because it doesn't specify what those ties are. The tie is that the theory is anti-Semitic, so that is what we should say. It's not a consensus on WP, it's the consensus in reliable sources. We should not argue about the merits of the conspiracy theory, but about how to accurately report how it is perceived in reliable sources. If they say it's true, the article should say it's true, if they say it's an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, that's what the article should say. TFD (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Your suggested language just doesn't read properly.. This is an article on a conspiracy theory. It is an abstraction that does not hold any political or other beliefs. Only the behaviors and actions of its adherents can be anti-semitic. Also it's not weasel-wording to summarize. I've suggested before that we explore those ties in greater depth in an anti-semitism section. This objection to creating a clean separation between the theory and it's adherant appears to be a desire to enforce a POV phrasing that makes using the phrase "Cultural Marxism" verboten, to make it synonymous with holding anti-semitic beliefs. It's a certainty that there are those who adhere to it who hold no such beliefs, and a couple already-referenced source make mention of that, so such a treatment of the subject would be wrong. Let's avoid speaking from a place of personal bias and political agenda and help write a neutral article. I think we strike a good balance by calling it out as rhetorical favorite of anti-semites and neo-nazis. We are not, after all, proposing to explore any other usage. 47.197.54.139 (talk) 05:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
IP, it has already been pointed out to you repeatedly (mostly in the section titled Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#Anti-semitism as an Essential Quality - which sounds a lot like an undergraduate essay about Aquinas) that Anti-semitism is not always a term labeling conscious beliefs; it is also an appropriate label for unconscious motives, and also for the results of actions that were not necessarily based on anti-semitic motives. Think of that last point as parallel to Systemic racism and maybe you will get it. By insisting that every use of the term "anti-semitic" relate to "beliefs", you are running counter to the way the reliable sources use the term and thereby engaging in STRAWMAN argumentation, which is not recommended on Wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an essay "debunking" topics. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Adding my comment back in after user Greyfell reverted it. See their talk page for other examples of people complaining about biased reverts wherever "antisemitism" is at issue. I think it's important for editors of this article to understand the impact of their behaviors. My original reply to Emir is follows:
It's reasonable to think that way. However, nothing short of a hit piece vilifying this topic and anyone who may have the temerity to address it in a neutral way is accepted here. You see this all over WP with far-left activists using "anti-semitic" to stigmatize subject matter that calls into question progressive ideology. The Co-Founder of Wikipedia has declared NPOV "dead" because of agenda-ridden tripe like that. Imagine asserting "anti-semitism" as a descriptor for "unconscious motives" as mentioned above! Literally using Critical Theory as the framework to attack criticism of Critical Theory. The absurd disregard for NPOV in this article is being defended as right and necessary. That's not what makes an encyclopedia, it's propaganda. In my recent experience with this article, should you succeed in pointing out the implicit bias in phrasing here, you will be inundated with personal attacks, harassment, and appeals to the authority of academia. All the while you may anticipate the far-left bias to manifest as precious promotion of Fringe SELF-STYLED radical left academic activists as "expert sources". At the same you can anticipate the fact that academic publishing is the purview of wildly left-leaning University professors to be utterly ignored. Further, should you present a dissenting opinion, any source which contradicts the approved leftist narratives will be decried as "Fringe" or "Questionable" because it is not in a peer-reviewed, leftist-currated journal. It's all so tiresome. I'm here to build an encyclopedia. They are here to control a narrative.47.197.54.139 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
"The absurd disregard for NPOV in this article is being defended as right and necessary." I doubt that your approach adheres to NPOV. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:" While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." Those "leftist currated journals which you reject represent academic scholarship. Dimadick (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
IP, the concept of "unconscious motives" isn't specific to Critical theory; it is a basic psychological concept. And as Consolidated (band) once so wisely said, "crusading rap guys are a real downer". Maybe it's time to let the windmills be. As I have said before, you might be more comfortable contributing to some other user-generated encyclopedia, where you can claim. that academic publishing is the purview of wildly left-leaning University professors without coming across as a conspiracy theorist yourself. In fact, I sense a Global warming conspiracy theory coming on. Newimpartial (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Indeed theories can be anti-Semitic and can express beliefs or political views. TFD (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe they can be. But this one isn't. This conspiracy theory has nothing to do with Jewish people. Aside from sources already proved to be unreliable and radical leftist FRINGE no one out there is really claiming this Conspiracy Theory is intended to defame Jewish people. Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory is about MARXISM. So unless you are making the extraordinary claim that all Marxists are Jewish, this whole anti-semitism thing is an anti-conservative "canard." In any case I'm adding this link back. Here is the definitive "antisemitism" definition from the organization most qualified to describe it (ADL): https://www.adl.org/anti-semitism There's no way starting from that definition that you can label this Conspiravy Theory antisemitic.47.197.54.139 (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
"Aside from sources already proved to be unreliable and radical leftist FRINGE" You have not actually proved anything of the sort. You have just made unsubstantiated accusations to dismiss sources that you disagree with. That you do not like what they say does not make them unreliable. Dimadick (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, IP, please read WP:OR and stop doing it. Newimpartial (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
What you call "radical leftist FRINGE" is what Wikipedia calls reliable sources. I'll assume good faith that you have a reason for saying that the ADL is most qualified to define anti-Semitism. However note that they classify the term cultural Marxism as a "lean negative" label used against Jews. The ADL uses it as a keyword in identifying anti-Semitic postings on social media. Indeed I do not identify Jews with Marxism, which is why I voted to delete Jews and Communism at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination). The identification of Jews and Communists is however a popular view on the Right, it's called Jewish Bolshevism and is the foundation of the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting read regarding the conspiracies use among far-right pundits in Australia

