Jump to content

Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

Split discussion

A RFC was held on the subject
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.

I'm helping Jobrot (talk · contribs) to initiate a formal split request to split this article into Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism (Culture Wars), after he posted it to Wikipedia:Proposed article splits. I believe it's best for him to explain the reasons for the split, so I'll say no more. Trialpears (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Support split for Cultural Marxism. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Teishin (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose splitting the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory section into a discrete encyclopædic article, because the subject has no real-world sources, beyond the opinions of the right-wingers quoted and discussed in the text. The CM conspiracy is an anti-Semitic canard posing as a fringe theory that POV-pushes 19th-century European racism, from Imperial Russia, into the unrelated domestic politics of the U.S., in the 20th and 21st centuries, to misrepresent progress (social and political) as the result of "Judæo-Bolshevik conspirators"; the preponderance of fact-obscuring weasel words proves there is insufficient substance for a discrete Wikipedia article titled Cultural Marxism. — Chas. Caltrop (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment (feel free to move up if this gets too lost) I have nothing to add Re: The reasons for the split (or keep) - the Cultural landscape, the psychological and political forces at play... the sociology of the topic - all of these things should now have been on full display to anyone watching closely enough. It is now what's known as a "Good Conscience vote". My only hope is that others free to express their own views in either direction - and that this no longer be a WP:BATTLEGROUND talk page. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment In my view it's one of those topics there are known false-hoods about (which the current section does well dealing with)... but then there's a second "Culture War" aspect of stating all the the main viewpoints, accounts, and actors/institutions at play. So the Split is basically to further separate facts from fictions. Give room for context that is unrelated to The Frankfurt School page, and frankly so that there's a quarantined space for the true-believers of the conspiracy theory to be sent to... away from the political and social comments which might have more validity or stem from causes other than white supremacy and anti-Semitism. It would also set a path to fold the topic into the wider Culture Wars article - perhaps in 5 or 10 years time... when history and hindsight make things clearer. --Jobrot (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support because I think term "Cultural Marxism" can be better understand when put in context of Culture War. It's not academic term but it's better known by general public by its pejorative name and this contemporary interpretation.Sourcerery (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment - what troubles me about the proposed split is that the perjorative Culture War usage is still a conspiracy theory in the strict sense. I am concerned that this point could be lost in the context of a split. Perhaps those supporting a split could reassure me on this point? Newimpartial (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment - no it's not. Term Cultural Marxism is a bit of hyperbole and misinterpretation that is being weaponized by political actors for their goals, and use. Applying term conspiracy theory is used to try and discredit that weaponization, but stricly speaking both have political goals in mind. You can't say someone interpretation of certain philosophy is conspiracy theory. Misinterpretation and misuse on philosophy happens all the time. You and I can read exactly same text, for example "will to power", I can guarantee we will have different understanding and different conclusions. It's not like this is first example of misuse of some philosophy or philosopher. I purposely mention "will to power" and Nietzsche who was abused by Nazis. Mainly by conflating terms power and force, but this is nothing new in world of philosophy.Sourcerery (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
But I know my Marxism, and the "Marxist theory of culture" that some om the right pretend to weaponize as "Cultural Marxism" simply does not exist - not among orthodox Marxists, not in neo-Marxists, not among structuralists, not in the Frankfurt School, and not among the Gramscians - nowhere. To assert that it does exist is absolutely a conspiracy theory. And the cultural program that these rightists are trying to explain - critical race theory, third-wave feminism, and queer theory, primarily - consists of movements that are not Marxist and are not notably influenced by Marxism. To assert the contrary is absolutely a conspiracy theory. So yes, actually, I can say that to interpret even the worst possible reading of Marxism as if it produced Eduard Said, Bikini Kill and Judith Butler is not a "different understanding" in the same sense as Heidegger vs. Foucault reading Nietzche. It is a modern fable, a.k.a. a conspiracy theory, and should not be treated in the BOTHSIDES-ist way proposed by Sourcerery. Newimpartial (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
That's why I said it's hyperbole. You are partially correct it doesn't exist among Marxists strictly and it didn't originate within Frankfurt School although there are some connections, but it's more related to French philosophy. What is labeled Cultural Marxism is actually postmodern philosophy and they had many influences, Frankfurt School is one of them. That's why I support split so it could be explained that it's not really Frankfurt school which belong to modernists school of philosophy. There is plenty of criticism of postmodernist, from Marxists included. From conservative Roger Scruton to anarcho-syndicalist Noam Chomsky many have not so kind words for postmodernist. What really bothers you is label "Cultural Marxism" because you have sympathy for Marxism, am I right? You should know better and push for correct labels, multiculturalism and intersectionality which detract from class struggle of Marxism.Sourcerery (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
My intervention isn't about "sympathy for Marxism", like the old Stones track. And some Marxisms are pretty horrific tbh. I am pointing out in essence that "Cultural Marxism" isn't just garbled philosophy or inaccurate labelling, it is a personification of a straw man argument, a.k.a. a conspiracy theory. The legitimate point of a split would be to discuss the conspiracy theory more adequately, but you have just convinced me that this would not be done, just as it was done only with difficulty when there was a separate article in the past. Newimpartial (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
It's exactly inaccurate labeling of postmodern philosophy of which you obviously know nothing about.Sourcerery (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Which postmodern philosophy are you talking about, exactly? There isn't just one, and the "Cultural Marxism" argument doesn't realy apply, say, to French poststructutalism. Also, please NPA. Newimpartial (talk)
Pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about is not attack, it's statement of fact. Jacques Derrida was singled out so your statement would be false, but there is so much criticism for you to explore Grievance Studies affair, Criticism of postmodernism, Postmodernism criticism section, etc.Sourcerery (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't cast ASPERSIONS, man. You didn't cite Derrida, above, and in any case I'm quite confident that I've read more of him than you have. If you are under the impression that I am unaware of the content of the Grievance Studies affair, Criticism of postmodernism, and Postmodernism articles and their respective background and context then you should revise your assumptions and please stop the personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. we are all here to build an encyclopedia. Newimpartial (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
So you are fully aware what political actors think Cultural Marxism is, you are fully aware that it's all postmodernism and shouldn't even be on this article in the first place, you are aware that's it's not conspiracy theory, so why exactly didn't you point all this out and instead called it conspiracy theory?Sourcerery (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I have articulated at least three times on this page what a conspiracy theory is and why the Cultural Marxism strawman is one. I need not do so again just on the possibility of sparking more effective critical thought. Newimpartial (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You need to look up WP:CIR before rushing into comment section with factual inaccuracies, like a cow in corn field. Also, straw man is not conspiracy theory just so you know.Sourcerery (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
No factual inaccuracies on my part have been pointed out in this discussion; please avoid WP:ASPERSIONS and personal attacks. And, just to elaborate, it is belief that the strawman is real that is a conspiracy theory - based on prejudice and insufficient evidence, positing that "some small and hidden group" has manipulated events, q.v. Conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, massive nope, no mention of straw man in conspiracy theories. Are you trolling?Sourcerery (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
This guy is trolling me, someone collapse this waste of time discussion.Sourcerery (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Accusations of Trolling constitute personal attacks; please stop the personal attacks.
In this instance, Cultural Marxism is a theory, based on prejudice and insufficient evidence, positing that "some small and hidden group" has manipulated events: in this case, "Marxists" in universities and state institutions, somehow conspiring to "undermine Western civilization". If you do not see the conspiracy theory in that, I suggest re-reading the sources more carefully. Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
It has been used in academic discourse in 80s and 90s with different connotations, it will be weaponized by political actors later. https://jewishjournal.com/newsroom/judaism/cultural-marxism-is-a-euphemism/ https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/29/how-the-term-cultural-marxism-has-been-co-opted-by-the-alt-right Frankfurt school was critical of Western civilization, that is just a fact. And many use it today not with conspiratorial view, conspiracy theorist neither came up with the term, neither define it, neither are sole users of it. I have to repeat that competency is required, otherwise we are just waisting time.Sourcerery (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I have previously read both of those sources; per CIR, please note that the mainstream of the Frankfurt School actually saw itself as the culmination of Western civilization, per dialectic theory. Also per CIR, I thought we had already eatablished that alt-right/Jordan Peterson "Cultural Marxism" discourse has constructed a straw man, and does not objectively refer to Birmingham-school Marxist theories of culture, for example.
The fact remains that, per all authoritative sources (not counting op-eds and people speaking out of their anal cavities), those using "Cultural Marxism" as a boogeyman are employing a conspiracy theory, namely "a theory based on prejudice and insufficient evidence, positing that some small and hidden group has manipulated events". This is exactly what we have here, and creating a POV fork so that a FRINGE case can be made for the "reality" of "Cultural Marxism" is directly counter to WP policy and exactly what the previous RfC close was intended to prevent. Newimpartial (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Those are living people, per BLP you shouldn't refer to them like that. It's been in academic discourse since 80s, who employs words and in what way is up to them.Sourcerery (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Sourcing! Ahh yes, what do you guy's think of Trent Schroyer's original usage? In my opinion the link to Cultural Bolshevism is only tenuous (see that article's talk page for details). --Jobrot (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

