Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Creating a Cultural Marxism section for contrast

Hi Jobrot, if a user starts from Google and searches for "Cultural Marxism", then follows the link to the Wikipedia article, it indexes straight to the "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory" section. That is, from outside, this section looks at first glance like a stand-alone Wiki page. All those other sections you mention are bypassed, and might easily be neglected by the casual visitor. That's how the funnel is created. WP:POVNAMING also says neutral terms are generally preferable. In this case, we could have a section heading "Cultural Marxism" for explanation & disambiguation, and a subsection heading "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory" where the conspiracy theory is explained. JerryRussell (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea to explore, but I'm still not sure it will be successful due to a couple of factors. One being that the term cultural Marxism has some distinctions that fall outside of The Frankfurt School; namely British Cultural Marxism (which as the current section notes, has a different mode of interpretation of Culture than the Frankfurt Schools. Another being Thompsonian Marxism which N-HH had mentioned earlier. In researching it I found this reference which refers to Thompsonian Marxism as humanist Marxism, saying;

"Instead, the Thompsonian project envisaged a humanist Marxism (sometimes called ‘cultural Marxism’)."

...this leads into the need to make distinctions between Western Marxism, Post-Marxism, Neo-Marxism and possibly Marxist Humanism (although the above quote suggests Cultural Marxism is a form of Marxist Humanism) but also broaches another problem; the term cultural Marxism (particularly with that older sequence of capitalization; cultural Marxism) was often (prior to the 1990s Culture war use of the term) taken as a literalism (Where 'cultural' was used in a non-jargon sense). The two terms hadn't become one yet, they were just two words put together, and it was hence an informal term. That is to say, it was a reference to Marxist ideas one could interpret as reflected within wider culture. Whether that meant the prevalence of unionism, protest, social welfare, internationalism or universal education. However obviously taking over the world and running hollywood and the media aren't Marxist values; so what we'd really be trying to do here is to derivate an informal term into perhaps something more than it was intended to be; whilst also making it distinct from the conspiracy theory version of the term as well as successors from within the left which went on to be far more prominent (up until the right-side of US politics abducted this older informal usage for their own purposes). Marxist humanism being one such successor. As far as I can see; the term cultural Marxism was for the most part abandoned by the majority of the left (for better distinctions and successors listed above) bar a few select people who still use it in reference to historical terms in the teaching of Cultural Studies (perhaps another important point to include).

P.S Hope you don't mind that I've created a new heading on the talk page for further discussion of your idea, feel free to re-title the heading or remove it should you not see it as helpful. --Jobrot (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I've also found this minor source here which suggests this whole division between Culture Studies and cultural Marxism was created by Fredric Jameson via his suggesting Culture Studies be re-titled cultural Marxism the thinking being that analysis of Culture in political terms is fundamentally and always - due to the Cultural hegemony of Capitalism - a critique of Capitalism. In the pamphlet (which does not in my view meet WP:RS) it's said:

"Therefore, Fredric Jameson emphasizes the need to recover the critical theory of culture that comes from Marx, Freud, the School of Frankfurt, Luckács, Sartre and complex Marxism, and suggests redefining cultural studies as cultural Marxism and as a critique of capitalism. For this, the economic, political and social formations should be considered and the importance of social classes highlighted (Jameson, 1998)."

On a personal note; I don't think this is a valid viewpoint as non-dominant cultures (ie. anarchist collectives, kibbutz, Stalinist Russia ect.. can all still be criticized via the concepts found within Cultural Studies).

However I'm not sure where Jameson's desires to rename Cultural Studies fits in (and I suspect he uses the term loosely as in his book he avoids defining it, and it in fact doesn't appear within the body text at all - suggesting a very informal usage on the cover) and what's more I'm already aware that the works of Nancy Fraser are critical of identity politics (aka the use of social classes) and that she's seen as a modern descendant of The Frankfurt School [1]. From what I've read in the frankfurt school reddit community, it's not even clear whether the Frankfurt School are Marxist, and it's suggested there that they are more likely Historical Materialists.

Marxist Humanism may be the key, or it maybe that the term Cultural Marxism just never attained a formal usage within it's own era. I'm simply dazzled by how complex this subject is already, and I've been trying to wrap my head around it for a couple of years now. I do suspect The Frankfurt School were to some degree orthodox Marxists; and that the attempt to cast them as the progenitors of modern identity politics has no grounds. The mistake may be in Paleoconservatives assuming Cultural Studies is a reflection of the views of the Frankfurt School rather than a reflection of changing times within the cultural, advertising and media landscape (and hence the political landscape). --Jobrot (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a new section. It's a related topic to the RfC, but not exactly the same, and it would be good to get more feedback on editorial views. I would support the idea that 'Cultural Marxism' is notable and widely used enough to deserve a stand-alone Wiki article. Looking back at the old AfD discussion, one aspect of the decision was that the old article was widely viewed as unsatisfactory. In order to re-create the article through deletion review, it's recommended to have a draft for the proposed new article. What better place to create such a draft, than here?

