Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Frankfurt School. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

"Cultural Marxism" refers to a conspiracy theory?

It's crazy how people are so desperate to pretend that saying the Frankfurt School was influential in forming the current American Left ideology is somehow a "conspiracy theory." "Cultural Marxism" refers to an intellectual movement, composed of specific thinkers and a fairly clear canon of their writings and it's just a term which refers to the ideological current of the Frankfurt School, critical theory, gender studies, etc. Here is a leftish columnist writing for the Telegraph who agrees. There are no secret meetings, no single organization, no initiations, no all-controlling committees, no secret plans, none of that crap. It's just a bunch of groupthink going on in academic circles between left wing social theorists, which then influences how courses are taught in university, which then influences how students think and what they think.

I took courses in philosophy at UMKC which discussed the Frankfurt School at length, although my professor was trying to put them in a positive light (in my opinion) and calling it "cultural Marxism" was no big deal, cause it was Marxism and it was about culture instead of economics. It's only after I left that course that I found a bunch of pol sci majors who have never taken courses in philosophy trying to pretend all this didn't exist. I think the attempt to describe this as a conspiracy theory is just the result of the isolation of philosophy as a discipline from other disciplines in university combined with a desire by left wing ideologues to circle the wagons when something on the Left is talked about as being bad. --BenMcLean (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You've cited a blog there. If blogs are your standard of evidence, then here are some who use the term in a conspiratorial sense (mostly claiming Cultural marxism is white genocide): [1] [2] [3] --Jobrot (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You were right the first time, they are violating the Talk page guidelines, as well as meatpuppetry. While I appreciate the lengths you have gone to try and persuade these Reddit-8chan-MRA accounts that have been instructed to flood these pages, answering every off-the-wall charge they make here is a huge waste of time. And won't accomplish anything, other than drive away good editors that will not want to wade through the wall of text being perpetrated here. Dave Dial (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Having just concluded a rather lengthy conversation in which Jobrot was all too willing to throw around accusations that I was acting in bad faith, I wonder if he'll do the same here, or if he'll give you a pass because the two of you agree. Thanks for the laugh, by the way; at what point did Ben reference Reddit, or 8chan? And what the heck does the Men's Rights movement have to do with anything? This sort of nonsense makes it clear that you level such insults as a matter of course, against anyone who has the gall to disagree, no matter the substance of their words.

As for Jobrot: do try to recall that you were the one who established that the same standards for RS's don't apply on the Talk page -- that was one of your excuses when I criticized you for OR, and why you were willing to cite a Google Trends graph in the section above. That's not to mention that you were the one who made blogs an acceptable standard of evidence -- I had to remove two such sources from the Breivik paragraph. Of course, in your own words, those two 'commentary' pieces "may be re-included at a later date, but don't worry, they'll be framed as opinion.". So as long as Ben only uses the blog as a source for the author's own opinion, he should be fine, right?

I should point out that the Telegraph blog itself concedes that 'Cultural Marxism' is popular fodder for right-wing conspiracy nuts, so your parade of conspiracy blogs don't do much to disprove it. The Telegraph blog simply states (and I quote): Nevertheless, just because various wackos believe something, it does not make it untrue, nor does it mean those thoughts are confined to wackos. PublicolaMinor (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Blogs and editorials (aka op-eds) are two different things - you never removed any blog-content from the article, and I never included any. --Jobrot (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

By irrelevant coincidence, it just so happens that I'm actually not an MRA. But just for the sake of argument, let's assume I am. I want you to pretend that I am the most hateful misogynistic MRA that you can possibly dream up, and then I want you to evaluate my arguments on their actual merits irrespective of who I am or where I come from, because you obviously need the training in not allowing the ad hominem fallacy to dictate your thinking or blind you to the points other people are making. --BenMcLean (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not here to play games with you. Go somewhere else for your entertainment. --Jobrot (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to be WP:CIVIL—chbarts (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that talk pages are for editorial discussions related to article content only, not for pretending or playing games (as above). Please review the talk page guidelines WP:TPG. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy about presenting opinion as fact. Saying a theory is a conspiracy theory is an opinion, not a fact, and therefore has no place here. Of course this only applies to one side of the political spectrum as Jobrot so aptly demonstrates, esp. when he will zoom in on this addition like a hawk to have it removed for violating some other guideline. But then, what's to be expected from a school of thought that believes the truth doesn't matter if it's not what you want people to believe, and that those that dare to question must be shouted down with all means available? Read your Herbert Marcuse to know that that's a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.126.83 (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope, here's a whole list of things Wikipedia is quite happy to call conspiracy theories: List of conspiracy theories. That's the nature of the WP:FRINGE and WP:OR policies. Your statements on The Frankfurt School and Herbert Marcuse for instance, constitute WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. My political views are off topic for discussion here, as this page is intended for editorial discussions only, and anything you can say on this matter is mere assumption on your part, please refrain from attacking other editors as per WP:TALKNO. If you wish to learn more about how "Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy, please search for the term 'Barkun' on this page or in the talk page archives. Thank you --Jobrot (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

True, there's a left wing bias to how the matter has been presented. A lot of these guys are smart at censoring things they don't like. Cultural Marxism is a legitimate term used on the right wing of politics. If you don't like it, you might be left wing. That's fine. People are allowed to differ on politics. Wikipedia has the policy of NPOV, so trying to make out that CM is some kind of fringe conspiracy theory is fundamentally dishonest. Cultural Marxism article needs to be restored and have it pointed out that it is a mainstream belief on the right wing of politics but it is denied by the left. NPOV wouldn't try to censor or slander the right, that is breaking NPOV. NPOV means presenting the right and left side of the argument. NPOV would be "critics on the left consider Cultural Marxism to be a conspiracy theory. BTW the warning tags at the top have been used in a biased way too. Of course people will tell their friends that the Cultural Marxism page has been censored and presented biasedly in a NPOV manner. It is completely natural for people to encourage others to repair the article and make sure it follows NPOV. It's really disgusting that left wing editors can push their own point of view on the matter when wikipedia clearly states a NEUTRAL point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikasmallheads (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"NPOV means presenting the right and left side of the argument." no it doesn't, that would be an example of a False balance argument. You should perhaps go read WP:NPOV before you make claims about it.

