Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

writing a proper section

The original was both better sourced and less biased. It should never have been deleted. This is Orwellian. And Wikipedia wants people to donate money after revealing bias like this?

"Conspiracy Theory" is clearly not the correct term for right wing criticism of the Frankfurt School and its influence. Also, this section contains sources that are not only sympathetic with the Frankfurt school but have direct connections with some of its members.

The phrase "Cultural Marxism" is legitimate as a description of a phenomenon in political discourse and describes accurately the intellectual legacy of the thinkers of the Frankfurt school whether people like it or not.

This section, as it is now, is a clear case of bias an attempt to hijack the narrative.

The section needs to be deleted and rewritten according to Wiki standards. I'm new to Wikipedia, so if anyone wants to help this is the thread for it.

I think the new title of the section should be "Reaction from the Right" to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.192.122 (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately Cultural Marxism is not a matter of right wing criticism of the Frankfurt School and its influence as it doesn't seek to interact with the Frankfurt School material. The deepest I've seen proponents go into the Frankfurt School is to criticize the tangential discourse of Critical Theory by strawmanning it as "Simply criticizing everything" which is at best a broad and incorrect definition of that subject area. Also high profile proponents pushing the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory do tend to pack a lot of conspiracy theories in their writings on the subject. For example:

"Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)." -William S. Lind

"every major Hollywood motion picture is green-lit by the same 21 politically liberal, not-very-religious, Jewish males of European heritage who police the screenplays to make sure 'androgyny' and 'critical theory' are properly implanted in the writing." -James Jaeger

"[The] Sexually transmitted disease (STD) epidemic in Western Europe [is] a result of cultural Marxism" -Anders Behring Breivik

"The homosexual agenda is cultural Marxism masquerading as “progress.” Its goal is to redefine the family into an appendage of the homosexual movement, seeking to transform men and women into interchangeable parts... ...The cultural wreckage, however, will be immense. America is sliding toward Sodom and Gomorrah." -Jeffrey T. Kuhner

On top of that: WP:WWIN and more specifically WP:SOAP are just two examples of Wikipedia policies that your line of argument come up against (WP:OR and WP:RS might be another two). All the same Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you have an ongoing interest in improving Wikipedia's accuracy and referencing. I hope you enjoy your time here, and understand the importance of strong policies. Welcome aboard! --Jobrot (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm in a slight hurry, so I can only make a short response. I'll just bring up one point, the major one that bothers me about this section.

All of these quotes, even the one from Breivik, do not fall under the category of "conspiracy theory," they fall under the category of opposition to ideas and policies espoused by those on the left.

"Conspiracy theory" is an obvious attempt to lump opponents of the left with 911 truthers and the people who believe that lizard Jews are in control of foreign policy.

Even the craziest person you've cited here (obviously Breivik) is not a conspiracy theorist (at least as far as he believes in Cultural Marxism. Maybe he believes in all sorts of things. I don't know. But to lump him with William S. Lind and Pat Buchanan is a sleazy tactic); the left in Norway and other Scandinavian countries genuinely do want to increase immigration and promote multiculturalism (or do you claim they don't?), it's part of their platform. The ideas conceived by socialist thinkers, especially Communist ones, are important in shaping the policies of the left in Europe. Ideas like multi-culturalism and feminism did not appear out of thin air.

My point is that no one who uses the term "Cultural Marxism" claims it's a secret cabal of leftists controlling people's thought, but many do claim that the Frankfurt school has had a deep influence on the culture of the modern Left, especially in centers of cultural production in the United States (book publishing, Holly Wood, Academia); this is the very definition of "Cultural Marxism." It simply isn't a conspiracy theory by any reasonable definition of the phrase.

As for no one identifying as a Cultural Marxist (though many actually do), would you apply the same standard to racism? After all, almost no one who is accused of racism self-identifies as a racist.

Ok I brought up several points, but I'd still like them to be answered.

I'd thank you for the welcome, but I honestly don't believe it's genuine. I'll feel welcome once people stop using Wikipedia, an important online reference, to promote their own vision of what political discourse should be by shutting the opposition out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.112.25 (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll register a tag and work on references tomorrow, but for now you should know that I will continue to edit this section to reflect a genuine neutral view point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.112.25 (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

For future reference, you can put a colon : in front of each paragraph you write on the talk page in order to indent it - to clarify that you're responding to an on going thread. More information on the format talk pages take can be found in the Talk Page Guidelines

You should also be aware that Wikipedia is principled upon community based editorial decisions, and if you don't find editorial consensus on this talk page, it's likely that the community will consistently revert your edits (nothing personal, it's just how Wikipedia functions, particularly on subjects that garner a lot of attention).

Now onto the discussion: I'm not seeking to paint the above quoted individuals as conspiracy theorists alone (although James Jaeger pretty firmly fits in that category). But I do think it's reasonable to claim that they're all conservative in their viewpoints, and that they swerve off into conspiracy theorizing when they write (or in Jaeger's case make films) about Cultural Marxism... as Cultural Marxism is its self a theory about a Conspiracy in which Jewish Marxists have infiltrated Western Capitalism and are posing as Academics and Capitalist Media moguls in order to destroy Traditional Western Cultural values. --Jobrot (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

-

You should also be aware of The Three Revert Rule and what edit waring is WP:EW --Jobrot (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You've answered none of my points, and that's not the definition of Cultural Marxism as commonly used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.112.25 (talk • contribs)

Your 'points' are Fringe and POV. Racism is a well defined term, with undeniable and advanced sources. So-called cultural marxism is a neo-Nazi fringe conspiracy theory, derived and propagated by mostly racists. The fact that some right-wingers(and others) have glommed onto the term recently doesn't have a lot of relevance. Dave Dial (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

-

An extremely cursory google search brings up an endless and ongoing supply of common people using the term in just the way I've described: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] --Jobrot (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your first link yielded this quote in the comments: "Cultural Marxism, in the common parlance, typically means dividing the world as a binary between oppressed and oppressor, but instead of those being different economic classes, they are racial and sexual groups." Conspiracy theory or accurate description of many on the left?