If you can't tell the essential difference between academic discussions within the Birmingham school tradition, and bogeymen as described among the alt-right, then you are not qualified to edit articles on academic Marxism. Period. Newimpartial (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not just gonna let alt-right define words for me, thank you very much, neither they are defined as such in the mainstream, you are one pushing FRINGE.Sourcerery (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I am following the sources in our actual article. How is Martin Jay, for example, "fringe"? Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Alt-right views are fringe views, are you denying that?Sourcerery (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't move the goal posts, please. Martin Jay is writing about the alt-right, which is the author of and constituency for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. The whole theory is FRINGE, even (or perhaps especially) when espoused by Peterson or Bolsonaro. Scholarly authorities writing in their area of expertise, like Jay, are by contrast in the best position to say what the conspiracy theory is and does - that is the opposite of FRINGE. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is fringe, so why in the world are you arguing that it's only used in that context?Sourcerery (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I have answered this above [1] [2]. Please don't be a SEALION. Newimpartial (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Comparing term used since 80s with the Great Replacement is peak hyperbole, I mean come on. [3], [4], [5] 3rd by Douglas Kellner. I'm not wasting time for something you should know about if you want seriously to discuss this topic.Sourcerery (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
"Cultural Marxism" in your sense dates from 1998 per sources; "The Great Replacement" thinking dates back to the 1960s and 70s, so if anything "Cultural Marxism" is a flimsier conspiracy theory; is this what you mean? The Birmingham school and the movements Kellner is discussing were something quite different from the right-wing usage of "Cultural Marxism" since 1998; please try to keep up. Finally, Zubatov and Mendenhall are roughly equivalent to Peterson as reliable sources on this topic, i.e., not at all. So yes, we agree: let us not waste time on this. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The Great Replacement has only one meaning, Cultural Marxism does not and it evolved over time. I still think you lack competency, and your disagreement with RS doesn't make them unreliable.Sourcerery (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Per my comments above, "Cultural Marxism" also has only one meaning - setting aside Kellner's usage as a synonym for "Marxist theories of culture", which never really caught on. The parallel with The Great Replacement is therefore strict - we know what we're talking about, and either it is real or it's a myth. Neither meaning has "evolved", and the only people who argue that the term "Cultural Marxism" has evolved are those who wish to substitute a more sophisticated version of the strawman for the cruder ones they see around them.
In their commentary on "Cultural Marxism", Peterson, Mendenhall and Zubatov are all writing outside of their areas of professional specialization, and are therefore not reliable sources per WP:RS. This is a matter of policy, not opinion, q.v. WP:CIR. Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
You can't "set aside" things you don't like.Sourcerery (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
You haven't read WP:V, have you? Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you implying that it's not verifiable? How about "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies" by Dennis Dworkin, intellectual historian? You are either WP:CIP or WP:NOTHERE.Sourcerery (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I have read the book, and it refers to the three-cornered debates been Perry Anderson/NLR, Hobsbawm, Thompson et al., and the Birmingham school of Cultural Studies. The book does not actually treat "Cultural Marxism" as an analytical term even in the way Kellner does; it is a mere juxtaposition of words. Please drop the stick. Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, so it uses term in way you are not approving? Got it.Sourcerery (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