"Cultural Marxism is a legitimate term used on the right wing of politics." no it isn't, it's a series of false claims concerning The Frankfurt School - which violates the aforementioned WP:NPOV policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of opinions. --Jobrot (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that comment very clearly demonstrates that you cannot be unbiased on this issue. You cannot unilaterally declare that cultural Marxism is entirely made up and still claim to be a neutral voice in this discussion. You are very much entitled to your point of view and I agree that this should be a part of the article but simply believing you are right is not the same as presenting the facts. You calling anyone with a differing point of view as advocating for false balance is abusing that term. False balance would be including an extreme view on t right (such as that cultural Marxism not only exists but is deliberately planned and aimed at destroying western civilisation) and presenting that as a mainstream view. It is not false balance to say that this is a contentious issue and that some on the political right consider the socially progressive movement to have a Marxist influence that comes from the Frankfurt school. Classes are taught about cultural Marxism. Serious papers were written about cultural Marxism. Thinkers in the Frankfurt school specifically state in their work that they are applying Marxist principals to the social realm. Whether you believe that today's politics is related to that is up to you but the Frankfurt scholars were absolutely clear in their goals and aims and sanitising this article because that isn't and influence you want acknowledged is literally an example of cultural Marxism. If you cannot be neutral enough to admit that cultural Marxism existed you are not fit be making changes here. Wikipedia is not here to push you agenda, or mine or anyone else's. It is here to present facts and simply labeling the idea of cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory is perjorative if not actively malicious. If you cannot be neutral, or even entertain another view on this issue then you need to leave this discussion.85.255.234.2 (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If you were familiar with this discussion then you'd already be aware that I've acknowledged the pre-existence of the term 'Cultural Marxism' in academia (albeit 35 years prior to the current paleoconservative push to popularize the term as a slur in an ongoing Culture War). But unfortunately due to the terms archaic nature, the fact that it was never well defined, and hasn't met wide use in the digital age (it's always been considered an INFORMAL terminology) there's not a lot of notable or problem free sources. I suggest that if you are going to put forwards some of the "Classes taught about cultural Marxism" or "Serious papers written about cultural Marxism" that you first search the archives of this talk page, as well as the articles for deletion discussion on the previous Cultural Marxism page (which by the way only had 3 sources that mentioned 'Cultural Marxism' 2 of which were from a single author, compared to the current pages 14 unique sources all using the term by name) and that you do these searches before suggesting any sources here, as to save us covering old ground. But even then, an out of date term which almost exclusively refers to The Frankfurt School and has very few sources may not be notable (the title of this page is The Frankfurt School and that's not about to change), and the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory section does specifically pertain to (as the heading suggests) the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory"... if you wanted to create a page dedicated to the academic usage of the term but as distinct from it's usage as a euphemism for The Frankfurt School (which obviously already has it's own page), you'd have to contact the deleting admins of the previous page and discuss it with them. I'd also suggest that in compliance with WP:GOODFAITH you should ask someone their position, before accusing them of bias and telling them to "leave the conversation".

As for the intended meaning of the slur 'Cultural Marxism' - I would say that in a bout of irony, what people who use the term in this way are really talking about is the Frankfurt School's own concept of a manipulative Culture industry. --Jobrot (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So you aren't even going to entertain a discussion that you are biased on this issue?109.153.3.240 (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Just on a whim I put 'Cultural Marxism' into google scholar. On the first page I got these [4] [5] < [6] [7] a bunch of books and published articles all discussing the idea of cultural marxism. You assertion that no-one has ever really written on this issue is ludicrous in the extreme. Remember; the argument here is not whether cultural marxism exists or is a force in the modern world; the argument is whether cultural marxism is a school of thought that actually exists. Are you going to say that a dozen pages of results of books and scholarly articles using that expression (from the 1950s to the 2000s) simply does not exist? This says nothing about agreeing with it. This simply says that scholars have subscribed to that school of thought. The idea should certainly be criticized and framed as contentious but you are quite simply wrong to suggest that no academics have ever thought this. 109.153.3.240 (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We've discussed all those before (you're not the first person to think of putting "cultural marxism" in quotes into Google Scholar and trying to use everything that comes up as sources!) The problem is that none of those refer to the same thing; that's just a random assortment of people discussing Marxism in culture, Marxist analysis of culture, etc. None of them discuss or bear any relation to Lind's theories about Frankfurt School as the origin of a contemporary movement in the political left to destroy western culture, so using them to support such theories is original research and synthesis. --Aquillion (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You must have missed the first line of my reply where I stated that I've acknowledged the pre-existence of the term 'Cultural Marxism' in academia - as well as the part where I suggest you search the talk page archives and the AFD discussion (as all your sources have been covered there previously). In brief: Dworkin states his "...account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" - ie. he doesn't pretend it's an ideology and is aware he's attempting to create a neologism of the term (and one that only refers to the British context, as he limits his writings to Britain, and only ever uses the term "BRITISH Cultural Marxism"). Kellner's essay has been uploaded to his own personal directory and there is no evidence for it being peer reviewed (students also get personal directories), so as far as WP:RS goes it's on the same level as any self-published blog or web document. - your third link 'Marxism, Modernity and Postcolonial Studies' doesn't contain the term 'Cultural Marxism' at all... and I had some trouble accessing your fourth link, but I did notice that 'Cultural Marxism' appears in the title. As Jameson's "Conversations on Cultural Marxism" has shown us, appearing in the title is no guarantee that it will appear in the body text (Jameson's "Conversations on Cultural Marxism" in fact doesn't contain 'Cultural Marxism' in the body text at all). Whether this is a similar case I have no idea. But at any rate, as I've mentioned before (another part of my response you must have missed) this section is entitled Cultural Marxism CONSPIRACY THEORY - if you believe you have a draft ready for publication on the academic usage of the term as distinct from the content already on The Frankfurt School and elsewhere on Wikipedia; you'll have to discuss that with the deleting admins, but I think you'll find it's an obscure usage you're looking for and there's not much that can be used to give it definition. As the topic is controversial the admins will really be looking for each statement you make about it to be well sourced and above reproach as far as WP:RS goes - and they won't accept a stub article. I personally think the original usage is WP:NN, as it mostly likely refers to The Frankfurt School anyways; a subject on which we already have an extensive page. At any rate good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