Your third link is to picture that implies a lot but doesn't define anything.

The others honestly won't work (I'm on crappy wifi right now).

Your last link was to a white supremacist site that seems to believe everything is the Jews, including Cultural Marxism, but it doesn't talk about a conspiracy. The fact that white supremacists use the phrase does not discount the fact that the Frankfurt School (who were mostly Jews, whether you like it or not) have had a profound influence on Critical Theory and the 60s counter culture, which in turn have a profound influence on political discourse in the West today. Critics call this influence "Cultural Marxism" and it's a perfectly apt description.

Dave Dial your comment also did not address anything I said and engaged in name calling as a bonus.

Here's a definition (after my own "cursory google search") from a site, metapedia, a site on wikipedia's black list, an openly far right site, that uses the term as most people on the right use it: "Cultural Marxism is an ideology which emphasizes culture as a main cause of inequalities. Critics have seen cultural Marxism and its influence as an important cause of political correctness and as an important cause of a perceived decline of humanities, social sciences, culture, and civilization in the Western world."

Now this may make you angry, you may think it's unfair, you may think that all the causes of the left sprang up organically because they're the right thing to do and why oh why do people have to take a piss in the punch bowl by raising objections and searching out the origins of ideas. BUT you cannot with any sense of fairness or decency say that using the term "cultural Marxism" to describe many of the causes and assumptions of the left is a conspiracy theory. It simply isn't.

You'll only find the "conspiracy theory" term used by those on the left who wish to dismiss critics before a debate even happens.

William S. Lind, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Samuel P. Huntington and even Jaeger are not "fringe." They have literally millions of followers, like it or not. Your efforts are clearly an example of an attempt to marginalize, isolate, and discredit those who disagree with you through unfair methods (such as name calling and refusing to engage in honest debate).

And my points still have not been answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 04:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You're going to have to learn Wikipedia's rules as to what counts as reliable sourcing (WP:RS) I can assure you, random comments on conservative blogs do not count here (other than as evidence of hearsay). Nor does for that matter, Metapedia count, whom I hasten to add, up until very recently (as recently as November last year) had highly racist caricatures of Jewish people publicly embedded on their Cultural Marxism page as a means of explanation [7]. Not a good reference point if you're trying to convince us that you have an unbiased view of this subject.

Your claim that the Frankfurt School is the origin for all manner of things currently popular in society is patently false. In fact the common targets of Conspiracy Theory proponents: Feminism, Atheism, Gay Rights, Civil Rights ALL predate the Frankfurt School in their origins (see pages such as Timeline of women's rights (other_than_voting) and Society for Human Rights). They also ALL have very good historically grounded justifications for their existence as ongoing social movements.

Simply yelling "You're not addressing my points! You're not addressing my points!" over and over again will not gain you any respect here. You have to provide appropriate evidence for your claims in line with Wikipedia's standards WP:RS WP:V WP:OR. You can either understand this or continue to come up against opposition to your theories. That's what Wikipedia is about: GOOD QUALITY RESEARCH --Jobrot (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't written any of the things you've accused me of. Your argument seems to be that the Frankfurt School in particular and Marxism in general have had no influence on MODERN Feminism, Atheism, Homosexual identity etc. Of course that is not true, and the old article used quotes from the activists themselves to prove this. Also, these things are not "popular in society," they are popular with left wing activists like yourself.

I used that link because you provided it as evidence for your definition of Cultural Marxism. Are you saying the link you provided as evidence is invalid? Providing a link and then not allowing me to use it will probably not earn you much respect.

Still not addressing my points. Still have not explained why this is a "conspiracy theory." Still haven't addressed why your sources are unbiased when they have direct connections to the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory. Still haven't addressed the fact that all of the pioneers and major political thinkers of criticism of Cultural Marxism are not fringe and many have academic and journalistic credentials. Still have not accepted that not one person who uses the phrase "Cultural Marxism" uses it as a conspiracy theory. Still haven't addressed that Cultural Marxism is a description of what the left believes and is a term used by critics and describes a tendency, not a unified movement. Still haven't explained why a rewriting of the article from a neutral point of view wouldn't add to Wikipedia's quality. Still haven't explained why Jay Martin, a man directly associated with the Frankfurt School and works toward their ideals, is a remotely reliable source. Still haven't addressed the intellectual origins of left wing causes that fit exactly into the Marxist world-view and are agitated for by left wing activists.

I think you're showing your true colors here. I'm beginning to wonder whether or not there might actually be a conspiracy...(joke). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 05:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Look this talk page is not a place for us to have a personally indulgent political debate on this matter. This talk page is intended for editorial discussions with an aim to improving the Frankfurt School article. So unless you're going to present some appropriate evidence in line with Wikipedia's reliable sourcing standards WP:RS - I have to ask you to cease and desist from using this talk page as an ideological battle ground as per WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Please in any further comments make sure to state what you want put into the article, or taken out of it but most importantly ONLY make these requests if you can PROVIDE EVIDENCE for your wishes that meet Wikipedia's standards of evidence WP:RS WP:V WP:OR. That is what this page is for. --Jobrot (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, you have to add more colons each time you comment as to indent the thread further - see WP:TPG. Please pay closer attention to Wikipedia's policies, they're there for a reason. --Jobrot (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you're being intentionally dense, but all of my arguments have stemmed from the fact that "conspiracy theory" is essentially what rational wiki calls a "snarl word" (not sure of wikis equivalent). My express aim is to improve the article and give it a neutral point of view, which it doesn't have right now. I'm not using Wikipedia as a soap box; I'm here because other people have used it this way by deleting a helpful article that's been here for seven years and replacing it by something that is biased.