The above discussion is very interesting, but perhaps a simpler reason for the present state of usage of CM, is the extent to which Marxism in general has fallen into disrepute? That is, since the failure of the Soviet Union, hardly anyone on the Left wants to be considered any kind of Marxist or Communist. Whereas their opponents on the Right are all too eager to tar everyone on the Left with that brush, hence the popularity of the conspiracy theory. JerryRussell (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a new article. We have the Marxist humanism, Cultural studies etc. There is a range of theorists. To create a CM article which is not a conspiracy theory would just be an exercise in synthesis.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but none of those are quite the same topic, albeit there is plenty of overlap. There is also no synthesis involved, as the term is quite commonly deployed, fairly coherently and consistently, in academic writing to describe the application of Marxist analysis and theory to cultural issues. As noted ad nauseam, this usage predates the current use of the term in US culture wars, and indeed is the primary use uncovered in any Google Books search. The fact that the term has become a partisan, political pejorative and, in some cases, is attached to an outright conspiracy theory doesn't alter that fact, any more than the polemical use of neoliberalism, Zionism and fascism etc overrides their original, formal use in political taxonomy. N-HH talk/edits 07:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A) This section concerns the conspiracy theory version of the term. B) If you can cite sources; you should do a draft just as I have attempted here (albeit one that ended up as a WP:COATRACK). You've claimed elsewhere that I only understand half of what I'm reading, and fail at identifying, delineating and naming concepts and ideas. Yet you're providing no sources for your definition on the term. Your arguments need a lot of work to go beyond mere personal opinion. Good luck avoiding the WP:COATRACK issue, as I've said before this subject is in my opinion WP:UNDUE as credible sources that define the topic beyond already established pages (eg. Cultural Studies, The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, Critical Theory ect..) are incredibly lacking (due to the informal nature of the term). Anyways; feel free to make your own attempt at a draft which avoids the WP:COATRACK issue. --Jobrot (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You know full well that I have, on multiple occasions, provided links to Google Books searches and also pulled out and quoted from specific books on the topic as historically understood in a more neutral and academic context, eg here on my talk page; you and I discussed a specific source which goes into explicit detail on the concept, defining it and detailing its intellectual history, here. I also explained why your draft is not a coatrack, here, on the talk page of your draft. I have also explained, several times I think, that I have neither the time nor inclination to draft a whole WP page on the topic, especially when it will fall foul of the bickering about the modern, US iteration/variation of the term, and probably be AFDd given the odd consensus that has developed around how to treat this term and topic. And I'm sorry, but the fact that I have to point all this out again, together with the bizarre discussion below, only makes my previous comment about your reading and comprehension seem all the more apposite from here. N-HH talk/edits 21:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

and you're free to go make that case in a draft or to the required admins or in a deletion review WP:DRV. please WP:LISTEN when I say that; and obey WP:TPG this is WP:NOTFORUM for you to argue for a draft. It's a place for editorial discussion on the content of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory section which deals with the WP:FRINGE aspect of the term; I repeat; this is NOT the venue for you to argue for a draft. Please obey WP:TPG. --Jobrot (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Language etc

Quite apart from all its other, more fundamental problems, the Cultural Marxism section has some incredibly loaded language. Here, the page was changed to say the term was "misappropriated" (it used to say hijacked for a while, which was even worse), as if it was "owned" by someone to start with and people are now using in the "wrong" way now. Here, "wrongly" was changed to "falsely". Actually the two words have much the same meaning, but I'm assuming the change was made in an attempt to stress that it was done as part of a deliberate falsehood. This sort of editorialising is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, per WP:NPOV and WP:WTW.
In the first case, even the milder "appropriated" is probably unsuitable, as we don't know the term was directly carried across. Simply "used" would be fine, and neutral. As for the second, we don't know the motives for the alleged misattribution of the quotation. Furthermore, the only source for this specific allegation appears to be a YouTube video, which is not enough. And beyond that, why is this material even relevant to the Frankfurt School page anyway? Some fringe right-wing figure says someone from the school said something they apparently didn't say – all sourced to YouTube? N-HH talk/edits 07:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, the only source for this specific allegation appears to be a YouTube video, which is not enough. - Nope; if you bother to check the sources for the quote given as having come from Marcuse in the youtube video, you'd see it can actually be found on page 80 of "Death of the West" (the source I'm presuming you didn't check). If an author is quoting the words of Pat Buchanan as if they're coming from Herbert Marcuse - that can rightfully be called a falsehood. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of FACTS; not of OPINIONS. Likewise if claims are being made about The Frankfurt School and "Cultural Marxism" as having been a plot to take over and destroy the western world - that is a MISAPPROPRIATION of the term "Cultural Marxism"; as it's not being used correctly. Please stop violating the clear and obvious consensus WP:CONSENSUS formed in the recent RfC on this matter. Consider this a warning against further WP:TEND edits that violate WP:CONSENSUS --Jobrot (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The RFC made no conclusions on these specific points, and I'm not sure they even came up. Anyway, it hasn't even been closed. And my whole point is to ask who defines "correctly". No one does, of course. Subjective terms like this are used as people use them. WP should not be making judgments in its own voice: this is the actual, basic point about "facts" and "opinions", and knee-jerk reverting things like that back in is not helpful. Odd, too, coming from someone who tries to get other people banned from the page for exactly this kind of thing. As for the misquoted quote, where is the serious, reliable, secondary source that specifically says the quote was invented or misattributed – and done so deliberately, rather than in inadvertent error (as noted, I kept "wrongly")? And assuming it is wrongly attributed, what has it got to do with the Frankfurt School anyway? And you do understand what WP:NPOV, WP:WTW and WP:OR all say, right? Please don't just revert without responding to the arguments being made, while inventing your own about what words "really" mean, or which quotes must have been deliberately made up. And I'll note of course too that you at some point back agreed that "misappropriated" was wrong. You're edit warring against yourself. N-HH talk/edits 09:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I never said it was wrong, I said it didn't gravely effect the overall meaning of the sentence. "You're edit warring against yourself." Well thanks for informing me as to what I'm doing.

Pat Buchanan makes it clear that he's speaking in his own voice. The youtube documentary mentioned and sourced in the section makes it clear that its claim is that Herbert Marcuse said the words Pat Buchanan wrote on page 80 of his book; therefore; referring to that claim as a falsehood stands. HOWEVER if you wish to produce PROOF from a SOURCE that it's in actual fact a genuine Herbert Marcuse quote - then I'll be happy to reform the statement. But until that point in time you have no case for claiming it's a genuine Marcuse quote, and nor does the youtube documentary. The onus on Wikipedia is to state the facts of the matter as the WP:RS evidence shows them in an unbiased fashion. Claims need WP:RS sources... and that includes YOUR claim that it's a genuine Herbert Marcuse quote. --Jobrot (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Where on earth did I claim it was a genuine Marcuse quote? Please try a bit harder to understand the actual point being made, and don't misrepresent what I say and run off on tangents while avoiding the actual issues. You realise there's a middle ground between saying something is definitely the case and saying it is definitely not the case, right? And that something can be "true" but not proven to the required standard or in the required way? And again, you're completely missing the point that the onus is on those wanting to include material to find a reliable secondary source, not the other way round. I'm not wanting to add or defend any substantive content; meanwhile, you are not only defending content but relying on your own deductions and coming to your own conclusions based on primary sources to do so. As I said, please read WP:OR. This is not difficult stuff. Also, in terms of actual edits to the page, this was of course a side point, since I merely queried the sourcing on the talk page – I left the substantive material in there, albeit restoring the longstanding adverb "wrongly" rather than the "falsely" that you unilaterally added a couple of days ago. Nor have you addressed the point about how relevant this is anyway.