information Administrator note Okay, enough, both of you. This has skirted the edges of civility for long enough. Also, CIP — what? El_C 18:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

* Oppose per the immediately preceding exchange. Newimpartial (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Wikipedia is intended to be created by consensus, polite/reasonable discussion and good sourcing. I can't stop you from voting against what another Wikipedian wants to do. But I do just want to stress explicitly; that's not what is being proposed in this Split discussion. The Split discussion is about where Wikipedia will put the content - not about what the content consists of. --Jobrot (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
That comment shows a remarkable degree of self-reflection, tbh. Newimpartial (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
There is an article on Culture war but the article does not mention Cultural Marxism except as an external source-link. Agree such a title is POV. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Not sure about the title, but a separate article explaining the origins and how it has been hijacked in common usage these days (as "...the grand unifying narrative for the hard, fascist & neo-Nazi right"), might be useful for the casual reader seeking to understand what the RWNJs are on about. (The reason I was looking at the article today was because I stumbled across A user's guide to "Cultural Marxism": Anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, reloaded and was going to see if I could add anything to the Wikipedia article, or add it as a link in Further reading. But I'll just leave it here for now because I don't know enough about it and don't have time to dig deeper now.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose under that title. Not enough sources tying it to the "culture wars", which is a somewhat vaguely-defined concept. I'm additionally concerned that it's a vaguely-defined concept popular with the people pushing this conspiracy theory (eg. the Culture war letter), so using it for the title is non-neutral in the sense that it not only disregards the near-universal dismissal of the topic as a conspiracy theory in reliable sources, but actually legitimizes it. --Aquillion (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support split for Cultural Marxism. The term has been in usage since the 1940s (see, e.g. The gavel and sickle : the supreme court, cultural Marxism, and the assault on Christianity / Anthony Walsh (1941); Cultural Marxism in postwar Britain : history, the new left, and the origins of cultural studies / Dennis Dworkin (1951). Dworkin, at least, is a reliable source. Clearly, the term is used very differently by Left and Right (which in itself should be the framing of a reasonable, impartial article on the matter). But the divergent usage should not prevent a dedicated page, which seems to be one of the arguments here. Cdh1001 (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Note, Cdh1001, that you have included the dates of each author's birth, not the publication dates of their books, which are all within the last 30 years. Newimpartial (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

An actual discussion about a split

Not sure what Jobrot or Trialpears were thinking with this (Culture Wars) disambiguator but it's clearly derailed and needlessly delayed consensus on a split. I feel that there is broadly consensus for splitting this section, which is a much broader topic than one that fits with Frankfurt School and could just as well be a section for another article as much as it is for this. I intend on boldly splitting this section to simply Cultural Marxism unless there is significant opposition. This does not mean Cultural Marxism is something that exists, and we would continue to treat the subject how we treat other conspiracy theories. It's simply distinct, although has origins, from the Frankfurt School. Notifying Teishin, Chas. Caltrop, The Four Deuces, Sourcerery, Newimpartial, Raquel Baranow, Laterthanyouthink and Aquillion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I see a consensus to split, but not with the (Culture Wars) disambiguation. The AfD was in 2014, and while a new article could use improvement, it's certainly reasonable to give it another chance. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, just because people (including myself) have Opposed that particular title doesn't mean they Support a split to Cultural Marxism, you know. I really wouldn't advise a split on a contentious subject based on a short discussion about a completely different title... Black Kite (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The opposition rationales have been almost entirely about the title, while many of the support rationales disagree with the title. While it's possible that it could be named Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, I would rather call it a conspiracy theory in the lead sentence rather than in the title. The exact title or configuration of the article can be decided after it is split. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Please read the discussion that had "Cultural Marxism" redirected here in the first place - there was a clear, policy-based consensus at that time, which does not seem to have changed since, that (1) Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory per RS, and (2) having a standalone article was an invitation for POV brigading and BOTHSIDESism on a topic where BALANCE requires that two "equal" sides not be presented.
The policy-based consensus in this discussion, as I read it, is the same as before, so any BOLD split attempt would in fact be against consensus and would lead to needless strife. Newimpartial (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest, then, starting a new discussion with two points - (a) should this be split? and (b) if so, should it be under Cultural Marxism or Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory? I would also suggest some visibility for the discussion as well, perhaps at WP:CENT. Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
But WP:SIZERULE recommends that articles of this size be split. This article is over 76kb. This should be considered a usability issue, not an ideological issue. Teishin (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems clear that that adding anything like "(Culture Wars)" in the title produces concerns. Shorter titles are generally better than longer ones. Couldn't we name the article "Cultural Marxism"? The article as is really needs to be split. It's too long and for most users it is addressing topics at a higher level of abstraction than they're interested in looking up. Teishin (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I've started an RfC below, which seems the only logical way to go about this. Black Kite (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing individuals

