Talk:Frankfurt School conspiracy theory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

This article, while it lists numerous sources, is primarily distilled from two obscure essays. One is by Bill Berkowitz, and was originally published on the website of the advocacy group, the Southern Poverty Law Center. It is presently available only via the Wayback Machine website archive, and is probably not a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. The other is an article by Martin Jay in a college literary quarterly. The article topic is therefore probably not notable enough for its own article, and should be viewed as an undesirable POV fork from Frankfurt School. It is also written in a propagandistic fashion, mis-characterizing the essays that it is critiquing. 99.122.154.185 (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Martin Jay is probably the leading academic expert on the Frankfurt School, and his article is the primary source. Content sourced to Berkowitz, if the source is rejected, could be removed or replaced quite easily. Now "written in a propagandistic fashion" is I guess a matter of opinion, so never mind - but what do you mean by "mis-characterizing the essays that it is critiquing"? Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

If he is indeed the leading academic expert on the Frankfurt School, then shouldn't this material be in the article Frankfurt School? See WP:CONTENTFORK. The main "mis-characterizing" I see at first blush is the general insinuation in the lead paragraph that critiques of the Frankfurt School are motivated by antisemitism. If some are, according to reliable sources, the article ought to be very specific about which ones they are. I see that you removed the "which" tag on your sentence in the lead paragraph -- I'm going to restore it for that reason. Alternatively, that sentence should be removed, because it is irresponsible to make the insinuation. Accusations of antisemitism must be very carefully sourced. 99.122.154.185 (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I should add that calling anything a "conspiracy theory" is inherently propagandistic, intended to discredit the viewpoint in question. It would certainly be valid, in an article on criticism of the Frankfurt School, to say that critics of the critics have dismissed the particular criticism as a conspiracy theory, but using the present title for this article is using Wikipedia as advocacy for that point of view. Also, it should be obvious that there should not be an article on criticism of the Frankfurt School; instead, the material should be incorporated into the article on the Frankfurt School. 99.122.154.185 (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no "general insinuation", but a statement that "in some versions" it is associated with anti-semitism. That is precisely what Jay says. I take offence at being accused of mischaracterising sources. Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop this nonsense, please. This conspiracy theory is not criticism of the Frankfurt School's work; it is a fantasy which ascribes conspiratorial intent to a group of largely Jewish academics (along with conspiratorial success, in claiming the conspiracy succeeded in its aims). You might as well demand that the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion be merged into Judaism. Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is not "inherently propagandistic," this is a fringe theory and labeling it as a conspiracy theory means that it is labeled appropriately as such.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

now it qualifies under "fringe" because it does drastically deviate from the prevailing view of the Frankfurt school, additionally it has been called a conspiracy theory by reliable sources. It is in fact a conspiracy theory by the very definition of the word. Cheers! 05:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Coffeepusher, please don't delete tags from the article until there has been adequate discussion. When an article has been nominated for a POV check, that doesn't mean a POV check by you personally. The main problem with this article is not the title -- the main problem is that an essay by Martin Jay has been turned into its own Wikipedia article (see WP:SOAP.) I don't believe it is notable enough for its own article, although it does deserve a mention at Frankfurt School. 99.146.14.148 (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"that doesn't mean a POV check by you personally." - what does it mean then? (A check by you? A check by someone who agrees with you?) Fuzzy mongoose (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources

I have removed the material sourced to Chip Berlet's blog post. WP:BLPSPS states the following: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. The home page of "Talk to Action" [1] makes it clear that there is no "full editorial control," and that the site is essentially a discussion forum. There are other problematic sources in this article, including the Bill Berkowitz essay mentioned earlier in this discussion. 99.126.47.83 (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Definition

The Frankfurt School conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory postulating that the Frankfurt School of critical theorists which advanced a version of Marxism known as "Cultural Marxism" had an agenda of subverting traditional Western values.

Could the definition be more clear? Certainly it's accepted that the Frankfurt School advocated to change "Western culture" as they argued it has oppressive structures that can be changed with emancipation, thus it is the critical theory. How does that consitute the conspiracy theory? The conspiracy theories regarding this seem rather be about that "Cultural Marxism" is institutionalized (ie. Anders Behring Breivik style) and a wide range of people are supporting such an agenda. It doesn't have much to do with the Frankfurt School, so perhaps a more appropriate title would be Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.

Also since this article has been created mostly by removing the criticism section from cultural marxism and modifying it here, I'd be a bit more careful with such editorialism. Since this article now implies that William S. Lind for example would be a conspiracy theorist, is there are source saying so though? --Pudeo' 02:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

An additional problem is that the Schiller Institute essay, which is supposed to have initiated the conspiracy theory, never mentions the term "cultural Marxism," and seems to be more about the Frankfurt School promoting modernism in the arts. It seems that the only thing that the cited groups or authors really have in common is that they are critical, in one way or another, of the Frankfurt School's cultural activities, and/or "political correctness." 99.106.241.33 (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of sources in cited in the article, such as in the "White Nationalism" section, which appear to mention "Cultural Marxism" without mentioning the Frankfurt School. The problem is that sources which mention only the Frankfurt School are tossed in with other sources which mention only "cultural Marxism," and it appears that the article is trying to combine them in the grand style of conspiracy theories (or WP:SYN.) I would suggest that the article be at the very least re-titled. 99.122.155.176 (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"To change "Western culture" as they argued it has oppressive structures that can be changed with emancipation" "An agenda of subverting traditional Western values" I see the point that these could be understood as the same thing seen from a positive and a malicious perspective respectively. However it's very important to understand: the real philosophy and the conspiracy theory's fake philosophy contradict each other in clear ways, so it isn't just a question of liking and disliking the same ideas. The Frankfurt School is set against traditional culture as the classic Jewish octopus, but a critical perspective it's the MODERN culture, the culture industry, that draws the greatest ire of the Frankfurt School, because these scholars attempt to confront the conditions of the present time. In my opinion, this is quite clear from 'Enlightenment as Mass Deception'. The idea that these wicked Jews from Frankfurt wanted to dupe the masses by injecting propaganda into their entertainment commodities as per the conspiracy theory is the OPPOSITE of reality. Adorno was a fuddy-duddy who even thought protest songs cheapened protest. The point is to *not have* this deadening monster called an entertainment industry because that's a bad thing in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.95.121 (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that the premise of the article is flawed. If to be an advocate of the conspiracy theory you must assert that the Frankfurt School advocated "cultural Marxism," then a substantial number of the groups mentioned in the article must be excluded, because they are either critics of the School or of "cultural Marxism" but not of both. Joe Bodacious (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Cultural marxism is the theory advanced by the frankfurt school.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Chip Berlet's Opinion