Anyway, as to the language point, which relates to the actual edits in question, if you're seriously maintaining that "misappropriated" and "falsely" (with an entirely unsourced implication, in WP's own words, of deliberate deception) is more factual or neutral, or more in line with WP:RS, than "used" and "wrongly" respectively, I don't know what more I can say to you. As I said – quite correctly and with a link to your diff – at one point you did appear to acknowledge the problem with the former. Anyway, I knew this page could and would suck people in for endless debate about its overall structure. I never thought that would happen over two words, and over such basic points about how to source and write encyclopedic content. N-HH talk/edits 18:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, the RFC decided that CM (at least in its dominant use by the alt-right) is a 'conspiracy theory'. But, that doesn't give a license to suspend encyclopedic neutrality. I would support N-HH's preferred formulation 'used' rather than 'misappropriated'.

I watched the you-tube video, and I don't think it made the explicit claim that the words should be attributed to Marcuse, although they were read by an actor impersonating Marcuse. It was definitely a "Spin" but by modern standards, unfortunately, I can't say for sure that it was an out-and-out lie. It also could easily have been an error rather than deliberate falsehood. JerryRussell (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll switch it back to 'wrongly'; but I stand by the fact that the alt-right are misappropriating and misusing the term "Cultural Marxism". Which seems in line with the RfC conclusion. --Jobrot (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Jobrot, what would you think if we used language such as this: Some of Lind's content went on to be reproduced by James Jaeger in his YouTube film "CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America", which places a quote from Pat Buchanan's "Death of the West" into the voice of an actor portraying Herbert Marcuse. I think that accurately represents the source videos. Although N-HH's point is well taken, that we really shouldn't be using you-tube videos as sources, or interpreting primary sources for ourselves.

It seems that we will have to agree to disagree about the interpretation of the RfC. Do you have any ideas about how to get that RfC closed, by the way? JerryRussell (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The RfC should close after 30 days; which I think should be soon enough. The word 'wrongly' is the latest preference from N-HH, and I'm fine with that; so it seems like an adequate compromise. However I'm standing by misused and hence misappropriated for the other bit; as the alt-right are not using "Cultural Marxism" correctly when they claim it's a plot to destroy western society. --Jobrot (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

And, as I have asked, who decides or defines whether a term like this is being used "correctly"? And, assuming there is a body that decides these things, do you have a reliable, secondary source that reports their verdict and agrees that the term is being used "incorrectly"? Right-wing (or left-wing) conspiracy theorists may be incorrect about their conspiracy theories, but it literally makes no sense to describe the terms they use to describe them as "incorrect" or to claim that they have stolen them from some objective, proper use. And if there is a correct usage, which is about cultural Marxism as understood in an academic and more neutral sense, that surely simply reinforces the case for a page about that. Oh, and btw, the term "wrongly" is not my "latest preference". It is the term that was used for a long time and which I restored, over your very recent change to "falsely". Prior to the other day, I never expressed an opinion about what word to use there. N-HH talk/edits 20:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

who decides or defines whether a term like this is being used "correctly"? cultural Marxism as understood in an academic and more neutral sense Yep; you've answered your own question there. WP:RS and WP:FRINGE both point to academic sources being the definitive answer as to whether a term is being used correctly. reinforces the case for a page about that - and you're free to go make that case in a draft or to the required admins or in a deletion review WP:DRV. Personally whilst I agree that the term existed in an academic context prior to the misappropriation from the alt-right; I don't think it's prevalent enough in that original academic context to deserve it's own page as per WP:DUE and WP:COATRACK; hence me not taking my draft any further. --Jobrot (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Jobrot has been making some edits over the last few days. For the most part I think the changes are improvements. But there are a couple of issues that need further discussion. First, the material about the James Jaeger film concerning Herbert Marcuse. The exact words read by the narrator are "What values has the long march through the institutions rolled over? Let's hear it from some of the Frankfurt School graduates themselves, like Herbert Marcuse..." The picture of Marcuse then appears, and a voice begins to speak the passage from Pat Buchanan. So is it words, thoughts, or values that are being attributed to Marcuse? Is that an actor, or how can we really be sure that an ancient tape of Marcuse has not been preserved? I had tried to formulate this in a non-judgmental way, and Jobrot reverted me. I think it's probably an actor, and it's something very much like an attribution. But ultimately I have to agree with @N-HH: that this is original research, or at best it's reliance on the opinion of you-tube poster 'Sunny Mon'. If we can't come to a consensus on neutral wording for this item, we should get rid of it.

Also, this morning, a 687-byte block of text was deleted, leaving the remaining sentence about British Cultural Marxism without any citations. Was this an error, or work in process? JerryRussell (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on the removal of the Hoggart ref; that was indeed accidental and has been re-added. As for the other issue, Herbert Marcuse (1898 - 1979) was well dead by the time Pat Buchanan's Death of the West was published (in 2001); and in the specific section of Death of the West which is being partially quoted Buchanan makes no effort to claim they're Marcuse's words (which I assume he would if it was a direct quote), and sticks to speaking in the general sense. Buchanan's text reads:

"Using Critical Theory, for example, the cultural Marxist repeats and repeats the charge that the West is guilty of genocidal crimes against every civilization and culture it has encountered. Under Critical theory, one repeats and repeats that Western societies are history's greatest repositories of racism, sexism, nativism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism, fascism and Nazism. Under Critical Theory, the crimes of the West flow from the character of the West, as shaped by Christianity... Under the impact of Critical Theory, many of the sixties generation, the most privileged in history, convinced themselves that they were living in an intolerable hell."