So I see there's no mention of Ron Paul's tweet in the section on Cultural Marxism any more, nor any mention of Suella Braverman... or even the person who first used the term. Trent Schroyer. It's always very odd what you Wikipedians end up removing before a split in the name of WP:CE. Perhaps it's time to revert the section again? Or just draft a new version ready to have this one re-merged into? --Jobrot (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Tweets news do not make. Zezen (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Trent Schroyer was not the first person to use the term. He used a similar term to mean something different and this is only cited in conspiracy theory writings. TFD (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Misspelt POV passages replete with code words

Many passages look garbled, with style, grammar and spelling errors, e.g.: 

... to politically delegitimize left-wing opponents by misrepresenting the social Other (who is not the Self) as politically destructive members of the country's body politik [sic].

Have real Frankfurters written this article about themselves? Or are such passages a planted pomo "meta-othering" post-politik in-joke?

I have removed one glaring non-sequitur as a test. Zezen (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like an editor with fairly weak spelling and grammar skills rewrote the entire section here (with some intervening edits by other editors.) I think their overall goals made some sense, but there's enough issues that I'm tempted to revert most of it back just because fixing things one by one back to the standard it was at before isn't really reasonable. It's not one specific thing that can be easily fixed, it's the cumulative impact of a whole bunch of changes to more awkward wording. --Aquillion (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory section - possible split

NO SPLIT
Reviewing this RFC I cannot find a clear consensus to overturn the earlier AFD outcome. The comments supporting the split have actually only have provided two arguments:
  • It's independently notable
  • WP:SIZE request a split.
With the notability arguments, I immediately noticed that most of the contributors stating "Support, it's notable", only state that without actually supporting their claim with anything why/how the subject is independently notable. Therefore I cannot give these contributions much weight. There were a few contributors who did bring meaningful evidence of notability, but those opposing the split have given reasonable arguments to question the weight of that evidence. Therefore I cannot see a clear consensus in favor of the notability argument. With regards to WP:SIZE, argument, the opposing contributors have correctly pointed out that it is merely a guideline and not rule imposing a split. What all but one person overlooked though is that WP:SIZE only refers to "readable prose". The total article size is "over 72kB", however the readable prose size is only 32kB currently which is well below the mark where a split should even be considered. Therefor I cannot find the presented arguments insufficient to overturn the earlier AFD.Tvx1 12:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Per the discussion above, this RfC is to discuss two questions.

  • (a) should the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section be split into a new article?
  • (b) if so, what should the article name be?

Notes:

Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Should the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section be split into a new article?

  • Support. I need more time to get my head around the whole thing, but just wanted to add a couple of quick comments. Firstly, what is currently in the article seems very US-centred, and secondly that I'd like to see an article which looks at how the term has become "memified" by the far right and has even started creeping into mainstream political discourse, without much reference to or understanding of its origins. I'm just going to plant a few links to (randomly chosen and not necessarily the best, but hopefully illustrative) articles from the UK and Australia. These about a Tory politician's use of the term: [6] [7] [8] and a couple of Australian commentary articles [9] [10]. To my mind a new article would be less about the historical roots and more about the current use of the term. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, in previous AfD cultural Marxism was thought to be a neologism defined as follows: WP:NEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.” C.M. is an interesting, popular concept that deserves a separate article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

* Oppose per the massive AfD discussion of "Cultural Marxism" in 2014 [11], which was closed as a redirect by a panel of three (!) uninvolved administrators. Such a decision was taken for good reason and its reversal should not be undertaken lightly or without wide consultation. Nothing of note has changed in the last five years that would affect this decision - passing mentions of the term by non-experts and in public discourse can be addressed just as easily in a section here as in a split article.