We'll take it one at a time. I don't believe Martin Jay is a reliable source because of his associations with the Frankfurt school and his politics. He seems to be the origin of the "conspiracy theory" charge. This violates Wikipedia neutrality standards.

Also, I think a formal definition of what constitutes a conspiracy theory is in order. If your using what's on Wikipedia, then nothing in the body of this sections constitutes a conspiracy theory, making "conspiracy theory" emotionally charged language and unsuitable for something that claims neutrality.

Be patient with accidental violations. I'm learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 06:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, threatening to ban me for arguing is a bit classless and lends evidence to the notion that this section has been hijacked by those with ideological bias.

Chip Bertlet is a left wing journalist. Why is he an appropriate source as proof for a conspiracy theory and Pat Buchanan, a former politician of a major third party and a journalist with more impressive credentials, not? Until this is clarified I'm taking him out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 06:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Aha, now we're getting somewhere! Likewise, you will have to be patient with presenting your points of order/evidence, so yes, going point by point slowly until a consensus can be drawn out is generally the best way to proceed (keep in mind this can take a very long time, and may ultimately require gathering other editors and using policy to push points that have good evidence behind them).

So, from what I can see in the section on Cultural Marxism, Martin Jay is being used as a reference to support the claim that Lind's work spawned a multitude of other versions of the theory. From my own research on the subject, it seems that Lind was working as the Historian for the Free Congress Foundation, a role described in Lind's own words here [8]. I believe this fact is relatively certain... The Free Congress Foundation at the time in question was operating under its founder Paul M. Weyrich and was responsible for spreading the theory via Weyrich posting letters to affiliate organizations, as evidenced here: [9]. This was all in the 1990s before the concept became as popular as it is today. So whilst you may question Martin Jay's closeness to the Frankfurt School, he appears to be correct on this particular point within the current Frankfurt School article for the specific portion he's being used as a reference for (which I think is it's self merely quoting/reporting Martin's own opinion).

On a wider point of whether he should be taken as a valid source - The fact that Martin Jay is a close expert on the Frankfurt School may actually be a case of arguing against your intentions, as Wikipedia actually seeks out (for the purposes of reporting in it's pages) expert level knowledge on subjects under the policy WP:EXPERT with a view to improving articles. This is done under the assumption that those who study whatever area of knowledge is being discussed (ie. Martin Jay studying the Frankfurt School), would most likely have a large amount of accurate knowledge and research about the subject they're expert in. So in this case, Martin Jay being close to the Frankfurt School may suggest he's a MORE credible source, rather than a less credible source. This policy WP:EXPERT is in place as a stratagem for improving Wikipedia to a higher level of expertise, and is part of WP:RS in that Wikipedia values well researched, peer reviewed academic sources above all else - which is of course a key aspect of building an online encyclopedia based on the sum of human knowledge. We build on what is already known, and what is already known is found historically within the realms of academia. Hence WP:EXPERT and WP:RS --Jobrot (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Martin Jay is not an expert on the Frankfurt School. I'm saying that him being close friends with several members and then being dismissive of criticisms of them with the snarl word (can you tell me Wikipedia's equivalent?) "conspiracy" is definite indication of bias. I'm not taking him or Bartlett out but I have clarified who exactly they are in the sub-section, and I feel this is perfectly warranted according to Wikipedia's neutrality standards.

It's not likely your edits will survive. For starters the heading of the section was decided with editorial consensus by the admins who closed the AfD on the topic and the theory does concern a conspiracy. Secondly in changing the heading you have broken at least one referal page Cultural Marxism (which is meant to bounce you down to the appropriate section, but no longer does) and made wikipedia less useful for people trying to find information on that topic. Thirdly, your changes didn't come from editorial consensus and may be considered a form of guilt-by-association and page vandalism. I suggest getting consensus on edits before you make them. --Jobrot (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

-

Okay I've reverted the changes you've made, and fixed the referal (so the redirect from Cultural Marxism works again, as placed there by admins on community consensus of the AfD on the topic. Hope you don't find this reversion personal, it's just how Wikipedia works, had I not done the roll back manually, an admin or higher up would have come along and done the same thing (it just would have taken a bit longer). I'm sure you've noticed by looking at the history of edits to the page that your changes get consistently reverted by a number of users/admins. This is because changes have to come about through Wikipedia's process, and the history of this subject on Wikipedia is long and has garnered much attention. Hence there are many paying attention to changes to this page. See [the AfD] and the talk page for cultural Marxism and the talk page for the previous version of this page and the archives on this the talk page we're on (up near the top of the page) for more details (and there are still more other great tracts on wikipedia that show the history of the long process multiple editors have taken to come to the current consensus section we have today). --Jobrot (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Like I said: learning, but don't worry: I'm willing to stick it out until this page gets a genuinely neutral tone. And please don't accuse me of trying to vandalize the page. I'm trying to improve it.

I don't mind defending each change point-by-point. I guess we could do the easiest change first. I changed "it" to "theory," since the antecedent was a little unclear. Good idea? Bad idea?

I clarified who exactly the sources quoted as experts were and their potential biases, which is relevant since a left wing scholar criticizing a right wing idea is bound to have bias (and the reverse is true).

I removed the emotionally charged language ("conspiracy") and replaced it with a more neutral tone (simply "theory").

Are you the only one here? Because I seriously would like to hear from other editors. The entire article needs to be rewritten.

Why not simply name the sub-section "Cultural Marxism" or "Cultural Marxist Theory"?

I'm sure most people will agree that labeling something a conspiracy theory is simply dismissing it, whether deservedly, as the case with truthers, or undeservedly, like here. You've already refused to answer my arguments for why the notion of Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy theory. You can argue that it's an exaggeration or a slander (though I would say it's simply a description), but the only people claiming conspiracy theory are those on the left, the very people who feel a deep oppositions towards those who use the term "Cultural Marxism" to describe certain intellectual tendencies of the far left and their ultimate origin.