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504630.2020.1787822?scroll=top&needAccess=true Bacondrum (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

POV pushing

Swood100 has now tried to just shove their view into the article despite their claims failing to gain any traction here at talk, in fact their claims were almost universally refuted, but they've just gone ahead and tried to add them anyway. I think the POV pushing should probably go to ANI now? They've had plenty of warnings. Bacondrum (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I also contest the changes, especially the changes to the "Scholarly analysis" section. They are just a list of quotes featuring the term "cultural" and "marxism". Nothing in it does in fact contradict the claims made in the article, viz. that cultural marxism is not a school of thought. Mvbaron (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The article does not claim that "cultural marxism is not a school of thought". See the top line of the article: "For cultural Marxism in the context of cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis. If you go to that page you will find it said: "The tradition of Marxist cultural analysis since the 1930s has been referred to as 'cultural Marxism'". The point is that this article is about the conspiracy theory cultural Marxism and that article is about cultural Marxism in the context of cultural studies, a legitimate field of study since the 1930s.
Joan Braune made the statement that not only is there no cultural Marxism conspiracy, neither is it the name of a legitimate academic school of thought. I provided a number of references to reliable sources who contradicted the second part of this. Please provide specific reasons for reversion.
OK, so Bacondrum and Mvbaron insist that every one of my last 11 edits has been improper and should be reverted. "This has all been discussed and refuted at talk, you are going against consensus. Googling "cultural Marxism" and finding it in a few books is not a refution of the antisemtic nature of this theory, it's just people using the term in a sentence." Let’s take a look at the first four reversions:
  • The first one added a dash into "stand-in", which needs a dash. Reason for reversion?
  • The second one corrected an erroneous quote and supplied the remainder of the quote. Reason for Reversion?
  • The third one by Sweet6970 corrected grammar: person1 and person2 "write" not "writes". Reason for reversion?
  • The fourth one added the view of Jérôme Jamin, a reliable source who had already been referenced in this article, as to the nature of the conspiracy and how it developed. Reason for reversion? — Swood100 (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The main proposed addition is not supported by its supposed sources. The key claim is Braune's assertion that Cultural Marxism is not an academic school of thought is contradicted by a number of sources, but it isn't. All of the sources cited are referring to Marxist cultural analysis -- and none of them refer to it as a school of thought (nor does the WP article, as I recall, and if it does this is an error that crept in somewhere). As Wikipedia editors, we simply don't have the luxury of pretending that our sources say what we would have wanted them to say.
For the record, not all of the edits from Swood preceding the one that provided the addition I quoted are POV edits, in my view, but I trust that those minor points can be sttled calmly and without edit-warring, and also without inserting nonsense into the article. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Braune said that cultural Marxism is not an “academic school of thought” and that there is “no intellectual movement by that name”. Does the phrase “cultural Marxism in the context of cultural studies” not refer to an intellectual movement? Why is it not an academic school of thought, given the statements made by the sources? Should I have put the statements in the text of the article rather than just in the text of the reference? — Swood100 (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
No, it is not an academic school of thought. The Frankfurt School is an academic school of thought. The Birmingham School of Cultural Studies is an academic school of thought. Marxist cultural analysis is a field of inquiry, and that is true even for the (small) minority of sources that refer to this field as "cultural Marxism". And no, you should not have put the quotations into the article, since they are not about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which is the topic of the article. I feel that this has been discussed and settled literally scores of times, on this Talk page and Talk:Frankfurt School (which is one reason, Bacondrum, that I like to see discussions archived rather than deleted if they have received any substantive contributions: we need to be able to see the corpse). Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial: Also, see the definition of school of thought, as well as school of thought. — Swood100 (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