Also, crucially, my exchange with Sourcerery in the Split discussion just above the RfC has convinced me that the threat of brigading leading to a POV fork of the split article is as real now as it was in 2014. Newimpartial (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
There are many more editors now than in 2014. The fact that it took three administrators to close indicates more that deleting the article had the weakest possible consensus in support of that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
That is not a policy-compliant reading of the situation, either now or in 2014. Newimpartial (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
It is worse than "the weakest possible consensus." This is an article that Wikipedia gets repeatedly criticized for. It is a politicized topic for which consensus-building is particularly problematic. Teishin (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose legitimizing CM conspiracy theory by splitting the article-section into a discrete article. The anti-semitic canard subject is covered in full in the current section; there is no page-two to the racist-bullshit subject of CM: "Jewish-Bolshevik subversion of the West", disguised as a legitimate encyclopaedic subject. As stated earlier, Wikipedia already has legitimate articles about Cultural Studies (without anonymous-IP Nazis hiding in the talk page) which make unnecessary the creation of a virtual shrine to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and their Kulturbolshevismus nonsense. I don't know it for a fact, but I know it to be true, in my gut.
Allow me a slight Commie-Liberal-Socialist speculation: Under pretence of providing "sourced-examples of Cultural Marxism attacks against helpless, disenfranchised white folk" in Wikipedia, the Nazis and their brethren — who, so far, have anonymously commented from behind their IP addresses — would be legitimizied, because, in A.D. 2019, Wikipedia has acquired the informational credibility (i.e. "Wikipedia has an article about CM, therefore, it is a thing.") lost to honestly racist websites (Storm Watch, Breitbart, the Klan et al.). The 2014 AfD were correct in their factual evaluation of this barfly subject; there is no beef (verifiable facts) in the B.S. burger of Cultural Marxism.
Chas. Caltrop (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
You honestly seem confused on what articles are for. An article about Cultural Marxism doesn't mean the conspiracy exists, it just documents the conspiracy theory. Holocaust denial and other conspiracy theories have Wikipedia articles detailing them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip makes a crucial point. Our role is not to be arbitrators of what does and does not exist. Teishin (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely correct. Reliable Sources decide what exists, and what exists according to RS is the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. The question whether this conspiracy theory merits its own article was decided by three uninvolved administrators in 2014, and a reversal of their decision should not be made with less formality. Newimpartial (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The 2014 AfD was on different issues which no longer exist. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think what I said is "absolutely correct"! I absolutely reject the view that "reliable sources" "decide" what "exists." I think Wikipedia reports what opinions reliable sources give regarding what exists. One objective thing that has changed since 2014 is how much longer the article is now than then. On that basis alone the 2014 decision is now open to revision. Teishin (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, you are making an EXTRAORDINARY claim. Where is your extraordinary evidence? Newimpartial (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not extraordinary at all. The issues included Gamergate, suspected sockpuppet accounts and brigading from Reddit. None of these concerns exist now. If Cultural Marxism becomes its own article, it will simply be one of many Wikipedia articles about contentious topics. The content itself has also changed since 2014, but what matters more is the notability of the topic. We could start the article as a stub if we prefer. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Umm, 123IP, I patrol a few articles of interest to the alt-right. If anything, I see more brigading by FRINGE sympathizers, IPs and socks now than there was in 2014. And if there is a split, the new article will inevitably be subject to a BOTHSIDESist push towards an NPOV fork. This really is not a step to be taken lightly. Newimpartial (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
When someone with fringe views makes a POV edit on a contentious article, it is rarely brigading and only sometimes sockpuppeting. We have a very simple mechanism to prevent disruptive editing, it's called page protection. The worst that can happen is the article escalates to 500/30 page protection. We have articles that are far more contentious than Cultural Marxism ever was or ever could be, and we don't censor Wikipedia by removing articles that upset people. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
That sounds a lot like a desire to re-litigate the 2014 AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE recommends that articles of this size be split. This article is over 76kb.Teishin (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as a distinct and notable topic, this is not something primarily about the Frankfurt School. As I said previously, I intend on splitting the section into an article given that the main objection to splitting the section in the previous discussion was the odd choice of name. Articles being deleted five years ago does not stop us from restarting articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how it can be concluded that this topic "is not something primarily about the Frankfurt School." It seems to me to be well documented that there are views about "cultural marxism" that place it firmly as part of the Frankfurt School (which is not to say that there are not other views about the topic that are not connected to the Frankfurt School). Teishin (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
There isn't a Frankfurt School anymore. It's like having the article for United States as a section of United Kingdom. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
We record history here. Teishin (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
123IP, how exactly does that simile work? Are you suggesting that the United States is a sort of urban legend wherein the rest of the world sees UK meddling to disrupt "Western civilization"? I am at a loss. Newimpartial (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Metamagician3000 made some comments here on the subject... and for a long time this message was displayed on their user talk page. --Jobrot (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Jobrot. I don't think that I know enough or have time to inform myself well enough to contribute usefully to the ongoing discussion, so will drop out here. I have a better understanding of some of the challenges now, but feel that there are still a few good reasons to create a separate article, including the frequency of its appearance and differing connotations (some of which seem only tenuously or circuitously connected to what could be termed a full-on conspiracy theory). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a split to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory; the section of the article about the conspiracy theory is getting quite large, and it is also a clearly different topic from the primary subject of the article. (However, I would oppose a split to any other title; it is my strong opinion that we need to be very clear that this is a conspiracy theory if we split it.) I also wouldn't think it would be difficult to prove its notability given both that there ought to be news sources documenting that it's not uncommon among the modern right and also historical sources documenting its connection to the Nazi cultural Bolshevism conspiracy theory. (In fact, why do we have that page as separate? This is a descendant of that.) LokiTheLiar (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
According to Oxford fellow Matthew Feldman (currently cited in the article) - some fascist groups in the UK have conflated Cultural Bolshevism and Cultural Marxism. That is the sole source for claiming they're related. I've made arguments here on the CB talk page for the two being related, but that claim was ultimately rejected. The actual origin for the term Cultural Marxism, is a leftist:One Trent Schroyer. Since Schroyer's usage, there have been several other left-wing usages that pre-date the 1990's popularization of the conservative Conspiracy Theory version... and yet also a) appear to be from the pro-left camp, and b) appear unrelated (in any direct or referential sense) to the term Cultural Bolshevism. So the question is; can this info/history be included in a genuine and reasonable fashion whilst still maintaining the heading/title "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory". If so - then that should perhaps be the split destination/name. If not; then perhaps something slightly more broad and open - but with a view to still "incriminating" certain limits/versions of belief as being "conspiracy theories" (ie. Jews run academia, Marxist run capitalism, gays run the media, ect... ect...). It's a nuanced problem for an encyclopedia, see Google Scholar, plenty of actual leftist usages of "Cultural Marxism"... I believe it's origins will still have to be covered in the new page (History/etymology sections tend to be unavoidable). Which opens the debate up. --Jobrot (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