-

Also you mention that the existence of the term means that "scholars have subscribed to that school of thought" but I think you've conflated using a term with subscribing to it as a "school of thought". I can talk about pink unicorn morality, but it doesn't mean I'm subscribing to whatever you might think "pink unicorn morality" is. I can talk about theoretical concepts and again it doesn't mean I believe in them. This is another issue with this term - there are no self identifying "Cultural Marxists" to speak of (making the term even harder to pin down); and the term in current parlance is almost exclusively used by right wingers as a slur. Accordingly this slur is most likely what people are looking for when they type it into Wikipedia. Hence we have a section called Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory - but no page dedicated to the poorly defined, very rare and out of date academic usage, which is at any rate difficult to source definitions of and most likely non-notable or otherwise already covered by The Frankfurt School page and others. So I'm not sure what you're seeking to accomplish here, but good luck anyways. --Jobrot (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Source for claim of conspiracy theory

He criticism section that mentions claims of cultural Marxism doesn't have reliable, neutral sources give characterize the cultural Marxism claim as a conspiracy theory. Use of only left-wing sources for the criticism is inappropriate in such an article. I removed conspiracy theory ecaccusations, and it should stay that way until it can be proven that the balance of neutral sources actually support such a characterization. Pretendus (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Pretendus (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The claim that any source that doesn't advocate that conspiracy theory is "left-wing" (regardless of their actual political position, and as if that's relevant) is a No True Scotsman argument and nothing else. You can't find any non-advocate sources that treat the claims as anything but a conspiracy theory. See previous discussions, you're wasting your time. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:DFTT

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What are you talking about? There's many such sources. See what I mean Ian? You've allowed yourself to be brainwashed by marxist jews. Look how you treat me at the refdesk.Who iz.this.guy? (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We can't disregard the sources just because you feel that they're, er, Marxist Jews or whatever. The article has several sources for the description of it as a conspiracy theory: Jérôme Jamin's essay Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right; John E. Richardson's chapter in Cultures of Post-War British Fascism; and Wodak's chapter in Right wing populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse, for instance. These are respectable academics and experts on the subject of political theory in general and right-wing populism in particular, all of them writing about the subject from an academic perspective. You can't remove them and replace them with the WP:PRIMARY (and generally self-published) opinions of the people who invented the theory; the section has to be primarily written with a tone appropriate to what academics who have covered the theory have said about it. This is the appropriate way to approach a theory that, going by academic coverage, is clearly WP:FRINGE. --Aquillion (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

What about NPOV?Who iz.this.guy? (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Also, interestingly, Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, is himself Jewish. That would explain a whole lot about the Wikipedia bureaucracy's left wing judeocentric bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Who iz.this.guy? (talk • contribs) 09:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Every source and point made against the label of conspiracy theory has been waved off as being an "invalid source" or "crazy right-wing dribble" This page has become a prime example of online censorship and the more attempts to censor only create more dissidents.73.255.49.47 (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No, all the sources that advocate the claim also advocate ideas that are only advocated by people who consider themselves or are considered by everyone else to be right-wing. Censorship would be if an outside force told Wikipedia what it can and cannot host. Wikipedia is under no obligation to host every single view out there, and Wikipedia is under no obligation to give artificial validity to opposing ideas. Wikipedia is not a government entity, it is a private entity. Trying to make Wikipedia go against it's own decision to present mainstream academia's consensus on matters is more in line with the spirit of censorship. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, your ideas go against the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Cultural Marxism is a legitimate term used by right wingers. It is notable and there are tv documentaries and tonnes of articles on the matter in the media. It is a controversial term. It is a right wing term. Left wingers to not agree with the concept. But that doesn't mean Wikipedia can break its NPOV policy. Cultural Marxism page must be restored. Though it should be noted that the term is a politically right wing concept and it should be noted that those on the left do not agree with it. Pointing out works by left wing academics doesn't help the matter. This is clearly a political matter between left and write. Trying to make it neutral academic VS undereducated oafs again is something that's going against the NPOV. Zikasmallheads (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"NPOV means presenting the right and left side of the argument." no it doesn't, that would be an example of a False balance argument. You should perhaps go read WP:NPOV before you make claims about it.

"Cultural Marxism is a legitimate term used on the right wing of politics." no it isn't, it's a series of false claims concerning The Frankfurt School - which violates the aforementioned WP:NPOV policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of opinions. --Jobrot (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Not according to a Wikipedia Administrator, it isn't!!! -- Marco Guzman, Jr Talk 02:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a WP:DUE issue; "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view." which of course goes hand in glove with WP:RS. These issues are clearly amplified by the alt-right being a nascent movement. Personally I don't think we'll really have answers to what should be weighted until after the republican convention, if not longer. But as always; what has scholarship behind it has priority. Good luck. --Jobrot (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Frankfurt school vs. "structural Marxism"

The opening sentence of the CM section claims that "CM" was applied in the 1970s as the Frankfurt School and others moved away from structural Marxism to cultural analysis. The cited source by Alexander & Smith talks about a "bridge from structural to cultural Marxism in the present day" where the present day is 2001. This chronology doesn't make any sense. Adorno, Horkheimer and Benjamin were analyzing culture in the 1930s, but structural Marxism was a tendency of the 1960s. What the Frankfurt scholars moved away from was orthodox Marxism with its assumption of the working class's revolutionary character. Alexander & Smith do not mention the Frankfurt school at all, but rather the Birmingham school. I'd like to fix these errors if there are no objections. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't look into that source too much when adding it, but yeah now that you mention it, it creates a difficulty as The Birmingham School isn't necessarily "Cultural marxism" but is more accurately "British Cultural Marxism" (which is slightly different in it's reading of society as British Cultural Marxism doesn't contain so much of the top-down viewpoint of Cultural Construction that Frankfurtian ideas like The Culture Industry took). I think what needs to be conveyed in this section is that the term is informal, niche and seldom used. For a long time this section of the article didn't even bother referring to the academic origins of the term at all specifically because it is not commonly used at the level of peer reviewed journals (being an informal term and all)... and here I must re-iterate that this section intends to describe the conspiracy theory - not to be an advanced class in Marxism as it relates to culture. So I'm not sure how necessary its inclusion is. It's a difficult editorial discussion we need to have to determine how much of the original usage is relevant in this section. --Jobrot (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