When Dworkin writes a book titled Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain, and says in it that "British cultural Marxism grew out of an effort to create a socialist understanding of Britain which took into consideration postwar transformations that seemed to undermine traditional Marxist assumptions about the working class and that questioned the traditional Left's exclusive reliance on political and economic categories" that seems to contradict what Braune said. The same when Nelson & Grossberg say: "While cultural Marxists did accept the ideological bases of their own theoretical and political positions, and consequently had begun to recognize the problematic, contingent nature of their own interpretive activities, it was poststructuralism that gave Marxists the vocabulary with which to begin theorizing their own determination." — Swood100 (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
None of these quotations present "cultural Marxists" as a School of thought. This should be clear from the phrase about poststructuralism, which refers to Marxists rather than "cultural Marxists" (much less "Cultural Marxists"). No school is implied, only a broad domain of inquiry by Marxists interested in culture. Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Seeing they're refusing to listen, I see no hope of this stopping, I'm going to take it to ANI. Bacondrum (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain your refusal to explain your specific reasoning as to even the first four reversions listed above?Swood100 (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Trying to mix in tiny edits along with WP:POVPUSHING so that the problem edits can't be easily reverted is a bad tactic. Don't do it. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Please explain which of my reverted edits was not written from a neutral point of view, and what rule of neutrality is violated. — Swood100 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
There's a months worth of discussions above where editors have repeatedly dismissed your claims about antisemitism and this conspiracy theory, you've been told no more times than I can count. Now you just try and force the content in. Bacondrum (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll answer the question about which edits violated NPOV. The passage I quoted above violated NPOV, because it creates a false parallel between the reliably sourced view and another view that is based on a misinterpretation of the sources cited. Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial: Let’s put the Braune quote aside. Your position appears to be that cultural Marxism, as a type of Marxist cultural analysis, is neither a school of thought nor an intellectual movement. OK, let’s drop that one. The rest of the edits only concern the conspiracy theory. Do you find fault with any of those? — Swood100 (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I just want to say, I have reverted you, Swood100, because you labelled Bacon's edit as "vandalism", which it wasn't. Of all the edits that were made, only the minor change writes -> write, and the incorrect insertion of "racist authors" I think are uncontroversially good. You mostly added a quotes by Jamin, and I believe the article has enough of that already (especially if they are not in blockquote format). --Mvbaron (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)]
You mostly added a quotes by Jamin, and I believe the article has enough of that already
Are you saying that the quotes were repetitive, or discussed something that had already been discussed? Could you clarify? — Swood100 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
has any one requested a sock puppet check yet? same shit being recycled, remarkably similar in tone, across a range of user names and IP accounts, it's disruptive at this point. Acousmana (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Acousmana: did you intend this to go in the section below? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
nope, fine here, could be in any number of sections at this point. Acousmana (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
How is Jérôme Jamin’s view of the origin, development and nature of the conspiracy theory "disruptive"? — Swood100 (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Mate, have you noticed no one is really responding to you anymore? You repeatedly ask a series of frivolous and time-wasting questions in an attempt to wear down other editors - a well known POV pushing technique. You've been asked to stop pushing your POV, please just stop. Bacondrum (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I have to give it enough time. So, please explain either (a) why the quotes by Jérôme Jamin are unsuitable for this article, or (b) where the previous discussion of his quotes can be found. Is WP:DISCUSSFAIL a valid tactic when no other justification is available? I seem to remember something about continuing to revert while refusing to discuss. I'll have to look that up. — Swood100 (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Bacondrum: Maybe I should make sure that you know of my request to discuss your revert.
Mvbaron: You also reverted me. Could you explain why the Jérôme Jamin quotes are unsuitable for this article? Thanks. — Swood100 (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Swood100, hello! Like I said above, the two edits you made ([2] and [3]), included long direct quotes by Jamin - at least they should be properly formatted with blockquotes or, better, summarized and not quoted. I also don't see a direct benefit from including the longer Jamin quote in the first diff. Likewise for the second diff, I think the text becomes much less readable by having so many direct quotes. If these were converted from direct quotes into prose, it would me much better imo. Cheers Mvbaron (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the congenial tone of your response.