There is no evidence of this quote prior to publication of Death of the West and there is a RationalWiki page backing this up as a Buchanan quote here: [2]... and just to clarify in case there's any doubt, the video on that one youtube has not been distorted, and the original video can be found on James Jaeger's channel [3] at the time index 14:30 (the channel title "OriginalIntentDoc" referring to another of his documentaries, and his official websites link directly to this channel which also contains interview material by him). In short (and especially considering the overly emotional character of the voice over) - there is no evidence that it would be a recording of Marcuse; that claim its self would be WP:OR (as there's evidence indicating the contrary). --Jobrot (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Also it's unlikely that Marcuse would use the term "evil" in reference to Western society, especially after having spent much of his career studying and forming dossiers about the Nazi regime (including their forays into human experimentation) for the US state department in WW2. Marcuse was not religious and The Frankfurt School were instead academic sociologists and anti-fascists, very capable of discussing cultural and social change dispassionately and with great nuance (ie. without such blunt hyperbole). --Jobrot (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is rock-solid. It's still OR, but I might give it a pass under the "blue sky" exception. There's still the question of whether the words used in the video amount to an "attribution". JerryRussell (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm using the dictionary/common meaning of "attribution"; in that by saying "let's hear from these authors directly" then presenting the quote along with an image of Marcuse the video is suggesting; or attributing the quote to Marcuse. I'm not using say; the legal/copyright definition of 'attribution' such as found on the Wikipedia page Attribution_(copyright) (which came up when I googled define:attribution). Perhaps that might be our point of difference? That's why it started out as "misattributed", as I intended to reflect the lack of grounding for the claim being made. It's not quite an unsourced claim, it's just the source appears (upon research) to be Pat Buchanan rather than Herbert Marcuse. I would personally prefer 'misattributed' but I believe there's been issues with that. --Jobrot (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's something very much like a misattribution. I've tried again to use wording that captures the exact smarminess of the situation. JerryRussell (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This page within the marcuse.org domain which seeks to mock absurd criticisms of Marcuse and The Frankfurt School also lists as an example a variant of the quote (again unattributed) [4]. This time it's from (alt-right conservative) Andrew Breitbart's "Righteous Indignation" written in 2011 (his title it's self being a religious reference); so it seems the perception among American religious conservatives of this text as having been a quote from The Frankfurt School has worked its way into religious conservative thought - regardless of the fact that no-one has been able to attribute or source it. I think it's more reasonable to assume that authors who are unable to attribute a quote properly are bad at fact checking and vetting; rather than to assume such an outlandish and overly emotional quote is the property of The Frankfurt School directly. Unfortunately errors like this are prone to reproduction when there is political intent involved; which can drive a dearth of research ability (eg. I want to believe this, I won't bother researching it). Please note that the books this quote appears in are all conservative, and all opinion driven (rather than academic or research based). --Jobrot (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't find the unattributed similar quote from Righteous Indignation. The closest thing I can find is this : These victimized interest groups rightly opposed all the beauties of Western civilization "with all the defiance, and the hatred, and the joy of rebellious victims, defining their own humanity against the definitions of the masters."19 Which is not close at all, and it's attributed to footnote 19, which I can't see. There's a much closer quote a few articles down, in the section by Ike Morgan: Critical Theory is best described by one of its adherents, "... it is the essential destructive criticism of all the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, morality, sexual restraint, patriotism, convention, and conservatism." So it's vaguely attributed to some unnamed adherent, maybe Marcuse, maybe not. For that matter, the film attributes the quote to somebody "like" Marcuse. I'm not saying this isn't slimy and sloppy, but it's not exactly a scholarly attribution either.

Or am I just having reading attention problems? If you could copy the exact quote, I could use search to find where it is on the page at marcuse.org. JerryRussell (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope it's my mistake once again! The other source from that page was someone writing under the name Ike Morgan for the Bangor Daily News of Maine, in which they state:

"In order for Critical Theory to succeed it was necessary to repeat constantly that Western societies (and especially America) are bastions of sexism, racism, xenophobia and fascism. Petersons and her colleagues at the Peace & Justice Center of Eastern Maine are willing participants in this repetition." [5]

It's somewhat comedic that they're warning others against mindless repetition when they appear to be doing their own sort of repetition here. But you're right it's not a Breitbart claim, my mistake there. --Jobrot (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, just a reminder - WP:FRINGE is still in play for this section. So using non-academic sources which are pro-conspiracy (and I believe both Pat Buchanan and Andrew Breitbart are on the record as such) without having academic sources to back the pro-conspiracy claims; is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. It would be like including moon-landing-conspiracy believers without any scientific backing to their claims, or perhaps more accurately like going to right-wing sources for left-wing quotes. --Jobrot (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that it's OK to use non-academic vblog sources to offer responses to non-academic fringe authors, per WP:PARITY? I think that only applies if RS critiques aren't available, which is not a problem we're faced with, in general. JerryRussell (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I was just referring to this aspect of WP:FRINGE "If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea..." (ie. The Frankfurt School) "a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." to my knowledge critical theory is about finding the unquestioned elements of cultural hegemony/ideology, or to put it another way; its goal is to find the Hidden curriculum in pre-existing ideologies (whatever that hidden curriculum may be); rather than something set as for instance the repetition of a specific political/ideological point/message would be (ie. that "Western societies are history's greatest repositories of racism, sexism, nativism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism, fascism and Nazism" as is claimed in the quote). So I don't think this claim that Critical Theory is about a partisan repetition of a political line is true to the academic understanding of the purpose of Critical theory or the writings of The Frankfurt School. --Jobrot (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Everybody is always repeating ideas that they think are important. College professors, in particular, repeat the same class every year. Repetition, in itself, is just not a sinister activity. Do we need a reliable source that makes that obvious point? JerryRussell (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Repetition, in itself, is just not a sinister activity. No of course not; it's repetition without proper vetting, sourcing, consideration or quality research that's the problem. In short (and as I stated earlier) mindless or thoughtless repetition is the problem; not repetition in of it's self. --Jobrot (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

JerryRussell as we've just discussed WP:FRINGE is still in play; and Pat Buchanan's right wing opinion of Critical Theory doesn't stand up to academic scrutiny and isn't backed up or coupled with WP:RS sources; so please stop using his quote as if it's an accurate description of Critical theory or of Herbert Marcuse. It's not. The quote is not from "Herbert Marcuse" or someone "like" Herbert Marcuse (it's in fact from Pat Buchanan's own head); and neither Pat Buchanan nor James Jaeger are academic authorities on The Frankfurt School or Critical Theory. They're proponents of the conspiracy theory; so including their opinions as if factual or accurate (ie; making Wikipedia say 'this is like something Herbert Marcuse would say/think') is WP:NPOV, please don't give WP:FALSEBALANCE to conspiracy theorists. --Jobrot (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