-

I've had to revert your changes, the closest compromise I got to can be found here - but once I got that far I'd realized that much of the original paragraph was missing (presumably deleted) and I think some vital info was gone; namely the reminder that The Frankfurt School didn't have a unified set of beliefs; and ergo "Cultural Marxism" can't be called an ideology. Hence it being an informal term. For now if you wish to talk about the genuine views of The Frankfurt School there's ample opportunity elsewhere. The current conspiracy theory section only says the term originated in the 1970s - it doesn't say that it's stuck there. Nor does it say that other Marxists haven't analyzed culture. That said; I don't believe Karl Marx discussed the superstructure at any length other than saying it was a reflection of the base of economic power (ie. his theory of historical materialism). --Jobrot (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

REMINDER

To anyone seeking to reconstitute the previous article on Cultural Marxism; this is not the venue. The current section is dedicated to the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" (a definition there is ample evidence for). If you have a genuine interest in the academic side of this topic and want to create a page dedicated to the prior academic usage - I suggest you find better sources than the previous page had (only 3 of it's 9 sources referred to the term) and take it up with the relevant admins. This is not a page for ideological discussion, Wikipedia is not a forum WP:NOTFORUM. --Jobrot (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

While the merge from CM to here might have helped to move the text away from reactionary polemic, I wonder if it might be further improved on. In a sense, the redirect from CM to here endorses the reactionary belief that the Frankfurt School is the root of all Marxist cultural theory, while e.g. Engels, Kautsky, Plekhanov, Lukacs, Gramsci and the Birmingham School are minimized. Is there a reason not to have a more inclusive "Marxism and culture" article, which might or might not have a section on the concept of "CM" as a Jewish subversive plot behind everything? 24.7.14.87 (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Well that's why other terms superseded Cultural Marxism. Terms such as post-marxism and neo-marxism. The question was asked; Can theories which entirely focus on the super structure (ie. Culture) really be considered Marxist?... and most theorists said no; they can't (They're just Cultural Studies). That's why things like Critical Theory (and even Sociology) are generally considered to have Marxist origins - but NOT to be Marxist in of themselves or to require theorists or proponents to hold a belief in Marxism in order to operate within those discourses. --Jobrot (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Also - yes; I think if you believe there is scope for a Marxism and Culture article - or even an article about Cultural Marxism; then you should seek the relevant pathways to draft such an article. The first step in this I believe would be to sign up an account to Wikipedia and dabble within the WP:sandbox. --Jobrot (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course another bent might be to create a list page of non-Marxist cultural critiques thus showing that not everything "left wing" is Marxist. However Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia not some corrective political device (even though telling the truth about a topic does tend to act in a corrective fashion). --Jobrot (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

There is an article on Cultural studies.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Honoestly it isnt worth trying to fix as any source provided will be labeled as an unqualified citiation. While I appreciate your effort to Wikipedia Jobrot, this page, the talk page, and the edit war are all were all being used in a Political Science class at my university for a lecture on the increasing extremes in political thought. When a single wikipedia page is mentioned off the website, it should be noted that things have been taken too far on both sides. Really would rather the page be just deleted at this point seeing as niether side will be happy unless their exact stance is taken as fact. Nuke it all from orbit with atomic hellfire admins, I know you want to. Commence Exterminatus 73.255.49.47 (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

WH40K memes are not listed at WP:DEL-REASON. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is something that's listed as not a reason to delete something. WP:FRINGE covers the other stance pretty well, and WP:GEVAL covers the idea of trying to make both "sides" (conspiracy theorists and everyone else) happy. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Breach of NPOV policy

Cultural Marxism is a legitimate term to describe a certain political view. It is commonly used in Western countries. It is a highly controversial term among the left. Among the right it is commonly accepted as true. For example the way the matter has been presented here as "conspiracy theory" is the type of opinion to be accepted from left wing media such as the guardian, independent, huffington post and so on. Wikipedia is presenting a purely left wing pseudo-interpretation of the matter. It appears as though a rogue (politically biased) admin has blocked any normal users from restoring the cultural marxism page. This admin and his supporters is breaching a fundamental rule of Wikipedia of NPOV. Neutral point of view is a MUST for an encyclopaedia. Ask yourself not that you are left and want to destroy the right, ask yourself whether your duty is to write an accurate encyclopaedia. Thank you and respect due to all people that use or work for wikipedia. I don't mean disrespect to anyone. Zikasmallheads (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"NPOV means presenting the right and left side of the argument." no it doesn't, that would be an example of a false balance argument. You should perhaps go read WP:NPOV before you make claims about it.

"Cultural Marxism is a legitimate term to describe a certain political view." no it isn't, it's a series of false claims concerning The Frankfurt School - legitimating these claims violates Wikipedia's adherence to factual content.

"For example the way the matter has been presented here as "conspiracy theory" is the type of opinion to be accepted from left wing media such as the guardian, independent, huffington post and so on." - nope none of the media outlets you've listed are currently being used as sources for the Cultural Marxism section. There are however several academics and doctors of the social sciences being cited as declaring the theory to be a conspiracy theory these include Jérome Jamin, Dr. Heidi Beirich, Matthew Feldman and John E Richardson - all of whom are credentialed academics in appropriate fields (philosophy, civics and the social sciences) and all of whom have been vetted as sources in line with Wikipedia's policies (particularly the reliable sourcing policy; WP:RS).

"It appears as though a rogue (politically biased) admin has blocked any normal users from restoring the cultural marxism page." Nope - the previous page on the topic (which only used 9 sources, with only 3 of those 9 actually containing the term "Cultural Marxism" - and two of those 3 coming from a single author) was deleted by community consensus as confirmed by a panel of 3 randomly selected WP:uninvolved admins. You can read their discussion here and part of that decision was to take up the community suggestion to WP:SALT the previous page (in order that poorly sourced content wouldn't be replicated in this section). It is common on controversial pages to have some page protection, this is not the work of a rogue admin, and doesn't even block MOST Wikipedians from editing the page. It only blocks the newest and least experienced editors from editing the page.