For those who have not followed this talk page closely, there is consensus that ‘cultural Marxism’ in the context of cultural studies belongs in the article Marxist cultural analysis and may not be presented in this article to refute the existence of cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory. One of my edits concerned Joan Braune’s assertion that cultural Marxism is neither a school of thought nor an intellectual movement, which I believe to be an incorrect statement. To rebut this I supplied references to reliable sources discussing cultural Marxism in the context of cultural studies. Newimpartial argues that Braune's remarks do not contradict the proposition that cultural Marxism might be a type of Marxist cultural analysis and so my edit is not called for. I disagree, but Braune’s mention of this is so limited that perhaps it does not require rebuttal, so I withdraw that edit.

The quotes by Jérôme Jamin that I added concern only the origin and character of the conspiracy theory and so are not excluded from this article. Jamin is well-respected and has published numerous journal articles on this subject which examine the nature of the conspiracy theory and how it was influenced. He has been cited as a WP:RS in this article since 2015. One of his conclusions is that the conspiracy theory has a number of different versions, and that they are not all anti-Semitic. This, I think, is the aspect that Bacondrum (who reverted me) finds objectionable. His comment upon reverting all my edits was: “This has all been discussed and refuted at talk, you are going against consensus. Googling "cultural Marxism" and finding it in a few books is not a refution of the antisemtic nature of this theory, it's just people using the term in a sentence.”

Apparently, Bacondrum’s position is that there is consensus that no WP:RS may be presented to dispute the proposition that there is only one version of the conspiracy theory and it is anti-Semitic. But if one looks back it will be seen that sources were excluded not because they disputed that the conspiracy theory was anti-Semitic but because either (a) they did not qualify as reliable sources, or (b) they were actually arguing for the existence of cultural Marxism in the context of cultural studies (off topic in this article). Consensus in an article cannot exclude a WP:RS simply because consensus doesn’t want the article to contain that viewpoint.

Mvbaron:

The [6] edit is the one concerning Braune, which I have withdrawn.

I included the direct quotes for precise accuracy and to avoid any objection that I was misinterpreting Jamin, which I think is a very real danger given the fiery confrontations that have been common here. Furthermore, the quotes can perhaps be interpreted in different ways and I don’t think that an attempt to convert them into my prose would result in less text or increase their lucidity or result in a net benefit to this article.

The [5] edit was initially to correct an error in the existing Jamin quote. The original quote, supplied in 2015, accurately said: “lets its authors avoid racist discourses.” This was changed on 5/4/2019 by Chas. Caltrop (now blocked) to: “lets its [racist] authors avoid racist discourses.” This then was changed on 11/29/19 by Symes2017 (now blocked) to “lets its racist authors avoid racist discourses.” I added the remainder of Jamin’s original quote because he distinguished this conspiracy theory from “old styled theories of a similar nature”, and he briefly summarized the differences in the theories of Lind, Buchanan and Breivik, who he said were the three principal originators of the conspiracy theory. It demonstrates some of the variety that the theory has taken, according to Jamin. This quote does not explain why Jamin is talking about these three and perhaps I should find a way to include that. Maybe the individual theories of Lind, Buchanan and Breivik should be summarized, and their relevance explained, in the Origins section instead of here.