As I've said previously to N-HH; unless you can actually produce the Herbert Marcuse quote found in the video; then it's a misattribution - I say this because all the evidence at hand points to it being taken from page 80 of the 2001 book Death of the West (Google shows no results for the quote anywhere else prior to this, and the author Pat Buchanan doesn't attribute it to anyone; and is in fact talking about HIS OWN beliefs/perception of Critical theory). I've pasted the quote from Death of the West further up this talk page, so unless you want to dispute that as the likely origin; then I don't believe you have any grounds for editing the wording again. If you can find the Marcuse quote; fine - but otherwise all indications are that it's a misattribution of Buchanan's INTERPRETATION. Not the genuine article. Please don't violate policy further. --Jobrot (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Jobrot, thanks for clarifying the reasons for your opposition to my proposal. I didn't mean to imply that Jaeger was correct in the claim that Buchanan's thoughts about what Marcuse might say, are the same as what Marcuse actually might say. Thus, I plead innocent to the charge of intentionally violating policy.

For the record, my proposed text was:

Some of Lind's content went on to be reproduced by James Jaeger in his YouTube film "CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America" in which a quote from Pat Buchanan's The Death of the West is attributed to someone "like" Herbert Marcuse.

This, I believe, is exactly correct. It's the Jaeger film that's making the claim that the Buchanan quote is either from Marcuse (which would be a misattribution, and perhaps a sloppy error) or else they're claiming that it's "like" Marcuse (which would be an intentional representation that Marcuse holds views which in fact he might not have agreed with.) What I wrote does not in any way imply that Wikipedia would agree that Marcuse might have said something "like" the Jaeger claim.

I'm trying to help you out here, Jobrot, and preserve the information that Jaeger misused that Buchanan quote, and in the process abused Marcuse. But you're the one who is on shaky ground policy-wise, between your OR on the actual source of the quote, your determination that the video narrator is "attributing" the quote to Marcuse, and your reliance on analysis from an anonymous you-tube vlog. I'm trying to salvage the situation by going back to the original source video and quoting directly, when Wiki strongly prefers reliable secondary sources. As I said earlier, if we can't agree on accurate and neutral wording, my feeling is that we shouldn't use this item at all, as N-HH recommended. Or at least we'll have to wait for more editors to weigh in and develop a local consensus. JerryRussell (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, for whatever it's worth, the words read by the Marcuse voice in the film are: "The West is guilty of genocidal crimes against every civilization and culture it has encountered. America and Western civilization are the world's greatest repositories of racism, sexism, nativism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, fascism and Nazism [or Narcissism?]. American society is oppressive, evil, and undeserving of loyalty." The first two sentences are fragments out of Buchanan, while the third seems to come from nowhere. But google turns up easily a dozen right-wing articles repeating this exact same alleged quote. Most if not all of it seems to trace back to an appreciative review of the Jaeger film by Nelson Hultberg of the "Daily Bell", here. JerryRussell (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I accept the fact that your edit was not an intentional violation of policy; but you have to accept the fact that there's a reason why I keep mentioning that WP:FRINGE is in play. We both seem to agree that a partial quote from Pat Buchanan is being passed off as a Marcuse quote in James Jaeger's "CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America" (starting from 14:35 and going to approximately 15:55 [6]) - and we both seem to agree that Buchanan and Jaeger are non-academic sources who are biased in the pro-conspiracy direction (as in they believe The Frankfurt School were an intentional threat to Western Society rather than a part of Western Societies academic and human rights traditions). Here is where we disagree, with your statement that I'm:

"...the one who is on shaky ground policy-wise, between your OR on the actual source of the quote, your determination that the video narrator is "attributing" the quote to Marcuse, and your reliance on analysis from an anonymous you-tube vlog."

First of all let's get the question of attribution and a "you-tube vlog" out of the way: Let's say I go on National TV talking about a certain "evil" Wikipedia editor named Jerry Russell (obviously I don't think your evil, I know you're a good editor so this is just a silly little example for the purposes of this debate) - now on National TV I make up stuff about your politics and your intentions and then I say "but don't take my word for it let's listen to Jerry Russell himself!" Then comes up a photo of your face; and over it is a friend of mine who does a very good impersonation of you and your national accent - wouldn't you say I'm trying to attribute what ever words are then dubbed over your image to YOU yourself; Jerry Russell's account holder/user - the person behind the screen who is reading this now? Isn't that enough to say I'm ATTRIBUTING it to you (whether wrongly or rightly). Isn't that the nature of attribution through the medium of video... and doesn't that appear to happen in both the long-form documentary as found on James Jaeger's official channel [7] on the subject; AND within the smaller clip of that longer documentary? [8] All of this would seem to confirm that yes indeed we have a video documentary which whether correctly or incorrectly IS (by common techniques found within the medium of video documentary) trying to attribute a quote to Herbert Marcuse. That to me seems plain as day.

So I think that clarifies that 'attribution' can indeed be performed visually using the common language of video-documentaries and news media (where a picture combined with voice over or text is the method of attribution), and that it's fine to use this terminology. Also let's establish that this terminology is fine to use; even if the original quote is false or does not exist (and that in that case it would be an 'incorrect attribution').

Now your counter-claim to this attribution being called 'incorrect' (which you suggest may be WP:OR on my part) is that "well it may be a lost recording of Marcuse we just haven't found yet" this in part conflicts with your seeming agreement that there's at least partial overlap between the video's claim and Pat Buchanan's text - and for my own policy arguments this is really where WP:FRINGE fits in.