I'd like to debate the definition of "Cultural Marxism" and why it should be labeled a conspiracy theory.

I also still think "conspiracy" is dismissive and emotionally charged. Please tell me why you don't think so.

Last, the last three paragraphs of the section contain views from the left, views of those specifically opposed to those who use the term "cultural marxists" to describe them. I suggest adding a block quote from one of the books or articles mentioned in the first half of the article to balance the tone. I'll wait to see what people think.

How do we get editorial consensus? Because it only seems to be you and me arguing about this. And on a side note, what happened to consensus during the decade that the old article was up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 07:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a strange place, gaining editorial consensus can take some time (a matter of days, not hours) - it's not a very instant service due to being run by volunteers donating their time. One way to get this process going might be to contact editors who have been reverting your edits, and discuss reversions with them. But frankly you have a lot of eagerness, and not a lot of experience in how things are done - and you may want to investigate how to get started on wikipedia and look into more neutral places you can hone your skills a small bit and learn some of the policies before you jump into a controversial topic like this one. Work on small articles, observe how people use policies and the hierarchy of reliable sources in their arguments. See what's shaking. Work out how to "ping" users.. put something on your personal talk page and user page... fill in some stub articles... just get used to the whole system. These things take time, but I too look forwards to hearing from other editors. --Jobrot (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, not leaving. I use Wikipedia all the time and this has honestly goaded me to become an editor because of its obvious bias. Ok, we can start super small. The article has a few grammatical problems. I've fixed three in my edits and justified them. I'll revert those you've changed back (if this is an example of "edit warring" I'm sorry). If an administrator fixes them, I'll contact him and justify it.

And just to keep the debate going in the meantime. "Cultural Marxism" as it is defined in the article and as you seem to define it appears to be ambiguous. I've made several attempts to define it but you've not replied to them. I think we may be arguing at cross-purposes. For the section to be clear, we need a clear definition of what Cultural Marxism is. Please offer your definition and justify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 08:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Defining Cultural Marxism

I'd like to add a concise definition of "Cultural Marxism" from at least one of the conservative sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 09:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I've added a NPOV dispute, since Job rot (the main gate keeper here) won't work with me to help edit the article to give it a more neutral view point or respond to any of my arguments for fixing the section and has accused me of vandalism even when I make simple grammatical edits.

The section is in need of serious revisions and I'd like to hear any thoughts on how to fix it.

The dispute was settled to a point of community, editorial and administrative consensus during the AfD on this topic I suggest you read through it and present SOME evidence other than your own opinion (which is all you have at this point) before you claim the section is in dispute or NPOV. --Jobrot (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

A new consensus needs to be reached based on Wikipedia standards. I've tried to work with you and have offered to discuss the addition of two new sources below. You've refused. You've refused to answer the objections of literally every single person who has expressed concerns of the reliability of this page for the past three months. Due to the shear number of people expressing a concern of the neutral view point and the fact that you are the sole editor to argue your side fore the last three months, I'm comfortable putting the Pov dispute back up. Clearly consensus still has not been reached.

Feel free to get administrators involved. You're the one who is violating standards, not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 01:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, and no, I'm not violating standards. The dispute tag can stay as you've finally bothered to put a source forward. --Jobrot (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

incorporating conservative claims

JobRot, since we're inevitably going to have to work together on this, I'd like your thoughts on this article [10] and how best to incorporate it. I'm not going to work it into the article just to have you arbitrarily delete it. You're going to have to work with me.

I think it's relevant because 1) Paul Gottfried, who worked closely with William Lind to develop the ideas on Cultural Marxism, gives a good definition of Cultural Marxism as it is used by the right 2) It provides evidence against and a response to the "conspiracy theory" charge 3) It provides evidence against this article having a neutral point of view 4) it represents a major view point not covered yet and 5) while conservative this is hardly a fringe source.

So I'd very much like to hear from you about how to work this information in so we can make the article more neutral. I promise not to make any more edits until things have been worked out, but your assertion that this article shouldn't be touched and that the neutrality of "conspiracy" is beyond criticism isn't acceptable.

Second Dark (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to add information from Gottfried's book "The Strange Death of Marxism" to balance the quote from Jay. Gottfried is a noted academic and the book is from an academic press, so there should be no objections about unreliability on those grounds.Second Dark (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll give you 48 hours to respond (reasonable amount of time? The consensus page is a little unclear and it seems to be only me and you here except for Dave Dial who has not engaged in any actual debate). After that I'll work on editing Gottfried's book into the section. The consensus page says to be bold when editing and I think the article and the book are both perfectly reasonable sources according to Wiki standards (Gottfried was actually Herbert Marcuse's student at one time). You yourself said above that you looked for an academic source that used the term "Cultural Marxism" in a non-conspiratorial way, and this most certainly counts as one.

Also, can you create a notice on the boards asking for disinterested third party intervention? I can't for two weeks because I'm new.