The other Jamin quote I added was this one, which explains the gist of his analysis including, as succinctly as possible, the origin and development of the conspiracy theory; that it began with three main versions but has proven highly adaptable and has been modified to suit the purposes of groups who stress different threats, including being taken up by the Stormfront.org crowd and others like them; and that it owes its current success to websites concerned with demonizing Islam. I realize that some of this appears to be at odds with the views of other sources, but maybe some of them have not studied it in as much depth. It's also possible that Jamin is mistaken.

My remaining reverted edits, excluding the one that has already been restored, were as follows: This one removed assertions that were not supported by the supplied references. In this one, the speaker who said "three of the main proponents" was misquoted as saying "the three main proponents". Also I specifically attributed the quote to the speaker. In this one the reference to Jamin was removed from the statement that the conspiracy is always anti-Semitic. In this one a broken link to an archive-url was removed in the hope that some bot would supply a good one when it comes around.

What specific comments do people have and what objections or disagreements remain? — Swood100 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything to add more than what I said above: (1) that ideally long quotes should be in blockquote format MOS:BLOCKQUOTE , (2) that direct quotes should be avoided in favor of summarized prose. WP:QUOTEFARM (3) that I only object to including even more direct quotes about unrelated texts just featuring the words "cultural" and "marxism" (ad 'edits concerning Braune'). (4) no WP:OR. happy editing Mvbaron (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Swood, I wish you would stop misinterpreting your sources. Jamin does not say that the conspiracy theory has a number of different versions, and that they are not all anti-Semitic. Rather, he is arguing that the Cultural Marxism CT "lets its authors avoid racist discourses" - which doesn't deny the underlying antisemitism of the theory. It is "overt racism" - not racism as such - that according to Jamin "is studiously avoided". One would need a considerably more direct statement from a reliable source to insert text into the article implying that there is a difference of opinion about whether or not the theory is antisemitic. What we have in your edits on this topic is a (conscious or unconscious) selective citation of passages from Jamin that would reference him as supporting something he does not in fact say. That isn't cool, bro. Newimpartial (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Let’s just deal with the edits I made. What specific objections do you have to them, if any? Please identify specific text and tell me what the issue is with it. — Swood100 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Having demonstrated that the interpretation animating your edits ("the conspiracy theory is not necessarily antisemitic") is unsupported by the Jasmin source, it isn't my job to explain how your edits support your own point of view. That would be a great example of moving the goalposts. Newimpartial (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I’m not asking you to explain how my edits support my point of view. I am asking if you are aware of any Wikipedia policy that is violated by my edits. Are you saying that quoting a reliable source can be prevented if you suspect that the editor’s interpretation of the quote is unsupported? — Swood100 (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
When the editor's POV is provided as the rationale for the edits, yes. The policies concerned are WP:NPOV (violated through selective quotation), WP:DUE (violated through over dependency on one source) and WP:V (since the underlying claim fails verification). Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Let’s get down to specifics so that we can make some progress. Please make your objection in a form similar to this: “X text in the proposed edit” violates [Y policy] because [Z reason]. — Swood100 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
No. That form of reverse onus is discussed at length at WP:SEALION and WP:TEND. Don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Swood100, I would rather say, it is up to you to propose a new edit, or be WP:BOLD and make a new edit to the article, and then we can discuss that edit. Mvbaron (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
At what point do you get an article block for POV pushing and bludgeoning debate with the same frivolous claim over and over again?
Could you clarify what specifically you are referring to by the term "frivolous claim"? — Swood100 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

IHateAccounts: Please explain why you reverted these three edits, or what objection anybody could have:

edit 1 : Attribute the statement to Braune; quote her exactly "three of the main"; remove second sentence, neither assertion of which is supported by the references supplied.
edit 2: archive-url was broken; if there is a bot doing this maybe it can try again
edit 3: Cited source does not say that all variations of the conspiracy theory are anti-Semitic. Moved citation body down to next reference to it. — Swood100 (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I personally think these are fine (thought I comment, since I encouraged you to be BOLD above...) Mvbaron (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
If there is no response I will reinstate them. — Swood100 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial: How should we handle the two conflicts below, involving statements by Braune in the article vs. statements by other reliable sources:

1. Cultural Marxism is not an academic school of thought; "Cultural Marxism does not exist — not only is the conspiracy theory version false, but there is no intellectual movement by that name." Current WP article
  • "If Cultural Marxism, as a school of thought, dates from the 1930s, Cultural Marxism, as a conspiracy theory, has appeared in conservative and radical American literature from the beginning of the 1990s." Jamin, Cultural Marxism: A Survey (Wiley, 2018)
2. Frankfurt School scholars are "critical theorists", not "Cultural Marxists"; current WP article
I see no conflict, except for a terminological one about what is or isn't a "school of thought" or "intellectual movement", which is not germane to this article. Jamin discusses "cultural Marxism", using it as a label for Marxist cultural analysis, and any discussion thereof belongs in that article, not this one. And to posit that there is any meaningful disagreement about whether "cultural Marxism" is a "school of thought" (say, in the context of that other article), more than one source should be presented saying that it is one, particularly (and I want to emphasise this) since Jamin's relevant argument concerns the Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory, not whether "cultural Marxism" is an "intellectual movement". I hope this clarification has been helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
a terminological one about what is or isn't a "school of thought" or "intellectual movement", which is not germane to this article.
If it’s not germane to this article then what business does this article have talking about whether it is or it isn’t one of these? Why shouldn't we take it out of the article, including the one in the second paragraph?. Why wouldn’t the same go for whether Frankfurt School scholars are or are not either "critical theorists" or "Cultural Marxists"? — Swood100 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Since the conspiracy theory is premised on there being such a thing as "Cultural Marxism", it is DUE to point out that the CT is not based on reality. Neither Braune nor Jamin nor any other RS has suggested that there is a movement of "Cultural Marxists" that corresponds to what the conspiracy theory talks about; I have made a clarification to the second paragraph so that it adheres closely to the scholarly consensus.
On the other hand, since the Frankfurt School (notably Adorno and Marcuse) are constantly set up by conspiracy theorists as a major bugaboo, I think the comments concerning the Frankfurt School currently in the article are entirely relevant and DUE. But the disagreement you posit between Braune and the other sources does not actually exist, since Braune is talking about "Cultural Marxists" (the object of the conspiracy theory) and Jamin and Langman are both taking about "cultural Marxists" (as in Marxist cultural analysis). Newimpartial (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
But the disagreement you posit between Braune and the other sources does not actually exist, since Braune is talking about "Cultural Marxists" (the object of the conspiracy theory) and Jamin and Langman are both taking about "cultural Marxists" (as in Marxist cultural analysis).
  • Braune is quoted as saying: "Cultural Marxism does not exist — not only is the conspiracy theory version false, but there is no intellectual movement by that name." Here she is denying the existence of both a conspiracy and of cultural Marxism as in Marxist cultural analysis. Do you read it a different way? Comments about cultural analysis are for a different article.
  • The current article says: “Contrary to the claims and underlying assumptions of the conspiracy theory, academic Joan Braune explained that Cultural Marxism is not an academic school of thought”. If this is intending to say that the conspiracy theory is not an academic school of thought it should be revised to avoid the appearance that it is saying that cultural Marxism as in Marxist cultural analysis is not an academic school of thought, since this article is not supposed to be discussing that question. — Swood100 (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I get that this is a complicated topic, but Braune is not disputing the existence of Marxist cultural analysis as a field of inquiry. She is saying that "Cultural Marxism" as the object of the conspiracy theory does not exist, and that "Cultural Marxism" is not the name for any intellectual movement concerning Marxist cultural analysis. Now, if you wanted to dispute that second claim (about nomenclature) using Jamin as a source, it would be possible to do that - but the place for that would be the Marxist cultural analysis article, not here. What is more, if you wanted to replace the emphatic Braune quotation with a paraphrase that sticks to what all RS agree on (that the conspiracy theory is based on falsifying the existence of an intellectual movement), rather than including the claim that "no movement exists by that name" - which is the view of most but not all RS - then that would be fine in my view. What is not OK is attempting, through selective quotation, to insert disputes into the article that do not exist in the RS literature. Newimpartial (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
On the other hand, since the Frankfurt School (notably Adorno and Marcuse) are constantly set up by conspiracy theorists as a major bugaboo, I think the comments concerning the Frankfurt School currently in the article are entirely relevant and DUE.
  • This article says “that Frankfurt School scholars are called ‘Critical Theorists’, not ‘Cultural Marxists’”. To the extent that the reader could misinterpret this to be saying that Frankfurt School scholars are not cultural Marxists as in Marxist cultural analysis it should be modified, since that is not an assertion that should be made in this article. How about this: “that Frankfurt School scholars are called ‘Critical Theorists’ and were not conspirators”? — Swood100 (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
But this statement is in Braune's voice, not in Wikivoice, so I don't see any problem with it. Frankly, nobody except the conspiracy theorists asserts that the Frankfurt School scholars are correctly called "Cultural Marxists", so I definitely don't see any need to water this down. Also, didn't you say earlier that you were withdrawing your Braune-related edits? Are you using WP:SEALION as some kind of instruction manual? Because that isn't how it was intended. Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
But this statement is in Braune's voice, not in Wikivoice, so I don't see any problem with it. Frankly, nobody except the conspiracy theorists asserts that the Frankfurt School scholars are correctly called "Cultural Marxists", so I definitely don't see any need to water this down.
The point simply is that I thought we agreed that this article should not be making any assertions about Marxist cultural analysis, regardless of the voice. If making assertion A would be relevant to this article it doesn’t seem possible that contradicting assertion A would not be. When Jamin and Langman are talking about cultural Marxists as in Marxist cultural analysis, then presumably they are talking about Frankfurt School scholars such as Adorno and Marcuse. But Jamin and Langman are not conspiracy theorists.
How about if we replaced all the above Braune references, since they could be understood to refer to Marxist cultural analysis, with: “Contrary to the claims and underlying assumptions of the conspiracy theory, academic Joan Braune explained that the theory is false, it is not an academic school of thought, there is no intellectual movement associated with it, it has no valid connection with Frankfurt School scholars, and those scholars were not conspirators.” — Swood100 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That is again a misrepresentation of the sources, because "it" in the following clauses would be "the theory". But the point isn't that the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" isn't an academic school of thought, it is that the object of the conspiracy theory, "Cultural Marxism", isn't an academic school of thought. Please stop confusing the object of the conspiracy theory with Marxist cultural analysis. Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