It's commonly accepted on Wikipedia that "no policy works alone" so WP:FRINGE is intended to function "hand in glove" with WP:RS and WP:NPOV - and in particular WP:FRINGE seeks to use WP:RS sources in order to decide what statements can and can't be declared 'neutral' in terms of adopting a 'neutral'/academic point of view. Specifically WP:RS seeks ACADEMIC sources to vet WP:FRINGE sources against. Put simply; if a claim from a non-WP:NEUTRAL source or a WP:FRINGE source seems suspect; it should be weighed against WP:RS academic sources in order to verify the likelihood of it being true or false. To my mind; this policy is in place as it helps avoiding instances (common when arguing with proponents of conspiracy theories) - where an editor is asked to prove a negative; or in this instance; asked to prove someone DIDN'T say something.

Just for a moment; I'd like you to visit this snopes page which I believe presents a relevant case-study for this sort of thing: [9]. It is in fact quite common for historical Marxists to be misquoted or for false-quotes to be manufactured by conservatives and other dubious sources for left-wing figures.

My point is that sources have to be classed by their level of bias. I believe Marcuse and Adorno are the only reliable sources for Marcuse and Adorno quotes. James Jaeger I'd say is a conspiracy nut, he's probably the lowest quality source in the whole section next to Lind; and Pat Buchanan being pre-alt-right is probably just above Lind and Jaeger but is still on the conservative side; still conspiratorial in his viewpoint of The Frankfurt School and still non-WP:Neutral and not WP:RS. So where as Pat Buchanan and James Jaeger can be used in reference to Pat Buchanan and James Jaeger (and they currently are being used in this way) I don't believe they can be used to provide accurate or unbiased quotes for anything Herbert Marcuse or The Frankfurt School actually said. I believe this to be in line with WP:FRINGE.

But to extend my policy based arguments here; I would like to invoke the WP:BLUESKY policy you mentioned earlier (which I didn't actually know about, but can see how it's relevant). I believe that the Buchanan and Jaeger sources and quotes should be taken in the wider context of their works, and their political viewpoint. The intention behind the Buchanan/Jaeger sources is obviously to mischaracterize and misattribute a quote that's been constructed to sound like Marcuse - but is demeaning and far from what he actually said, and likewise the "documentary" is intended to demean The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory in general. So I contend that the current section is a legitimate use of policy in the context of these sources (and their overall intent or reliability under WP:NPOV) and particularly in reference to the coordinated functions of WP:FRINGE (namely that WP:FRINGE uses WP:RS and WP:NPOV to weigh sources and give minority viewpoints expression without over-emphasizing them as mainstream; Buchanan and Jaeger can be mentioned; but their viewpoint is not in line with Marcuse) and of course WP:BLUESKY.

I respect your viewpoint that where there is 'attribution' there should be an original source; however I believe in this instance and in regards to policy on this occasion the WP:DUE onus is not on us as editors nor the apparatus of Wikipedia to prove a negative; it's on these documents to provide a better quality level of sourcing and proof of attribution in line with WP:DUE mainstream evidence. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts; and what is represented in the section (which I believe is sourced to the appropriate authors under WP:FRINGE) are the current facts as they appear at this point in time. The unsourced conspiracy viewpoint is just that; and is represented as so under WP:DUE. What can be sourced - has been sourced. I believe this to be consistent with Wikipedia's policy intentions and procedures. --Jobrot (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jobrot, thanks for such an extended and thoughtful reply. I hadn't understood how WP:FRINGE policy would allow us to discount the possibility that Marcuse actually made the alleged statement, without relying on OR, and I agree you're correct. I also agree you're correct that the video certainly has the effect of giving the casual viewer the impression that the quote is being attributed to Marcuse. And it worked: Hultberg picked it up, and from there it went all over the blog-o-sphere. I'm still troubled by Jaeger's formulation that the quote is from a Frankfurt School graduate "like" Herbert Marcuse, but maybe it doesn't help for Wiki to quote the specific weasel words out of context.

Anyhow I'm running out of policy-based reasons for objecting to your version of the text. I'll remember this example if I ever need to put together an argument based on primary sources and a video blog. Namaste :) JerryRussell (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but amid all the words above, as I noted originally when looking at the precise form of words here, we still have no reliable secondary source that states that there is a misattribution. There probably is, but we have no evidence of it above a claim in a Youtube posting and our own deductions. This is basic WP policy, and no amount of convoluted and to be frank specious reasoning, supposedly based on combining policies, can get round that. Also, the fact that there is no reliable secondary source here flags up the fact that this has not been thought a significant point by serious sources. We are also back at the old, and more fundamental, problem of WTF any of this right-wing conspiracy/made-up quote stuff has actually got to do with the Frankfurt School and why it needs to be laid out in such detail on the WP entry about them. N-HH talk/edits 07:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This section is about the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" otherwise known as "The Frankfurt School Conspiracy theory"; it's located on The Frankfurt School page - just as the Rothschild family conspiracy theories are located on the Rothschild family page. As I've stated to you many times now you're free to go make your case for a stand alone Cultural Marxism page in a draft or to the required admins or in a deletion review WP:DRV.

We're not trying to justify or substantiate the claims being made by James Jaeger or Pat Buchanan as primary sources. The sentence in question is merely a point of fact that the quote in the James Jaeger youtube film duplicates content authored by Pat Buchanan. How do we know it's authored by Pat Buchanan? It's in his book. What's the source for this knowledge? His name is on the cover; and it's widely understood to have been authored by him. What's more this sort of uncritical reproduction of content is the topic of the very next source; Chip Berlet. So the fact that these conservative sources duplicate each other is actually discussed openly in the very next paragraph of the section. --Jobrot (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any absolute prohibition on using primary sources at Wikipedia. What the relevant guideline says is WP:SCHOLARSHIP "When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves." So the question is, whether Jobrot's argument above amounts to an "interpretation", or whether it's a simple matter of reading the primary sources and extracting their contents. If there is no other reasonably possible interpretation, then we're not interpreting, right? With my various reformulations, I had been trying to bring our readers closer to the actual contents of the primary sources. But Jobrot's version is the clearest way to express what's going on.