I honestly think that I've demonstrated enough good faith here along with a willingness to do research that we can work together on this and create a genuinely neutral article. I honestly have found that Wikipedia is not good for finding information on anything remotely controversial. Hopefully, this'll be the first time it doesn't turn into a lock on the article and a huge waste of time for everyone.Second Dark (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe you've shown good faith (this being your second day). As soon as I welcomed you, you questioned my sincerity. That was your first act here. Each policy page I've pointed you to has had to be repeated I've now said WP:RS to you 9 times since you got here yesterday (and this is my first comment to you today, meaning really I said it to you 9 times in one afternoon), and I still don't really believe you've looked into them or bothered to learn their function in settling disputes like this. So I'm sure I'll have to keep stating these policies to you... and this is the first source you've raised, all of yesterday was you attacking the page and inserting your own unsourced opinion as if it were fact (read:Vandalism). The only reason I haven't reported you is because I believe in Wikipedia's model. Good faith? I'm only JUST starting to see Good Faith today with you actually raising a source for once. Keep up the Good Faith and I'll consider your request. --Jobrot (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm reluctantly open to there being included a quote from Paul Gottfried's The Strange Death of Marxism as long as it stands up to WP:RS and whatever other policies are relevant. I'm not sure what other editors opinions will be on the subject, but that's mine (for now). Of course it's important that the quote used is not taken out of context, and is relevant to the subject matter at hand (the phrase "Cultural Marxism" would most likely have to appear in the quoted body). But yes, maintaining the quotes intended meaning is important. Likewise that the source meets WP:RS is also important. Even Gottfried might go off on a rant on social media or other such poor quality website, and obviously that wouldn't meet WP:RS under these circumstances (this being a topic decided by Wikipedia and the AfD process to be classified as "controversial" and having needed a protected level of editing several times due to vandalism). I will note, that I can only speak for myself. But yes, as long as those policy strictures are met, the quote is relevant and consensus is reached before adding it. --Jobrot (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry, thought you were talking about Gottfried's book, the article I doubt will be allowed in, and I believe has been raised elsewhere. --Jobrot (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, sorry, Wikipedia doesn't allow sources that cite wikipedia, as it risks leading to citogenisis Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents and circular sourcing. So that article would fail by way of WP:OR and WP:V --Jobrot (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not true. We do allow sources that cite wikipedia, but obviously they cannot be used to support claims about the specific facts for which they cite wikipedia. If a source cites wikipedia for fact x, and is otherwise using reliable sources then we can use that source to cite other information. Your formulation of the rule would for example not allow us to cite an article that mentions and criticizes or debunks some claim from wikipedia. It is not a hard rule, but depends on context. What does Gottfried cite wikipedia for?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Gottfried cites an article that no longer exists. Gottfried was citing Wikipedia for "sloppiness and political bias" in reporting his position. The wikipedia page in question has since been merged with the Conspiracy Theory section of this, The Frankfurt School page and no longer mentions Gottfried. --Jobrot (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If Gottfried is criticizing wikipedia and not using wikipedia as a source for information then this is not a reason for exclude the source.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I expected as much. Thank you for helping to clarify. This being the case, and the article still being relevant to this section as it is now, I'd still like to talk about working it in.

Ok. I'm glad it looks like we can work together. We can start with the book and go from there. But I'd ultimately like to include information from Buchanan or Lind on Cultural Marxism as they themselves define it, not their opponents. I also don't think Bertlett's opinion meets standards (something from what Tea Party members actually say would be better) and the conspiracy theory tag needs to be changed to something more neutral, but that's for way later.

I did not believe that the sites you linked earlier were legitimate sources to be used in the article. I only tried to discuss them here because you offered them as proof for "conspiracy theory" as the usual definition of the word. I was trying to show that even on sites so far right that they circle back around the accusation of Cultural Marxism doesn't constitute a conspiracy theory.

I know the NPOV tag is a last resort, so I'm perfectly willing to take it off until we've reached a stand still if you like (hopefully this won't happen).

Fair enough about sources that cite wikipedia, but I'd still like you to consider Gottfried's points so we can talk about them here (in another section). Neither he nor Lind, nor Buchanan, nor even the link to Fidelio (which I don't think uses the phrase "Cultural Marxism" anyway) even argue for anything remotely like a cover-up or covert action on the Frankfurt School's or the modern Left's part. It's at best an exaggeration of influence, and even if this is so, how the Left and the Right perceive each other, their intellectual assumptions, and fundamental differences are an important part of political discourse. "Conspiracy Theory" is hand waving. I know you're committed to it at this point, but I'm an optimist. But like I said, we can get to that when we get to it.

This may take a long time, so dig in I guess.

So I'll wait for your response on what to put in from the book (it doesn't necessary have to be a quote), then we can open a new section to talk about conspiracy theory. By the way, there is a quote from the book on your Sand Box, but I don't think it's a salient one and could be misunderstood very easily.Second Dark (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it will have to be a quote because that will avoid either of us adding our own spin to it. Unfortunately - for anyone with an interesting opinion - Wikipedia isn't like essay writing - or at least, isn't intended to be like essay writing - unless the topic is something bland where "the facts" are undisputed so can be written about freely and those sorts of topics are few and far between, and mostly relegated to science and general interest pages. So, it will most likely have to be a quote from Gottfried, and a quote that uses the term "Cultural Marxism".

Yeah, proponents aren't about to claim it's a conspiracy theory. That's the thing about conspiracy theory believers - the people who go along with these theories don't think of them as conspiracy theories, they tend to be what skeptics term "true believers", they tend to think of their theories as "The Truth™" - and there in lays the rub - as to have the description of conspiracy theory removed you're going to have to prove that the claims made by key proponents of the theory are fact - and do so to the standards key proponents espouse - as you've mentioned including Lind, and as he and Weyrich were so crucial in originating the spread of this now commonly understood theory I'll use one of Lind's own claims as an example of the kind of stuff you're going to have to prove are fact (ergo, not conspiracy):- that "Cultural Marxists" are powerful enough to "beam television show after television show into every American home" a claim which relies on another aspect of conspiracy theory thinking; unfalsifiability (not to mention grandiosity). So I don't like your chances of being able to prove these sorts of claims (and they are many) by key proponents. But, if you can prove the claims made by the theory of Cultural Marxism, then we can change the heading to something else (You might want to scroll up to the quotes I posted earlier, or look into my sandbox again to see other such claims, they're fairly unprovable which is part of why this section is marked as conspiracy).