On that note, I suggest if you wish to persist in this discussion you learn how to use a talk page; and particularly how to indent comments rather than addressing users by name and hoping they see. The talk page guidelines including how to indent can be read here WP:TPG, thank you and welcome to Wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

-

To clarify how False balance relates here, no scholars of The Frankfurt School claim the Frankfurt School were trying to "destroy the west" or to push Political Correctness or Multiculturalism or Radical Feminism or any of the other claims made by this conspiracy theory. None. Zero. No one of any credentials supports these claims. So to give over any of the section to that viewpoint under the guise that Wikipedia has to "tell both sides of the argument" would be to give a false impression, or a "false balance". Wikipedia aims to show the highest quality of research, there is no policy or obligation for Wikipedia to cover both sides if one side is incorrect. --Jobrot (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Who is making the determination of what is or is not incorrect in this case. It appears to just be you. The way that you talk you seem to be saying that even the term 'cultural marxism' is ludicrous on the face of it and that even trying to define that term (which for better or worse is a term that has entered the modern lexicon) in a neutral manner will be stating that there is a cultural Illuminati trying to destroy the west. This is a false dichotomy. It is undoubtedly true that much of the use of cultural marxism is hyperbolic but refusing to describe what that term means is by itself biased. No-one sees a problem with writing detailed pages on the philosophy of Aristotle even though his ideas are laughable by today's standards. Writing about his beliefs is not the same as supporting his beliefs. We have pages here about holocaust denial too; because describing the arguments of holocaust deniers is not the same as denying the holocaust. In both cases they are handled the same; with criticism of their ideas being presented along side definitions of them. But by your logic because these ideas are 'incorrect' there is no need to even describe what those beliefs are or why adherents believed them. If we can manage to be neutral about these issues then we can manage to do so here. Simply allowing a page to exist does not imply an idea is being giving credence. We have pages on perpetual motion and homeopathy (ideas that are ludicrous with no basis in fact); why doesn't cultural marxism receive the same thing? Posting this page down the memory hole instead of allowing it to be presented and refuted as wikipedia does on every other contentious issue is simply wrong. It is a breach of balance, it is a breach of neutrality and an active attempt by you to prevent facts being presented. Just reading through this page it is very clear that you don't want that; you don't even want the chance to refute cultural marxism as an idea in it's own terms and allow readers to make their own minds up. You are not working in good faith here and that is a complete breach of the wikipedia guidelines.109.153.3.240 (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that what we write about it has to come from reliable sources; and what the reliable sources on the theory say (Jérôme, Richardson, Wodak, and Beirich, to name just a few, all of whom are respected mainstream academics and, in some cases, experts on this subject in particular) is that it's a conspiracy theory used as a recruiting tool by far-right movements. WP:NPOV doesn't mean giving everyone a false balance; what it means is covering topics according to what the highest-quality reliable sources say about them. --Aquillion (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

-

The page hasn't gone down the memory hole - it has been reduced to a section within the topic to which it refers (ie. The Frankfurt School). If you can point to anything I've done or said which you believe to not be in WP:GOODFAITH feel free to bring it to the attention of the Administrative Notice Board. I believe the topic is covered in the current section adequately. Proponents of the term believe "Cultural Marxism" to be an organized effort to destroy western culture using feminism, gay rights, civil rights and atheism, and that conception of it IS described in the current section. As mentioned above, every statement in the section is well sourced - and as per your inquiry the right wing conception is covered and described as well. I'm not sure as to what you believe is lacking. Sorry you feel I've used bad faith here, but perhaps you could explain to me what you believe is lacking from The Frankfurt School page overall? --Jobrot (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources are sociologists (left wing academics). D'oh. How can left wing academics be experts on the right wing? There's your bias right there, in how the sources are chosen and falsely portrayed as experts. William Lind and Pat Buchanan can't be used as sources? They're published journalists that have worked in government. Usually your reasoning would be sound, but in the case of left wing academics, sociology is at its heart a left wing discipline. So the act of only choosing left wing academics as sources is where the bias lies. It's not a deliberate bias. Left wingers perhaps can't see the bias. To any right winger the bias is as clear as day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.92.213 (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The sociological sources are experts on The Frankfurt School, and can hence tell when false claims are being made about The Frankfurt School. By the way, The Frankfurt School were left wing, and this page is the talk page for The Frankfurt School article. I hope that's clear enough for you. --Jobrot (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If all sociologists or even academics are "left wing," that indicates a bias either a right-wing bias on the part of the complainer, or else a left-wing bias on the part of reality. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Saying Wikipedia has no obligation to show both sides is pretty much an admission that you know the debate would not go in your favor if actual facts were used in fullness. Anyone who can follow history knows that intellectuals influence each other. Cherry-picking academics who make claims dismissing the influence of the Frankfurt School or painting Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory is just outright dishonest and is a good example of the many reasons why intelligent people no longer trust what they read on Wwikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.193.48 (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports the contents of Reliable Sources WP:RS combined with generally agreed upon knowledge (the kind that isn't commonly debated due to being observable fact). Beyond that it has no obligation to cover anything; this is in line with the "What Wikipedia Is Not" policy: WP:WWIN. What the "influences" of The Frankfurt School were from a modern day perspective is subjective (and not really relevant to this section - you're getting the content of the conspiracy confused with us covering the conspiracy theory.... see WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE if you need clarification). But to cover an entirely subjective argument that the conspiracy theory is real would be WP:OR and false, as well as reducing Wikipedia to an opinion piece. A blog. Which it is not. It is an encyclopedia of the facts of matters as authoritative sources see them. What is in the "Cultural Marxism" section currently is all reflected by what the sources say. This is how Wikipedia does its job. --Jobrot (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Split proposal