The paragraph goes on to say "The intellectual historian Martin Jay commented on this phenomenon..." but in the quote that follows, it's not clear whether Martin Jay is commenting on the phenomenon of Jaeger misquoting Marcuse, or more generally on the phenomenon that Lind's entire theory about conspiracy was "regurgitated" by Jaeger and others. Then, the article tells us, Chip Berlet says the conspiracy theory was picked up by the Tea Party, American Thinker and World Net Daily. But does Berlet argue that Lind's theory is built around misquotations? Berlet's article is hidden behind a paywall, so I'm not able to evaluate what Berlet said. But if our article is implying that Jay and Berlet are building their arguments on misquotations similar to the one our video blogger detected for us, perhaps we're putting too much weight on that rather slim reed? JerryRussell (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Jerry, the current content is:

In 1999 Lind led the creation of an hour-long program entitled "Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School". Some of Lind's content went on to be reproduced by James Jaeger in his YouTube film "CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America" in which a quote from Pat Buchanan's The Death of the West is incorrectly attributed to Herbert Marcuse. The intellectual historian Martin Jay commented on this phenomenon saying that Lind's original documentary:

"... spawned a number of condensed textual versions, which were reproduced on a number of radical right-wing sites. These in turn led to a welter of new videos now available on YouTube, which feature an odd cast of pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same line. The message is numbingly simplistic: all the ills of modern American culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual liberation and gay rights to the decay of traditional education and even environmentalism are ultimately attributable to the insidious influence of the members of the Institute for Social Research who came to America in the 1930's."

References

Please identify exactly what you are objecting to here. I have been following this discussion and it appears you moving from one vague objection to another, which isn't productive. Again please identify exactly the content change you are seeking and the source for it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for your clarifying question. I believe we're discussing whether the information about the misquote should be included in the article. If the article content were to read: Some of Lind's content went on to be reproduced by James Jaeger in his YouTube film "CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America". The intellectual historian Martin Jay commented on this phenomenon saying that Lind's original documentary:... then the article continuity would be improved, as the sentence about Martin Jay would follow directly after the information provided about the Jaeger film.

References

JerryRussell (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. We have

• JAEG1 is a primary source showing how the conspiracy theory describes Cultural Marxism, attributing a statement to Marcuse. (btw a better text source is this and this (note in both documents there is no footnote citing a work by Marcuse)
• DTOW is a primary source showing where the quote actually came from
• JAEG2 is used to connect those two, but it is not a valid source - it is some SPS.

So right now we do have SYN; it is a nice catch by Jobrot but we cannot introduce OR in WP. We need a better source than JAEG2 that comes out and says it is misattributed. Hm. So this ref correctly attributes to Buchanan instead of Marcuse, as does this. But I looked hard and found nothing. This does need to come out and I did that here. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't want that change; I'm actually arguing AGAINST the change you just made (it's JerryRussell's "catch" if anyone's; and we were in the midst of agreeing to leave that section as is last time I checked).

I believe that the Berlet source is enough of a secondary source to say that YES; Jaeger's content DOES reproduce some of Lind's content (as part 1 of the statement in question). Chip Berlet as a secondary source DOES say that Lind's content was reproduced on a "welter of new videos now available on YouTube" - and it's not JUST that it's on youtube that makes it subject to this description from Berlet; it's the fact that Jaeger's film follows Lind's outline of the conspiracy theory (and recall here that Lind is one of the key progenitors of this version of the conspiracy theory). So we have Berlet as a secondary source; and Jaeger reproducing Lind's content on the same website as Berlet describes. I think that's enough for that part of the statement.

On the OTHER HALF of the statement - of whether James Jaeger is attributing a Pat Buchanan line to Marcuse - I'm arguing that it shouldn't need a secondary source as it's a basic point of fact. Buchanan's book came out 10 years before Jaeger's film; and in the quoted section Buchanan makes no attempt to claim he's quoting Marcuse; and in fact is giving all indications he's making his own interpretation of Critical Theory. I believe the fact that Buchanan is writing from his own perspective and own interpretation is pretty clear from the extended version of the quote:

"Using Critical Theory, for example, the cultural Marxist repeats and repeats the charge that the West is guilty of genocidal crimes against every civilization and culture it has encountered. Under Critical theory, one repeats and repeats that Western societies are history's greatest repositories of racism, sexism, nativism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism, fascism and Nazism. Under Critical Theory, the crimes of the West flow from the character of the West, as shaped by Christianity... Under the impact of Critical Theory, many of the sixties generation, the most privileged in history, convinced themselves that they were living in an intolerable hell."

So that's my argument for leaving that statement in (that it's a point of verifiable fact rather than WP:OR or WP:SYNTH). There is no evidence Marcuse said the quote (that claim is in fact the original research and it's on Jaeger's behalf); but obvious evidence that Buchanan did (and his source predates Jaeger) and obviously it goes without saying that a book from a reputable publisher (as Buchanan's is) would be above a self-published youtube film (as Jaeger's is) in terms of WP:RS reliability.

What I believe is going on here is some well-meaning wikilawyering - and specifically dot point number 2 from WP:WL

• "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles."

It is in Wikipedia's spirit to be skeptical; to view sources in the context of their authorship, intent and message and to publish the obvious facts of a matter - and I believe this falls into that category. There's no case for trusting some shotty youtube film with an over-acted phony 'evil' voice dubbed over it. It's obviously (when taken in context) an attempted hatchet job on a western Philosopher of note. Permitting it to stand without comment is against the spirit of Wikipedia; a site I believe is on the skeptical side; but most definitely on the side of western philosophical traditions and proper research.

Anyways; those are the facts of the matter as I see them; and I propose we revert the changes and make no more to this section until we can come to a consensus on the matter. --Jobrot (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know you were arguing to keep it. The content was WP:SYN and cannot stay. If you find a reliable source saying that the insane videos are misattributing the quote the content can come back in; you cannot add that on your authority. That is policy. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Jobrot I see you restored the content. Let's get others opinions about whether this particular thing is SYN or not before restoring it, OK? How about if we post at WP:ORN together? Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you're stating the need for a secondary source incorrectly; I believe those who are taking a shotty self-published youtube film at it's word - should be the ones who provide a secondary source CONFIRMING that it is in actual fact a Marcuse quote. Why do I believe the onus of evidence is on you? Because Marcuse is a well documented western author; and finding such a quote should be relatively easy (especially if a low-grade conspiracy theorist "documentary maker" managed it). This is my exact point; you are trying to follow the "letter of the law" in order to force Wikipedia to side with an incredibly low quality source - when you should be following the spirit of Wikipedia's policies. Trust the sources HIGHER on the sourcing scale; not those who are lower (which is what you're arguing for). --Jobrot (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll let you start the conversation over at WP:ORN (I trust you, don't worry), and I'll abide by any decision they come to. --Jobrot (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

If the statement was in the affirmative that a WP:FRINGE source is correct about a Marcuse quote - I'd agree with you; that would need a secondary source. But it's not; it's countering a WP:FRINGE source; it's stating a fact that James Jaeger is attributing a Pat Buchanan quote to Herbert Marcuse. That's a clear fact; has nothing to do with supporting a primary source - it is simply an observable fact. Hence my statement earlier:

How do we know it's authored by Pat Buchanan? It's in his book. What's the source for this knowledge? His name is on the cover; and it's widely understood to have been authored by him.