As for those links I pasted, they were just to prove the common understanding out there in the wild today (which is generally Lind's understanding) a proof of spread rather than of conspiracy. But yeah, it's amazing how far Lind's version of the conspiracy theory got (no wonder considering he took his lectures on the road to various conferences on behalf of, and possibly paid for by The Free Congress Foundation, and that Weyrich was writing letters to the same effect back home - they were pushing the new party line so to speak. Cultural Marxism starts at home I suppose), it spread even to the point that Lind's words appear in Anders Breivik's manifesto (not a claim to fame that I'd want, but Lind now has it). I put it all down to the 1990s Culture Wars (back when all this gained steam) and the fact that Lind cut his teeth working for Senator Robert Taft, Jr. at the height of the Cold War (probably learnt a thing or two about fearing the red menace)... kind of a case of going from Cold Wars to Culture Wars... so the "Cultural Marxism" theory is the result of that sort of life. The enemy went from being outside the country, to being within (in those darn free thinking universities where they teach any manner of spooky and dangerous ideas... corrupting the youth of Athens no doubt).

Anyways, let's go get some "Cultural Marxism" related quotes from the book and see which we can agree to put in. --Jobrot (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but you really got to stop with the guilt by association stuff. I'm not embarrassed that Breivik or White supremacists use the term "Cultural Marxism." Probably neither is Lind. I know what I believe and I'm not embarrassed about it. But my personal politics don't have anything to do with Wiki neutrality.

Let's let this be the thread for Gottfried's book. But first off, I'm going to make a list of some other stuff I'd like to do and we can make separate sections here if necessary.

I'd eventually like separate discussion sections on each of the following issues (unless there are no objections to a given issue. Then I'll just go ahead and start Sand Boxing it). Absolutely no rush. Just a heads up:

The Conspiracy Theory accusation is my biggest problem with the article. We haven't discussed it in any sort of depth. There needs to be a separate section for argument of the neutrality of this term. I'll promise to be open minded about letting it stay if and only if you promise to being open about changing the term. If we can't agree to this, the matter is going to have to be settled by arbitration; I can't really think of any other way. Also we're going to have to define our terms for what exactly Cultural Marxism is, because as of right now we simply don't have the same definition. We simply aren't anywhere near the same page as things are right now.

We should really debate what Gottfried has to say in that article.

The first time I ran into the phrase cultural Marxism was in "Death of The West" by Pat Buchanan. Buchanan is probably the most well-known figure in the section with the exception of Ron Paul, and even the most strident detractors of this work have not accused him of conspiracy theory mongering (or if they have I've never came across it). His views and a possible quote should be expanded on. I still have a copy of the book somewhere, so I'll get on reading the relevant chapters (biographical tangent: this is pretty much why I'm here. I was down the internet "rabbit hole" a week or two ago reading about the Baltimore riots since I'm from there and ran across an article on Critical Race Theory. I quickly grabbed the major scholarly introduction to it and it's line of thinking instantly reminded me of what Buchanan had described in his book, which I read a really long time ago. Naturally, I came here to refresh myself and I ran into "conspiracy theory." Wicked lame. Sorry over-share tangent over.)

Since Cultural Marxism is a term used by many on the Right to describe Leftist behavior and ideals, I'd like to post a notice for help in editing this page on the conservatism portal, or somewhere more appropriate. I'd also like to ultimately move this section to it's own page again and make it part of the series on Conservatism or Anti-Communism (is there one? Too tired and lazy to look up right now), but I have a (very slight of course) suspicion that you'd object to this.

Bertlett is not a neutral source. He should be removed or it should be clarified who he is.

I'd like to look into the use of the term "Cultural Marxism" outside of the English speaking world. Breivik is an indication that it's use is not confined to the U.S. right. I can speak and read French so I'll start there (my German is schlect (sp?) at the moment, but I'm working on it). This may take months or even years, so info you have on the European Right might be helpful.

I've also ran into the term used by traditional (small t, but I'm sure it's used even more with Ultra-Right non-counciliar Catholics) Catholics, and not as a conspiracy theory just as a tendency in Left-Wing thinking. I'd like to make this another vein of research. Probably SSPX or Sedevantists sites might be a good place to start.

Since the phrase is so popular with White Supremacists (though after going through some quick links I've discovered that they like to be called "White Nationalists." Oddly PC of them, I guess) we should expand on this.

Whew. That's it for now. But like I said: first the book. I'm very busy for the next few weeks, so expect a much slower pace from now on, but I'll try and find a relevant quote from the book by, let's say, Sunday. If that doesn't work, and you're willing to take the time to read (re-read?) it, we can work on writing a neutral summary and work it in. Sorry if I come off as abrasive sometimes. Please chalk it up to enthusiasm. Peace.Second Dark (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with a slower pace. Look, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I also feel I have gone into some depth as to why it's labeled a conspiracy theory and what you'd have to do to change that title, I feel I've gone into it both in the comment directly above yours and in the section titled NPOV Tag below. I think what you're coming up against here is WP:DUE - that is to say that the majority of the public do believe some conspiracy theory version of the Cultural Marxism theory - and what was concluded as part of the AFD on the topic is that there are now currently where we sit and as it stands in the public eye - TWO definitions of the Cultural Marxism theory. The academic consensus (academia being at the top most rank for sourcing under WP:RS) and the Lind/Jaeger hyperbolic conspiracy definition of the term (sadly the majority of proponents today have been informed by Conspiracy Theorist James Jaegers' ill-informed "documentary" works as well as far-right blogs. Jaeger himself believing in chem trails and numerous other conspiracy theories). Now Wikipedia's purpose is to take the ill informed public, and direct them to appropriate well studied, academic (and at best, peer reviewed and within the subject's domain) sources that will give readers a realistic view of the facts. Which are in this case, that yes; the term "Cultural Marxism" had academic credentials in the past that were never fully explored (so it appeared in a hand full of papers, but with limited explanation of it's nature) but has since during the 1990s Culture Wars been hijacked and expanded beyond reason by conservatives to be used for political means within the public sphere (as opposed to the academic sphere, where its use has been far more confined and nowadays rare). So in accordance to WP:DUE and WP:RS it is up to Wikipedia to address the majority view, and direct it towards the current academic understanding of the term (WP:DUE fitting hand in glove with WP:RS, as intended).