because "it" in the following clauses would be "the theory"
How about this: “Academic Joan Braune stated that the version of Cultural Marxism that is referred to by the conspiracy theory was manufactured by the conspiracists for their own purposes. It is not an academic school of thought, there is no intellectual movement associated with it, and it has no valid connection with actual Frankfurt School scholars.” — Swood100 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Based on this discussion I have revised the passage further, splitting the existing sentence, removing the direct quotation, and adding appropriate nuance. Newimpartial (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
She also stated that Frankfurt School scholars are referred to as "Critical Theorists", not "Cultural Marxists"
To the extent that the reader could misinterpret this to be saying that Frankfurt School scholars are not cultural Marxists as in Marxist cultural analysis it should be modified, since that is not an assertion that should be made in this article. How about this: “that Frankfurt School scholars are most often called ‘Critical Theorists’ and were not conspirators”? — Swood100 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
No. The current text offers an accurate statement of her view (which happens to be the prevailing view) about the non-applicability of the term "Cultural Marxists" - using quotation marks so it is difficult to misunderstand - to members of the Frankfurt School. Nobody reading this article or Marxist cultural analysis is tempted to think that this statement that they are referred to as "Critical Theorists", not "Cultural Marxists" has anything to do with whether or not the Frankfurt School offers relevant Marxist insights on culture, or not. It is time to drop the stick. Newimpartial (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
What if a reliable source is found who, for example, connects Marcuse to what later became political correctness, but without accusing him of being involved in a conspiracy? So it’s an element of what some people mean when they talk about “Cultural Marxism” but without the conspiracy part and without the anti-Semitic part. The relevance to this article could be that some aspects of the full-blown conspiracy theory may have originated from Franklin School sources. Jamin talks about two groups: the real and serious academic work and the conspiracy theorists. He says,
"These questions also show the connection between the two groups. All start with unquestionable facts, but to go on to make very different interpretation about the impact of Cultural Marxism on culture and values, with sometimes very strong suspicions about the shameful objective behind the story. But more again, it also gives a large range of possible uses by multiple actors from right-wing conservative intellectuals to criticize Marxism in the United States to radical and violent groups to denounce the "death of the West." Finally, because Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory allows each user the option to travel between both groups, and stops exactly where it fits with their own vision, it offers a variable scope."
In other words, even a conspiracy theory may contain elements of serious academic work. If there is a reliable source saying that the political correctness element originated with Marcuse, that would appear to be relevant.
Here’s another issue. Suppose a particular Franklin School scholar said that Western society needs to be totally upended by means of a cultural revolution, including a substitution of entirely new societal mores. If somebody were to say that the person advocated the destruction of Western society would it be clear-cut to say that he was wrong and that this is unquestionably an incorrect characterization? — Swood100 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I know nothing of the Franklin school of which you speak. Also, I don't see anything from the Jamin quote you provide that would be DUE for inclusion in this article (which is saturated with Jamin already; it is not as though he were the most prominent, highest-quality, or even the most prolific source on the topic).
As far as your first and last paragraphs are concerned, I am not going to discuss what we would do if reliable sources said such and such. Either they do, or they do not. I have not seen any RS that make any of these points. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
If the oblique point of the above is supposed to be, the conspiracy theory isn't completely wrong, and this article should say so, well, no RS have ever been provided to support that (and no, that isn't what Jamin is saying, either) and the issue has been discussed extensively at AfD and at RfC. That horse carcass has produced a lot of leather by now, but it's done. Newimpartial (talk)
It wouldn’t be difficult to find a reliable source to say that in Eros and Civilization Marcuse advocated the relaxation of sexual mores, and there are plenty of people who associate this with “Cultural Marxism” and who believe that this is the advocacy of a practice that will result in the destruction of Western society. So to them, members of the Frankfurt School are responsible for some of the destruction of Western society that has taken place so far, even if there has been no conspiracy involved. — Swood100 (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
More evidence of POV pushing, you've come back (again) with your views of the subject, this time with no source at all just your opinion, claiming "a conspiracy theory may contain elements of serious academic work. If there is a reliable source saying that the political correctness element originated with Marcuse, that would appear to be relevant." and "It wouldn’t be difficult to find a reliable source to say that..." this is not how Wikipedia works, you are supposed to read reliable sources and let them inform your edits, not come to a certain point of view then seek to find sources that back said point of view, that is blatant POV pushing - even more blatant than your previous attempts. Bacondrum (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