How do you cover the left-wing history/origin - and still disavow the term as the left seems to have done (preferring the now less politicized versions Cultural Studies and Critical Theory). I think that needs to be done... I think The Frankfurt School and The Birmingham School helped create a critical cultural and political discourse away from Marxist politics/baggage, and that break needs to be respected (and the post-war world has become less toxic for these schools of thought)... but yes WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV obviously need to be respected too. --Jobrot (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per a bit of the above comments and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination). We went through this (well not me specifically) in 2014. This is not that much of a usability concern as the article only over 76kb, so according to WP:SIZERULE that puts it into the category of: Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material) [emphasis added]. However, if people think I am wrong on that then I propose: #Critical theory be split into Critical theory and the Frankfurt School. That section is much larger and contains material not already found in the main article for Critical theory. I don't why that wouldn't be the prime candidate for splitting off? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 12:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
During the AfD the Frankfurt School page was considered a convenient merge (as "Cultural Marxism" was in the Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory page) which could be reconsidered at a later date (I guess that time is now). I Support your suggestions Re a Critical Theory and The Frankfurt School alternative (if viable). I support anything which can help to clarify the history of the discourse, and limit further WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics/politics. My goal is very simple: Depoliticize the area via facts and truth. Part of this is making the origins of the term clearer (Trent Schroyer, a libertarian environmentalist) without buying into the Conspiracy nonsense or anything anti-Semitic. Conspiracy theories often start in an earnest and factual attempt at saying something meaningful. This one was no different. --Jobrot (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
MJL This isn't a size issue. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: then policy reason do you have for the split? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Policy simply can't cover every decision with absolute certainty... so sometimes the encyclopedia does have to make decisions based on community consensus gathering. Luckily there's a few policies for that! --Jobrot (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jobrot: Well, WP:IFITAINTBROKE (essay) applies here. Also (and more importantly), we do have a relevant policy, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and its subsections including WP:NFRINGE (which I don't believe "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theories" meets) and WP:PROFRINGE which explains that we should give unwarranted promotion to fringe theories. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:SALT also may be involved (interrupting WP:IFITAINTBROKE and WP:BOLD), so WP:Consensus seems like the most feasible way to get anywhere right now. It's come to this! --Jobrot (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
MJL The topic of Cultural Marxism is very distinct from Frankfurt School. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: I fail to see that reflected anywhere in the lead sentence of the relevant section: In contemporary usage, the term Cultural Marxism is a right-wing, antisemitic conspiracy theory, which claims that the Frankfurt School is part of a continual academic and intellectual culture war to systematically undermine and destroy Western culture and social traditions. As articulated in the 1990s, the supposed conspiracy means to replace traditionalist conservatism and Christianity with the counterculture of the 1960s to promote social changes such as racial multiculturalism, multi-party progressive politics, acceptance of LGBT rights, and political correctness in language. The two appear to be interrelated topics according to WP:RS. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Is this an argument for housing all-conspiracy related things on their real-life equivalents pages. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia does the former, until the latter gets too big and unwieldy in comparison. So we have a mixed system where some conspiracy theories are stand alone articles, others aren't (eg. Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories and Moon Landing). Is there are more specific policy on this? --Jobrot (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I mentioned this is my alphabet soup previously, it's WP:NFRINGE: A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. (emphasis original). Most WP:RS I am aware of have discussed this subject as related to the Frankfurt School, so I don't think this warrants a separate article (unless it's per WP:SIZERULE, but my alternative proposal works just as well for that imo).
I'm not advocating for any change in policy here (like housing all-conspiracy related things on their real-life equivalent pages); just the consistent application of the ones we already have. Handling these on a case-by-case basis is my preference for all these sorts of things.
At the moment, WP:CONSENSUS is that there should be no split according to the well attended AfD discussion, and I do not think a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS should overrule that expect with a relevant policy justification. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:CCC and as I recall, 2.. or was it 4 years ago? That AfD was also well attended by IP editors. Something commented on by multiple users half way through (with links to outside sites where further comments were being made). Also of note is how well attended these split discussions have been today (and by registered users thanks to this talk page being protected). So yeah - WP:CCC is my only addition to all that you've said, and thank you for answering me. --Jobrot (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The section is very poorly written. This is a better version. The conspiracy theory is not about Frankfurt School. The suggestion is about people far beyond Frankfurt School. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: That version does not have consensus to be placed. I don't see a point in bring it up while we are talking about the splitting of the current section. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't know where to look, don't know if that's a common practice, and as I've retired (mostly) - I couldn't say whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. People will do what they will though. --Jobrot (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jobrot: It's generally considered a common courtesy just so those users can weigh in here. Their opinions may have changed, or they may not have. Either way, it's better for consensus building. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support To "Cultural Marxism" where all usage should be covered.Sourcerery (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support split to "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". This section has grown too large and bloated to remain in the Frankfurt School article. Furthermore, I think there is evidence to support the idea of the conspiracy theory as an independent topic. However, the split must be to an article that includes "conspiracy theory" in its title...so we can avoid the problem of legitimising the conspiracy theory, mentioned above, and align our coverage with that found in reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 18:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The section is too large and notable enough for its own article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not seeing a compelling reason to split that will avoid the WP:COATRACK problems that arose in the article that led to the deletion in the first place. The section in this article represents just 1/5 of the word count of the article (and could always do with some tightening up of prose) so splitting wouldn't even make a huge difference in terms of article size. Editors are quoting SIZERULE here as a "rule". It's not; it's a guideline. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support split to Cultural Marxism, the section should have it's own page. This is not a small footnote for the Frankfurt School, it is noteworthy in its own right. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 21:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support splitting. It's a major and notable conspiracy theory so should have it's own article. Oranjelo100 (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose splitting—I don't think anybody has demonstrated what's changed since 2014. People are incorrectly invoking WP:SIZERULE as a reason to split the article. The size rule gives us rules of thumb for article length according to the length of readable prose. User:Dr pda/prosesize tells us that the article has 33kB of readable prose, which firmly puts this article in the Length alone does not justify division category. From WP:MERGEREASON, there's a significant overlap and context argument for keeping the section on the conspiracy theory within this article. Ralbegen (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