The evolution of this topic also means that it is currently neither a left nor right-wing issue, in fact the previous page on this subject was filed as part of the portal on Marxism (and I think you'd hardly contend that Marxism should be part of the Conservative portal). Likewise I think you'd hardly contend that the Frankfurt School was made up of Conservatives - so you'd get some ire for posting a request for help with the Frankfurt School article to the Conservatism portal (it would make you look very strange indeed and very divisive).

Finally I'll give you the shortest path to concluding Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory (ie. a theory that goes against the facts and proposes a false hypothesis of conspiring), although you may have already read this one in my sandbox: One of the key and consistent claims of the Cultural Marxism theory is that "The Frankfurt School are responsible for political correctness which will lead to the downfall of society". Now hyperbolic conclusion aside, it's documented that the French philosopher Michel Foucault gave a definition of what is now the modern usage of the term political correctness in a 1968 correspondence with Jean Paul Sartre in the French fortnightly journal La Quinzaine littéraire in which he wrote "a political thought can be politically correct ("politiquement correcte") only if it is scientifically painstaking" and yet, he states explicitly and specifically in Duccio Trombadori's Remarks on Marx that the Frankfurt Schools influence on him, remained a retrospective one. So this very basic, very consistent, very widespread "fact" from the popular WP:DUE consensus of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is FALSE... and this isn't the only example! There are many! For instance it is common place amongst proponents of the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory to quote Antonio Gramsci as having said there was needed a "Long March through the institutions of the west" which is actually something Rudi Dutschke said DECADES and DECADES later! Literally taking two people neither of whom were even part of the Frankfurt School and merging them to conclude a coherent and consistent movement/conspiracy against "The West™". This is a claim Pat Buchanan has made himself on the topic! [11]

So no offense, but a lot of what you want to happen here just won't pass policy (as it's not fact). And I totally agree with you, there is no shame in having ANY political viewpoint, even if it's wrong and shared by awful people! Even it's shared by pol pot! It doesn't matter.

Here, on Wikipedia (and I'd hope in most people's minds as well) - all that matters is fact. This place is not a dictionary for political viewpoints, it's not a set of gossip columns, it's not a place for unchecked conspiracy theorizing (regardless of the notoriety of the source) WP:FRINGE - it IS an Encyclopedia of FACTS.

If you can start finding some facts, from high quality sources that back up the conspiracy theory - that seek to prove it - then I'll start opening up to changing the heading. But currently, in my eyes, as well as in the eyes of the closers of the AFD on this subject "conspiracy theory" is a legitimate descriptor for the WP:DUE common understanding of the term Cultural Marxism. --Jobrot (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You're definition of conspiracy theory: "Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory (ie. a theory that goes against the facts and proposes a false hypothesis of conspiring)"

From Gottfried's article: "...we have stressed the opposite view, namely, that certain Frankfurt School social teachings have become so widespread and deeply ingrained that they have shaped the dominant post-Christian ideology of the Western world." [12]

No one is claiming any sort of cover-up. There is no "hypothesis of conspiring." The Frankfurt School were completely open about all of their aims, assumptions, and research. All of their critics know this and claim nothing otherwise.Second Dark (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Gottfried has done that, and comes in some of his writings far closer to the academic usage of "Cultural Marxism" (even though it's a rarefied academic term, and is generally thought as a movement within Cultural Studies to have ended in the 1980s and been replaced to some degree by the Birmingham School)... that said Gottfried still seems to sway off (to less certain ground) in some of his writings on the subject. Lind however, is IN NO WAY careful or academic with his use of the term, particularly not in his early foundational writings on the subject. Gottfried cannot be used to clarify Lind's position... and Lind has some wacky writing, and as stated early Gottfried is far more reasonable. Gottfried might even be a worthwhile source for The Frankfurt School article. Lind however, definitely is not:

"Political Correctness is intellectual AIDS. Everything it touches it sickens and eventually kills. On America's college campuses it has diminished freedom of speech, warped curricula, politicized grading and replaced intellectual integrity with vapid sloganeering. In classroom after classroom, professors offer an ideological rant, which students are compelled to regurgitate to get a grade: the vomit returns to the dog. These places--and they are many--are no longer universities, but small, ivy-covered North Koreas." -William S. Lind

"Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)" -William S. Lind

"So that is Political Correctness' dirty little secret: it is Marxism, Marxism translated from economics into culture. We know what economic Marxism did to the old Soviet Union. Are we going to permit Cultural Marxism to do the same thing to the United States?" -William S. Lind

"The next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism. Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion. It has already made vast strides toward that goal. But if the average American found out that Political Correctness is a form of Marxism, different from the Marxism of the Soviet Union but Marxism nonetheless, it would be in trouble. The next conservatism needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - - old Karl Marx himself." -William S. Lind

"Lind seemed to have been cultivating friends in some remarkable places. This June 15 [2002], at a major Holocaust denial conference put on by veteran anti-Semite Willis Carto in Washington, D.C., Lind gave a well-received speech before some 120 "historical revisionists," conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis and other anti-Semites, in which he identified a small group of people who he said had poisoned American culture. On this point, Lind made a powerful connection with his listeners. "These guys," he explained, 'were all Jewish.'" -Southern Poverty Law Center

As you can see Lind (who popularized the term) uses "Cultural Marxism" in the conspiratorial sense, and is IN NO WAY a valid source for the ACTUAL views of The Frankfurt School. --Jobrot (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Except that Lind isn't using it in a "conspiratorial sense." He's using it in a polemical sense. He doesn't allege a cover-up. Other than having a more bombastic style, which is understandable since he's a conservative activist, the only difference he has with Gottfried is that he believes Cultural Marxism (Gottfried sometimes likes to say "Post-Marxism) to have evolved directly from "orthodox" (for lack of a better word) economic Marxism, and has incorporated causes traditionally outside the concern of old school Marxists. Gottfried and Lind have both said multiple times that this is pretty much their only quibble with one another.