Having carefully read the above comments, I propose splitting the article per WP:WHENSPLIT. "Cultural Marxism" deserves its own page, and it needs to be described as it is explicitly proved to be here: a canard popular among some in the far-right that the left wants to destroy Western society by advocating progressive ideas. This idea is occasionally linked with homophobia and racism. This procedure would be in line with similar article titles that can refer to other things but are nearly always used for one purpose, such as Cultural Bolshevism and Jewish Bolshevism. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - A split via disambiguation has been suggested before, as has a simple disambiguation which wouldn't require a new page to be created. A consensus wasn't reached for either suggestion (I was making the proposal in one case and felt I shouldn't have the deciding vote). I'll be interested to see what happens this time, but I suppose if you felt the need you could put in an edit request. There might be some questions about the WP:NOTABILITY of a new article however; and establishing that may require academic sources as well as primary and secondary examples of the conspiracy theory version of the term (which we have an abundance of in the section already, as it's far more common). Looking forwards to reading other editors ideas on the pros and cons of disambig/split. --Jobrot (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jobrot: Its notability in American politics (and through that, the internet) is abundant, but I very much agree that academic sources are scarce. Ideally such an article would partially detail the origin and meaning of the conspiracy theory and subsequent popularity among in certain conservative/right-wing circles, while also covering its usage by said figures and instances of it being mentioned or discussed (notable ones, that is). What we will definitely avoid is having it slide towards becoming an advocacy page that quotes pundits on how real the concept of "cultural marxism" is. I completely understand the reason many had to not give it its own article (as having one could promote its supposed legitimacy), but again I feel that we handled that pretty well with Cultural Bolshevism and Jewish Bolshevism. Vigilance and potential semi-protection would allow us to keep it clean. I would be willing to make a case of this but I am unsure as to what consensus we could reach. Perhaps an RfC is in order? That would simultaneously assure the editors involved are neutral. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Well if it ever does get that far, I've been collecting usages in relation to modern media and political events; it's appeared in relation to an exchange between Jason Wilson of the Guardian and an Australian Politician, then separately in reference to the Safe Schools Program, it's been used by some members of the far right Greek political group Golden Dawn, and Al-Jazera have an op-ed about it "Cultural Marxism" as a positive thing, and then there was the whole #BoycottStarwars push that happened centered around the term. Sort of a 'Current Events', or 'Usage in Politics and Popular Media' section - Breivik might even fit in such a section. But as far as I can tell the term is in decline. --Jobrot (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't there a RfC in 2013 against a "Cultural Marxism" article?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe there was; the namespace also had WP:SALT poured on it by admins after the AfD (to hinder it reappearing), and the term is narrow, outdated and niche which presents problems for giving it a whole article. So it's quite unlikely such a title would ever resurrect. Not entirely impossible; just highly unlikely. --Jobrot (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2016

This edit request to Frankfurt School has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is no proof that cultural marxism is a conspiracy theory. Please edit that careles error.

Thank you.

Aztharot2000 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done the section "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" has 38 references - your opinion, stated above, has none - Arjayay (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Extreme Bias

1. The 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory' section is a case of extreme bias and the lede is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS:

'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance commonly refers to a conspiracy theory

The implication is that all uses of the term "Cultural Marxism" are considered to be a reference to a so-called conspiracy theory by the political and cultural mainstream.

2. This ignores the fact that the term Cultural Marxism has many uses (https://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-2-45562).

3. Wikipedia editors with an axe to grind (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html) have taken an article like this (https://archive.is/YzkIS) to this (https://archive.is/JJBgx) to the current state almost entirely based on a left-wing view with an inflammatory title, thus associating a somewhat right-wing political position—which considers Cultural Marxism, political correctness and multiculturalism as many sides of the same issue—with a full blown conspiracy theory.

4. As Cultural Marxism redirects to this section which excludes the many different uses of the term "Cultural Marxism" (some of which have no direct relation to the Frankfurt School) in favor of something described as a conspiracy theory, it fails WP:NPOV.

Last Contrarian (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Pointing to something having a common usage is not synthesis. From the SPLC source:

"Television commentator Pat Buchanan says it is being used to "de-Christianize" America. Washington heavyweight William Lind claims it is turning U.S. college campuses into "ivy-covered North Koreas." Retired naval commander Gerald Atkinson fears it has invaded the nation's military academies. Immigration activist John Vinson suggests it aims "to distort and destroy" our country."

"'Cultural Marxism,' described as a conspiratorial attempt to wreck American culture and morality, is the newest intellectual bugaboo on the radical right. Surprisingly, there are signs that this bizarre theory is catching on in the mainstream."

So as you can see the source is making a claim on the modern political meaning; and hence the lead is not WP:SYNTH.

2. I fail to see your point; yes there are two usages - the academic usage and the right wing conspiracy usage; this is covered in the current section.

3. Wikipedia describes the world; it does not control it. The right wing have associated the right wing with the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (and have been doing so for 20 some years now); hence the abundance of right wing sources spanning that time period and using the term as you can see in the sources for this section. Wikipedia did not make them do it; it is merely reporting that they've been doing it.

Further more the previous page you're linking to (https://archive.is/YzkIS); only has 3 sources which use the term by name (and two of them are from the same author). The current section has 38 unique sources; the majority of which are using the term "Cultural Marxism" explicitly and by name. So you're claiming the old page with just 9 sources in total, and only 3 of which are using the term is somehow better than the current section with 38 sources most of which use the term explicitly.

4. To my knowledge there are 2 main meanings of Cultural Marxism; and both are described in the current section.

So unless you have any further points; there's no case for claiming the section is not neutral, hence I've removed the tag. --Jobrot (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

(I'm reverting your revert. I'd like you to follow the guidelines specified in Template:POV and avoid unilaterally removing the tag till one of the conditions in "WHEN TO REMOVE" is met.)

1. What does "common usage" mean in this context? Who, exactly, "commonly refers" to Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory? If it's the SPLC, then reword the sentence so that it states so explicitly. If it is left-wing academics, X, Y & Z who research right-wing movements, then use their names there. What we have here is the use of weasel words (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Weasel_word) to make a claim appear larger than it actually is.

Of the three sources used to back up the lede, one is an obscure academic who writes books, articles and papers on right-wing movements and the other is the SPLC. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that they might consider "Cultural Marxism" to be a conspiracy theory. But that doesn't in any way make it "common usage" nor does it support the claim that the term "commonly refers" to a conspiracy theory. The lede (and the title) is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS because it ascribes the view of two individuals/organizations to the entire mainstream.