If the consensus is to split, what should the target article name be?

  • "Cultural marxism (popular usage)"? But Cultural marxism on its own seems okay to me too - as Onetwothreeip says or implies above, it doesn't legitimise it, only describes (and in fact can expose why it's a muddled and flawed concept when used in the way it currently seems to be being used). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
"Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory", because other articles about conspiracy theories tend to have that in their title (for example, Pizzagate conspiracy theory and white genocide conspiracy theory.) It's also what the section is named now. LokiTheLiar (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Support if not for any other reason than it gives The Frankfurt School article breathing room for further improvement - and will force the community to decide (on the evidence and sources) whether the term came from Trent Schroyer or from Cultural Bolshevism or some combo/third option. Bit of a deep question really. --Jobrot (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm probably the only one, but I'm currently more worried about left leaning sympathizers and fervent anti-fascists/anti-nazis (some of whom I recently found out are located within Wikipedia) removing people like Trent Schroyer from the article, and from academic history to some degree. Schroyer has currently been removed from the article despite having coined the term (a very strange state of affairs). Things got hazy when it was summarily declared to be a conspiracy theory just about the jews; rather than one about identity politics and trans people (it's both in a way). Considering this talk page is currently protected - I'm not actually worried about giving credence to the right wing POV/conspiracy (I think society is a bit over that now).
Personally I'm here to make sure we accurately communicate how this topic has developed to effect recent history/politics... I don't know, it's a difficult POV problem, but I think consensus is working in the right direction (the split would help open up this discussion greatly). --Jobrot (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
So the conspiracy theory websites say. Indeed Schroyer used the phrase "cultural-Marxism" (note the hyphen) to refer to Marxist scholars who studied culture in both Communist and capitalist societies: "Much of [their] criticism is devoted to the analysis of the "culture industry" of late industrial society and shows how the individual is enslaved by the suppressions and denials of modern mass culture." There is no evidence that the later use had any connection with this but certainly the belief of conspiracy theorists that this is its origin should be mentioned. TFD (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
How you've phrased that, the contextualization of the positions, seems to cover the WP:NN status of the original terminology (the "left wing conception" be that what it may be), whilst also allowing the path for the conspiracy theory to still be considered notable. A difficult linguistic and conceptual position to write into an article, but yes, definitely can be a point of agreement. I think part of our duty now is to preserve the theorists whose names have become involved (which happily lines up with Wikipedia's policies on biographies). That's another hugely great reason for editors to consider in this spilt. --Jobrot (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The fact that Schroyer used the expression "cultural-Marxism" in the title of a chapter of his book does not establish notability. He was merely using it as an alternative epxpression. According to Paul Rosenberg in Salon, William S. Lind coined the term "cultural Marxism" in 1998. (See "A user's guide to "Cultural Marxism": Anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, reloaded", May 5, 2019. There's no evidence that Lind was aware of Schroyer's writings. More probably he got the term from the Nazi concept of "Cultural Bolshevism." Lind discusses his concept in 2000 in "The Origins of Political Correctness". Note no mention of Schroyer. TFD (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't see a connection between Schroyer's work and anyone else (other than The New School). However I do see 3 notable positions which need description - the fact that the term started out on the left and was very vague (even in the George Ritzer source). Then the kooks (Lind et al. the bulk of the article)... and then the post-conspiracy academics and media debunkers. They're the three positions I believe can be counted as "notable" to various degrees (the original terms existence via Trent Schroyer/George Ritzer/Doug Kellner being required, but low priority). It's not the easiest way to tell the story of this WP:FRINGE WP:NEOLOGISM - but it IS the most honest way. So it's what I'm hoping for as an outcome. --Jobrot (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose splitting this limited-interest material, because there is insufficient substance; yet, should such a dumbing-down of Wikipedia occur, the conspiracy theory should be transposed into the Culture war article, wherein. . . .
Chas. Caltrop (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
A few sources seem difficult to separate from the Cultural Marxism (Culture War) suggestion. For instances this one: https://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/276018/just-because-anti-semites-talk-about-cultural-marxism-doesnt-mean-it-isnt-real - from tablet magazine, a Jewish religious magazine (not sure of politics), part of a Jewish book publishing company (info). Under WP:NEWSBLOG this could also be submitted: http://www.edwest.co.uk/telegraph-blogs/criticising-cultural-marxism-doesnt-make-you-anders-breivik/ although it is quite dated and involves a degree of WP:BLP I suppose (don't know what Ed West's current views on the matter are). But yeah, there are also arguments against this. So... I think there needs to be a brisk separation from The Frankfurt School article at the very least. Perhaps another temporary title would be best. I don't know. --Jobrot (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
P.S Perhaps this might still be an option to some: Talk:Cultural_Bolshevism#Merger_Proposal?
These are opinion pieces in the media and hence do not count as reliable sources. Why that matters is that in order to obtain publication in reliable sources they would have to undergo peer review and if they received any attention then we would be able to see what acceptance if any they received and write a balanced article. However, despite what he says, Zubatov is merely repeating the tenets of the conspiracy theory, that the Frankfurt school created political correctness in order to destroy Western civilization. But the reason Germany bans Nazi symbols, the U.S. protects the right of African Americans to vote or the Irish now allow birth control is not because of the influence of the Frankfurt School and is not a first step into totalitarianism. TFD (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Nope, nothing in that source about Irish Birth control, German bans, or African Americans voting... and I never said it was without WP:POV - but as you can see in WP:NEWSBLOG the Ed West source is valid. Also; you're going to have a time saying that a Jewish publishing house a) doesn't have a relevant voice to contribute, and b) that they're not a high enough editorial standard (no they're not academia, but yes, they're a publishing house with, we assume, an editorial staff). Keep in mind I'm not asking these sources be added at this point - merely pointing to them as evidence of a Culture War and hence - that being a valid descriptor. Consensus isn't always about putting the sources in the article, sometimes it's just about seeing that there is a debate going on. We have to describe what is; not impose what we want to be. --Jobrot (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
However, Zubatov's law firm may have something to do with being the custodians of files from Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen... specifically employee Edwin Chin is one of four "special masters" reviewing files for evidence. So yeah, sticking with Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory seems like best fit and least controversial way to proceed still IMO. --Jobrot (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Irish birth control etc. were just my examples. Zubatove mentions political correctness, antifa, #metoo and opposition to free speech by fascists and “racist,” “sexist,” “misogynist,” “homophobe,” “Islamophobe,” “transphobe” language as part of cultural Marxism.
Op-eds are rarely reliable sources per News organizations: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." NEWSBLOG says we could use the source with attribution, i.e., "according to...." But the same applies to statements that the moon-landing was faked.
Could you please explain what relevance your comment about publication by a "Jewish publishing house" has?
16:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
They publish books from Jewish authors and about Jewish-American culture (predominantly) - and the article is commenting on an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. --Jobrot (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
It all reminds me of this time last year, when some unverified users were trying to insert financial experts into the article as if they were experts in Sociology. ZeroHedge is run by Risk Hedge I think. It's all a bit too close to what The Frankfurt School (particularly Adorno) were actually complaining about. Piketty having joined that chorus as well. When these companies have mottos like "Turning disruption into wealth" it all gets a little too in-your-face and it's best to be non-controversial. --Jobrot (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
TO clarify further (because it all sounds a bit kooky), here's a list of individuals from the financial sector who have published "Cultural Marxism is real" style articles:
* Steve Forbes of forbes
* Bill Flax from forbes
* Michael W Masters from Masters Capital Management
* Pete Ross, who has since left the world of finance
* David Galland of Risk Hedge (often republishes on ZeroHedge).
* Oliver Garret also of GarretGalland, ZeroHedge and Risk Hedge
So yeah, some grass roots sock/Meat puppetry from the financial sector isn't out of the question. --Jobrot (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Alexander Zubatov seems like the rest of these big-moneyed conservative voices: http://theimaginativeconservative.org/author/alexander-zubatov definitely not a usable source. --Jobrot (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Some of your links don't work. Can you explain the difference between what these writers are saying that is different from the conspiracy theory? TFD (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
No I cannot. I'd say they're pushing the conspiracy theory for profiteering reasons. --Jobrot (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minor Quibble