Here's an earlier article by Gottfried claiming as much after the Breivik attack: [13]

Here's Lind, in a review of Gottfried's book, explaining these same differences: [14]

The SPLC quote is from the Lind article linked here. In context, Lind mentions (and this is the only time he mentions it in that article), that members of the School were Jews because he was explaining why an obscure German institution for Marxist research found such fertile ground for its ideas in the US. The answer? You guessed it! Being both Jews and Communists the new Nazi regime chased them out of Frankfurt and they found themselves at Columbia University. And the rest is history. All this is somewhere in the page we're currently editing together. This is supposed to be an "anti-Semitic conspiracy"?

I'm glad we're finally getting somewhere with this.Second Dark (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think we are getting anywhere. Firstly, I didn't say this is "supposed to be" an anti-semitic conspiracy. I'll repeat myself once again; I believe it fits perfectly into the category of Michael Barkun's second type as taken from:

Main article: Conspiracy theory

Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. While the goals are sweeping, the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

I'm getting so sick of repeating myself to you, and on that point my emphasis in MY responses are there FOR A REASON. Please don't edit, change or substitute what I've said (or replace the bolding I've used) for ANYTHING other than what I've said. Please don't edit further comments from me.

I believe those quotes I've pasted clearly illustrate in Lind's OWN WORDS his view of "Cultural Marxism" as consistent to Barkun's model of a systemic conspiracy theory. He, as quoted in his own words, is claiming a consistent agenda on behalf of Cultural Marxists who are apparently capable of controlling mass media (beaming TV shows in to "normalize" homosexuality) and have kept their agenda "masked"' from the public since 1919, that masked agenda being to "[destroy] Western Culture and The Christian Religion".

It's a completely delusional and aggrandized viewpoint and is severely separated from the reality of the social movements it targets (as explained early in well referenced quotes and links to current Wikipedia articles).

I'll repeat myself again with emphasis (do not remove it this time):

Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world [The Media, Academia, Hollywood and ultimately America]. While the goals are sweeping ["destroying Western culture and the Christian religion"], the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization [The Frankfurt School] implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions [Academia, the media and Hollywood]. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

The nature of this usage should NOW be ABUNDANTLY clear to you. --Jobrot (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Didn't remove anything of yours. I did remove DD2K's comment which consisted of name-calling and urging you not to talk to me, but we can leave it up to show what's been going on here for a while. The history should show that I didn't remove or change any of your comments. You really should apologize, and there's absolutely no need to get angry. You seem to have made this page something like a fortress of solitude with you as the sole gatekeeper. You really need to chill-out and let other people add to this so there really can be a neutral article here (my goal this whole time, but you've been fighting me and everyone else who's shown up here for the last five months every step of the way). I saw you said I was "making trouble" at DD2k's talk-page. Oh those awful people who question our assumptions.

This is the first time we've really come to terms and began to actually debate, so I'm happy to get started.

Now, before I respond to your points, (and because I'm a little tired right now to go finding quotes and writing long rebuttals) let's define our parameters: Would you only like to debate Lind's version of Cultural Marxism or is it fair to bring in other definitions or variations of how it's used by other people? I'd prefer to stick to Lind for now but since he's so closely associated with Gottfried we can just stick to the two of them.

Also (and this is just so I know your assumptions), what do you believe is the Frankfurt School's legacy? What I mean is surely you don't think they've had no influence on the modern left? One of the key themes here is the scope and essence of their influence.

Like I said earlier, this is going to have to go a little slower from now on, but I'll get a quote to suggest to add from Gottfried's book by Sunday, and hopefully post a long response to your points by the middle of next week.

Here's an article for you to look at in the meantime. It looks like the guardian article it mentions has several critiques, followed by re-critiques, so I think you should look at them all:

[15]

Second Dark (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

All I know is that I bolded sections of my response (a few comments ago) and when I came back they were no longer bolded. I'd like to point out that I'm not gate keeping this subject (as evidenced in my arguments) - I'm gate keeping wikipedias policies. Likewise if you ignore those policies or even actively go against them - you ARE making trouble (whether in mainspace or on talk pages). I'll hear from you later re my previous arguments. --Jobrot (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Quotes in Sandbox. Rebuttal coming in a few days. Also, would you like to move philosophical/political discussion to another venue (one of our talk pages maybe)? We're really beginning to take up a lot of space and this should be just a "is the article neutral and what should be added" page. Second Dark

We can talk on here as long as we like, as long as it sticks to the topic and remains a productive editorial discussion. But you're right some of this might be more appropriately discussed on other pages. A lot of what you're saying in your sandbox seems very Gottfried focused, and you might want to consider adding it into Gottfried's page. Personally I feel what's there in your Sandbox is still trying to construct a position that doesn't explicitly exist beyond speculation, and that lacks definitive citation in the original works discussed. This ties in to the lack of self-identifying "Cultural Marxists" (hence their being no sources on that position) and ties in with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. That is to say, that if there are only sources for "What a Cultural Marxist might be" - and none for what actual Cultural Marxists are claiming - then it starts to seem highly speculative and fits more so and more so under the heading Conspiracy Theory. Wikipedia is as always focused on what is known and cited, and hence tends to convey the knowledge from mainstream academia much more readily and easily... but yeah, under WP:DUE it may not be appropriate to have a large or unwieldy quote from Gottfried. Also, due to the AfD WP:FRINGE does apply, and Wikipedia has taken it upon it's self to identify and distinguish what has mainstream academic authority from what does not. --Jobrot (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

edit request: close the blockquote at the end of the article.

122.171.105.223 (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)