There's no need for unnecessary second-guessing; the WP:RS hierarchy is obvious. And it's obvious we're not trying to support a primary source. We're merely pointing to a source that contains the original quote by Pat Buchanan. --Jobrot (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

teeing up posting

OK, if you don't mind, can we tee this up so it is stronger before posting to ORN?

In 1999 Lind led the creation of an hour-long program entitled "Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School". Some of Lind's content went on to be reproduced by James Jaeger in his YouTube film "CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America" in which a quote from Pat Buchanan's The Death of the West is incorrectly attributed to Herbert Marcuse. The intellectual historian Martin Jay commented on this phenomenon saying that Lind's original documentary:

"... spawned a number of condensed textual versions, which were reproduced on a number of radical right-wing sites. These in turn led to a welter of new videos now available on YouTube, which feature an odd cast of pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same line. The message is numbingly simplistic: all the ills of modern American culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual liberation and gay rights to the decay of traditional education and even environmentalism are ultimately attributable to the insidious influence of the members of the Institute for Social Research who came to America in the 1930's."

References

If the argument is "sky it is blue, it is wrong" how about that for a ref, instead of the youtube video? Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

hang on a tick, just attempting a compromise before I read this. I'll respond momentarily. --Jobrot (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The line in question now ends "in which a quote from Pat Buchanan's The Death of the West is attributed to Herbert Marcuse." - and has Martin Jay (thought it was Berlet, but it's Jay) as the secondary source (for the fact that errant youtube videos have proliferated Lind's message).

My argument is simply that if we were supporting statements found in a WP:FRINGE source (such as Jaeger's video) then we'd need a secondary source; but as we're not - we're stating a WP:BLUESKY fact - then we don't need a secondary source (because the quote is found within Buchanan's text). --Jobrot (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The content still points out that the video is wrong; and that is still your very own discovery, that no one else in the world (except the person who posted the youtube video you cited) has noticed, as far as I have been able to find. This is the issue and what makes this WP:OR. Please let me know if the version above is OK to post at ORN, or if you would prefer the version in the article now, with the youtube video. (I suggest doing it as above, because in my view people will react very negatively to the youtube video and may react less negatively to the sourcing above.... but it is your call) Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

In that case; I'd prefer to see if I can cite RationalWiki; as it at least confirms the quote as being an original argument by Pat Buchanan (and could perhaps be seen as a secondary source). I'm just looking for the appropriate policy on citing another user-edited encyclopedia. Thanks giving me this time. --Jobrot (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Citing RationalWiki is a waste of everyone's time; it will get shot down in a heart beat. It is worse (if that is possible) than the youtube video. If you are going for SKYISBLUE then (in my view) it is best to do it as it is above, and tee it up so people can see the "blue sky" as clearly as possible. People get offended when you try to bullshit them.  :) Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll go with both; as is in the section currently - both youtube and rationalwiki. Just under the philosophy that overcitation is better than undercitation - I've even marked it as such (the section now has 3 overcitation tags that probably need to be addressed at somepoint). But yeah; I give you the go head to post the content on WP:ORN as it is currently (or some reasonable facsimile). Thanks for taking the effort to do this Jytdog! It's much appreciated regardless of the outcome. --Jobrot (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I do think the fact that we're talking about WP:FRINGE sources is an element of my argument. But I'm sure I can make my own comments if needed. --Jobrot (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious to see what people have to say at ORN, because I've tried to argue there's some other way to interpret the primary sources, and basically failed. But Martin Jay doesn't mention the misquote, so we can't hint that maybe he's a secondary source. Is there some way the misquote could be pulled out into its own separate paragraph?

You could even follow up with the further information that the exact misquote can then be traced to more right-wing blogs, where it is presented as factual Marcuse. Would that be more original research, or more straightforward extraction of data from original sources? JerryRussell (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly enough I also found a Berlet source that predates the Buchanan although the order of the concepts given is different (unlike the order of Buchanan and Jaeger which I believe fit exactly). Berlet has it like this all the way back in 1996 (predating Buchanan's 2001 publishing by 7 years, which predated Jaeger's 2011 film by 10 years). Anyways Berlet (arguing against the conspiracy) has it like this:

"All four of these hard right activist movements are antidemocratic in nature, promoting in various combinations and to varying degrees authoritarianism, xenophobia, conspiracy theories, nativism, racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism, demagoguery, and scapegoating. Each wing of the antidemocratic right has a slightly different vision of the ideal nation." SOURCE LINK

It's interesting how these things evolve. --Jobrot (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I get it that the misquote is important to you; it doesn't add a lot to the argument about how bullshitty all the conspiracy theorizing is.. this is kind of a distraction and the content still works really well without it. I have heard you talking about OVERCITE; if you want to take out the citations I added feel free. I will post the content currently in the article at ORN. I do it with a heavy heart. Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I just want to be super sure - this youtube citation - Jaeger, James. "Herbert Marcuse being fed a quote by Pat Buchanan". Youtube. Google. Retrieved 25 June 2016. - is really awful. But you want to go with that, right? Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty awful; but I think Jaeger's film is also pretty awful so I kind of see it as balancing the awful. --Jobrot (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, it is done. See Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Misattribution_of_a_quote Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for your efforts Jytdog. This even has me wondering whether I might be a bit too close to the topic. I'm sure WP:ORN will provide the clearest answers; and as mentioned earlier I'll defer to them and the consensus which emerges. I'm self-aware enough to know that I may be wrong! --Jobrot (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)