I will note that calling "capitalism" a philosophy is problematic. "Capitalism" is a Marxist description of their perception of an existing system. If you want to call it by something other than a pejorative epithet imposed by some one trying to refute the ideas behind the system, you might call it free market theory. As is, one immediately gets the impression that it is written with Marxist postulates.

Hypercallipygian (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The term "capitalism" predates Karl Marx: see Capitalism#Etymology. It is not necessarily pejorative.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

See WP:RPP#Frankfurt School

Quoting from there: "The Frankfurt School page, the Discussion and the Talk are semi-protected so I could not submit this to the editors.

The section on Cultural Marxism is extremely slanted, even in the title of that section (which is not linked in the table of contents) it is referred to only as Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory. At the very least, that should be edited to Cultural Marxism, in line with the other headings on the page. There is no mention or discussion whatsoever that Cultural Marxism is a political analysis that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a 'far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory', although any history of that certainly can/should be mentioned in this section as well.

'You should not discount, refuse to note, dismiss or remove a political theory/analysis, just because it has been mentioned or utilized at some time in history or in some form by a far-right or far-left group or because you disagree with it. Cultural Marxism actually needs its own Wiki page', but I think that's a different story. I likely will be applying to edit this page in a few days or write a separate Cultural Marxism one -- I can't seem to find my old Wiki account, so had to create a new one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnwaller (talk • contribs) 6:21 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)"


No comment, this page isn't on my watchlist and I'm definitely not adding it. Doug Weller talk 07:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Retain section title: Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory - the current treatment of so-called "Cultural Marxism" was arrived at by RfC and there has been no consensus- or even policy-supported arguments- to change the treatment (or the section title) since that time. No reliable sources treat "Cultural Marxism" as anything other than a conspiracy theory: all we have supporting such interpretations are the unsupported opinions of politicians, op-ed writers, and academics without relevant expertise. Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frankfurt_School/Archive_17&oldid=970556777"