2. My point is that if there are multiple usages of a particular term, XYZ, you cannot club them all together under a section called XYZ conspiracy theory when the view is not universally shared and is based on a couple of handpicked sources. You could have an article for XYZ with sections where you can address the "conspiracy theorist" aspect by quoting the relevant sources.

3. In this particular instance, the article wantonly disregards popular use of the term and is an attempt at advancing a claim that anyone using the term Cultural Marxism anywhere (even as a synonym for political correctness and multiculturalism run amok) must surely be a right-wing conspiracy theorist and a nut-job. This is pure WP:OR and you cannot finish reading the article and still end up with a positive interpretation of "Cultural Marxism." If that were not the case, one should be able to resurrect the article on Cultural Marxism easily without being attacked by rabid left-wing editors.

My claim is that the mere act of redirecting the article on the term is an act of bias. It's like redirecting Marxism to a small section in the article on Economics entitled Marxist Delusion and Genocidal Marxism and claiming that it is nothing but the delusions of a sad, old man which was blown up into a genocidal cult by the left.

4. Then I guess we could just as well rename the section to "The mating habits of the African bullfrog?" The section title is a creation of wikipedia editors and screams of bias. I wish people would stop trying to pretend that the title is "neutral." The only way to rectify the situation is to resurrect the original article and edit that one. As long as "Cultural Marxism" redirects to "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" any claim that the article complies with WP:NPOV is a bad joke. No sane person on the right considers "Cultural Marxism" to be a reference to conspiracy theory. It's primarily left-wing writers, organizations, rags and newspapers which hold this view. This section reflects that bias.

That this fiasco is in the news should give people pause. That it doesn't would normally surprise me. In this case, it doesn't. Last Contrarian (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

1. AS PER MY PREVIOUS REPLY: "Who, exactly, 'commonly refers' to Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory?" is helpfully listed by me in the quote from the SPLC I pasted above. The SPLC is already an accepted source for the article; and those listed in the quote have been confirmed as using the term; as have the many right wing sources discussed in my previous reply and the section in question; as have the left wing sources discussed in your previous reply and the section in question - ergo this constitutes common usage. Further more simply googling the term will return even more usages that fall below Wikipedia's sourcing thresholds; so much so that it may appear to a lay person to be the ONLY usage. This again constitutes common usage. This point has now been proven, and further objections will require a different line of argumentation on your part.

2. "My point is that if there are multiple usages of a particular term..." There are not multiple usages; there are two broad definitions. 1) The most common usage; that the left are using progressive politics stemming from the Frankfurt School to destroy western culture (ie. The conspiracy theory version, as discussed elsewhere on talk and in the archives; search for the term 'Barkun' for details) and 2) the niche and informal 1970s Cultural studies usage. BOTH of which are already included in the section as per my previous reply.

3. "rabid left-wing editors" - please use more WP:GOODFAITH and consider retracting this statement - being attacked for being incorrect does not equate to proof of a left-wing conspiracy. It is your viewpoint and arguments being attacked; not you as a person.

"This is pure WP:OR" if you wish to point to a part of the writing you believe to be WP:OR then do so; but claiming that accurately defining the use and history of the term means that you personally "cannot finish reading the article and still end up with a positive interpretation of 'Cultural Marxism.'" is just your opinion and does not constitute a conspiracy theory nor prove that there's WP:Original Research in the section - it is simply your opinion of the well researched information given in the section. It is not up to Wikipedia or individual Wikipedians to decide how the information is judged; we simply report the information. It is up to us as Wikipedia editors to separate our personal opinions from the content given in order to report it in line with Wikipedia's policies. We're not here to give it a positive or negative interpretation or spin as per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE; if your aim here is to impose your opinion onto the section in order to give it a "positive interpretation" as per your statements - then you're intentionally aiming to violate these Wikipedia policies and I must give you this stern warning: You will not succeed and should stand down from this attempt.

"If that were not the case, one should be able to resurrect the article on Cultural Marxism easily without being attacked by rabid left-wing editors." again this does not prove that Wikipedia is part of some conspiracy, and again please use more WP:GOODFAITH as this is a fairly insulting accusation to make of the administrators involved in closing and salting the previous article WP:SALT. Your statements are an act of bad-faith on your part. The decision to WP:SALT the article is why it can't be resurrected; not because of some rabid left-wing conspiracy you believe Wikipedia is involved in. You can read the reasons for their actions here and if you take umbrage with any of the three WP:uninvolved admins I suggest you talk to them directly.

If you wish to resurrect the article on Cultural Marxism I suggest you take the usual means of doing so, rather than wasting your time here.

4. The title is neutral to the common usage, as detailed above. Such a title is common and accurate to Wikipedia articles that fit the requirements of WP:Fringe and Conspiracy Theory (search either of those in the talk archives for more details); see Moon landing conspiracy theories, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and New World Order (conspiracy_theory) for other examples of similar titles.

Please don't participate in edit warring, further reverts will be seen as disruptive editing. WP:Wikipedia is not a personal WP:SOAPBOX for your political views or agenda. This topic has already been sifted with a fine tooth comb (see talk archives for details); and just because you have a personal viewpoint here does not entitle you the right to be disruptive without merit. This is a WP:DEADHORSE and WP:FRINGE issue and due to the high quality of sourcing and care taken with the current Cultural Marxism section this viewpoint will most likely be the stance of any Wikipedia noticeboard you wish to further post your objections to. Thank you --Jobrot (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

1. My original question was: Who, exactly, "commonly refers" to Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory?

Meaning, who believes that: "Cultural Marxism IS A conspiracy theory." Obviously, the SPLC and Jamin do.

BUT no right wing source, to my knowledge, believes that: "Cultural Marxism IS A conspiracy theory."

Hence, the lede is a case of taking left-wing categorizations, applying them to right-wing beliefs and claiming that both left-wing and right-wing sources believe in the categorization. Which is WP:SYNTHESIS.

Essentially, what is happening is:

* Left-wingers like SPLC and Jamin believe THAT Cultural Marxism IS A conspiracy theory.

* Right-wingers like Buchanan and Lind believe IN Cultural Marxism.

* THEREFORE, both left-wingers and right-wingers believe THAT Cultural Marxism IS A conspiracy theory.