But this article isn't intended to document the range of strange beliefs held by people who believe in the titular conspiracy theory, much less to give them credence. If we were to expand the scope of the article to more effectively evoke the false narrative of the conspiracy, I would much rather elaborate on Michael Walsh's "Magic helmet" theory, or the role he attributes to Satan, than waste editing time on misreadings of Marcuse that I quite literally refuted in an essay I wrote (for Intellectual History class) as a sophomore. Newimpartial (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

regardless, it needs to stop. The POV pushing adding content against consensus, bludgeoning and editwarring are extremely disruptive. I personally think they long ago passed the point where they should have been blocked from the article. Bacondrum (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It got mentioned above (the question came up on the link between The Frankfurt School and the term "Political Correctness". Here's the answer: the term Political Correctness finds a very early usage by Fouccalt. He wrote (in french) "a political thought can be politically correct ('politiquement correcte') only if it is scientifically painstaking". That quote is from the 1968 French literary magazine La Quinzaine littéraire. That puts his usage two years prior to it's first English language appearance claimed by Toni Cade Bambara for her anthology "The Black Woman" (New American Publishing, 1970). Fouccalt had not discovered the Frankfurt School at this point in his career - so it can conclusively be said that no, The Frankfurt School did NOT contribute to the creation of "Political Correctness offenses" as the conspiracy theorists claim. 115.64.190.163 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory/Archive_4&oldid=1000168355"