This is a false syllogism, thus your statement that "ergo this constitutes common usage" has no basis in fact. So, contrary to your assertion, this point has NOT been proven.

2. BOTH of which are already included in the section as per my previous reply. Yes, under the editorialized title "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory." Let's ignore this for now. When the WP:NPOV is fixed, the title should automatically take on a more neutral form.

3. if you wish to point to a part of the writing you believe to be WP:OR then do so; Have already done so. See 1. The title and the lede are pure fiction.

does not constitute a conspiracy theory Did I say it constitutes a conspiracy theory? I find it strange that you keep trying to put words in my mouth to show that I am claiming there there is some cabal secretly indulging in some conspiracy. I do not see any conspiracies. I worry that you constantly do.

it is simply your opinion of the well researched information given in the section. See 1. I challenge your claim that the information is well researched. I have already pointed out the fictitious lede and title. The claims advanced might be the views of a minority or a part of the left. The section entirely discounts popular usage of the term and is not representative of the real world usage of the term.

if your aim here is to impose your opinion onto the section My aim here is to rectify the current case of WP:SYNTHESIS where opinion is being presented as an unchallengeable fact.

I do not spend my days and night on wikipedia poring over every single rule like some editors here seem to do. So unless your aim is to run me out by attacking my supposed intentions and beliefs (as you perceive them to be), perhaps you should concentrate on the meat of my argument rather than assuming malicious intent within every single word and phrase.

I suggest you take the usual means of doing so, rather than wasting your time here. I'll do that, thank you. Once the existing section acquires a neutral form.

4. The title is neutral to the common usage, as detailed above. See 1.

I'm reverting your revert. The edit-war you began by unilaterally removing the POV tag, twice, deliberately ignoring the guidelines specified in Template:POV ("WHEN TO REMOVE") is proof enough.

I'll repeat what you said to me: please don't participate in edit warring. Further reverts will be considered to be disruptive editing. WP:Wikipedia is not a personal WP:SOAPBOX for your political views or agenda.

If you want to dispute the revert, please go ahead. I'm willing to defend my actions and argue against yours. Last Contrarian (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted your reversion as per the three editor consensus in the section below this one and as per Help:Maintenance_template_removal#Removal which states it's okay to remove the tag if;

"you have made a considered determination that the template is not, or is no longer, applicable?"

Feel free to report me for disruptive editing and/or edit warring, as I'd love to hear more opinions on this issue. --Jobrot (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted your revert because a majority vote without any critical discussion or attempt to address the point being made is not consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS. Name one editor (other than yourself) who has bothered to tackle my objection.

To repeat what you have beautifully put: feel free to report me for disruptive editing and/or edit warring, as I'd love to hear more opinions on this issue. Last Contrarian (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The below discussion is nigh-unanimous for calling it a conspiracy theory, and it's only a couple of users who have gone "per (user)." It's rather disingenuous to pretend no one else has given further reasons and sources. You have yet to present any counter sources and instead base your argument on an WP:OR false dichotomy (as if there are no such thing as moderates). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The below discussion Perhaps you and I have different things in mind when we refer to a discussion. Here's your supposed "discussion" from the rfc (excluding Jobrot's multiple comments):

Orange Mike: "the current lede is clear and adequate and sums up the facts as agreed by all reliable sources. The topic isn't quite up there with chemtrails and moon-landing-hoax, but it's pretty clearly a classic conspiracy theory."
74.70.146.1: "Support User:Jobrot's position. Contrarian, this seems to be mainly a case of your bias clashing with established consensus. Please consider toning down your rhetoric."
Jack Upland: "Support calling it a conspiracy theory."
DoctorJoeE: "I agree with Orangemike and others that the lede is fine as is."

The only discussion, if any, involved you (Ian.thomson) and Rhododendrites.

Your discussion involves demanding proving a negative while a opinion about a right-wing belief based on left-wing sources is allowed to be presented as a fact.
Rhododendrites's involves not commenting on the specifics of the RfC but, instead, using his preconceived notions (based on prior debates) to blindly support Jobrot's position. Last Contrarian (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's actually a minority right-wing (specifically paleoconservative and neoreactionary) opinion (possibly aimed at perpetuating a Culture War, as suggested by Paul Weyrich's Culture War letter, and Pat Buchanan's explicit Culture War rhetoric) which has been created by misinterpreting a left-wing art-theory term that chronologically pre-dates the right-wing belief; as the current section notes. --Jobrot (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Also; it's not really up to you to claim that User:Rhododendrites is blindly doing anything; that's up to them to decide. You should practice WP:GOODFAITH when discussing your fellow editors. --Jobrot (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism: The Frankfurt School connection straw-man

Cultural Marxism is a term that is used in many different ways (https://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-2-45562). One of its uses is as a reference to the activities of a certain section of the left which is more concerned with the race/color/sex/gender/politics of the creator/actor/character/protagonist in a certain medium (book/film/comic/tv series/game) than the actual subject matter. There are others as well.

Killing the Cultural Marxism page (of which the "conspiracy theory" section could have been a part, like the article on Political Correctness) and redirecting it to an article on some obscure school reeks of bad faith and rabid left-wing activity. It is also an act of poisoning the well: "Cultural Marxism? It's a conspiracy theory which means all your criticism, and your political views, are WRONG!!!" Last Contrarian (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The very article you posted links the term to the Frankfurt School. clpo13_(talk) 16:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It sure does. Obviously, then, the article on Marxism should be redirected to a small section in the article on Marx?

The point is that the term "Cultural Marxism" has multiple uses. Some refer to the Frankfurt School. Others simply use it as a synonym for the politically correct activities of busybodies on the left with too much time on their hands and too little sense.

Basically, it needs to be its own article and we can have these discussions on its own talk page.

Last Contrarian (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Please be careful to make sure your arguments are based in ([WP:RS] provable) facts and policy, and don't stray too much away from editorial discussion or too far into political debate/opinion. Keep WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG in mind, and keep any discussion editorial in nature. --Jobrot (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Your reply is content-less and unmerited. If you have any complaints, be specific. Last Contrarian (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The Frankfurt School and The Birmingham School are already mentioned within the section. The real straw man is those who try to blame The Frankfurt School for every political dispute under the sun. --Jobrot (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)