"Berlet argues that the "Cultural Marxism" theory is a form of framing that helps "the power elites of organized wealth" to mobilise right-wing popular movements in the support of their interests:"

Isn't this itself a conspiracy theory? 82.71.30.178 (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A College Student

Hello. I attended a major university in the Northeast. I am going to be a junior now, these are recollections from my Freshman Year. There are certain 'radical' groups I had attended, mostly in an effort to find friends. I would fairly say that the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse is a precursor to such groups, as they constantly tell people to "check their privilege". Why Marcuse? Eros and Civilization. These people have no sense of monogamy, sexually "anything goes", and are taught to think they need to "fight the oppressor", actively encouraging shouting at a drawn image on a board, meetings that remind me of the Two Minutes Hate of 1984. All under the name of "social justice". Also, if one disagrees with anything they think, one is seen is ignorant and a betrayer of their own kind. Quite reminds me of Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance". Is this an inherent conspiracy on the part of the Frankfurt School? No. That's absurd. If this article is to be salvaged at all, I would place it under the Frankfurt School article, in a much more compressed version, about their influence within academia. (99% limited to students, however). Note: Most 'social justice' groups do not mention Marcuse, or the Frankfurt School at all. I do see a consistency however, the ideas must have come from somewhere. Thanks for reading 2601:C:2580:E3:ADF4:925C:60DD:87B0 (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that tie the Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory to influence in academia?Coffeepusher (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Reorganization

I reorganized the article, without removing any material. I think the biggest problem, with significant BLP ramifications, was that the lede (in particular) was structured in such a way as to conflate groups who talk about "Cultural Marxism" with those who do not, and what is more problematic, groups which have possible anti-Semitic overtones with those who do not. I separated the different varieties of groups into their respective sections, and I think it is important not to create any "guilt by association" by casually mixing them together. The one other change that I made was to attribute certain controversial allegations so that they are not presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Having done this, I removed the "editorial" tag which dates from last May, hoping that the problems are now resolved. Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

I added the NPOV template, because the article was written exactly be the people whose ideology is derived from teachings of the Frankfurt school. They also used only their own obscure and extremist sources, for example by the SPLC, which is an anti-white Jewish hate group.--Bakaso (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I am removing the NPOV tag because you are not proposing any actionable items. Where is the article lacking in "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic?" Simply stating that the article is written using reliable sources you don't like isn't enough, what sources need to be incorporated?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not that I don't like the sources, I don't like the authors who wrote them, because they're the ones who created this claim about a "conspiracy theory". This article is NPOV, because it doesn't say it was created by them and instead presents it as a real conspiracy theory, where most people agree on the fact that it's implausible. This is a clever ruse on the part of the neo-marxists and an attempt to deny the fact that their teachings indeed originate in the Frankfurt school.--Bakaso (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

please read wikipedia's sourcing policy, WP:FRINGE, and wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The tag is inappropriate, because you are not complaining that the sourcing is wrong, or proposing additional reliable sources. Not liking the page, or agreeing with the view is not enough on wikipedia, and the WP:NPOV tag is inappropriate if you aren't going to actually engage with the npov policy, which is directly about sourcing.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's about the way the sources are cited. The Wikipedians want to make people think that this is a fact, so they cite extremist literature without properly ascribing the sources to the authors. For example the one I corrected: nowhere did it say that Martin Jay is in fact a prominent neo-marxist and a critical theory expert. Wikipedia requires this, because else anyone could create a completely false article based on fringe extremist literature. So it's you who should read up about Wikipedia's sourcing policy and fringe sources.--Bakaso (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"so it's you who should read up about Wikipedia's sourcing policy and fringe sources" I've asked you a few times to cite the sources you have a problem with, so what are they?Coffeepusher (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

and you are correct that this is documenting a WP:FRINGE view, please read WP:NFRINGE and the article for deletion page for this article.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have a problem with almost every source in the article, because as I said, they're improperly cited. There should be such phrases like "according to proponents of this theory", "according to a neo-marxist professor X" etc.--Bakaso (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

they are cited according to the WP:MOS. Giving bibliographical information within the text of sourcing is not in accordance to wikipedia's policy, and you are only required to name the author of the reference if you are giving a full sentence quote, and no biblographical information is required. Additionally, according to reliable sources there exists a conspiracy theory that is documented in this paper. It hasn't been manufactured by anyone, it exists and is documented in reliable peer reviewed sources. Since your issue is that the citations do not have the bibliographical information of the source authors, and this is not in violation of wikipedia's manual of style or NPOV policy, I am removing the NPOV tag again unless you can give me a wikipedia policy that says the article is incorrectly cited.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Now we can continue discussing if more bibliographical information is appropriate, but that isn't a NPOV issue, so replacing the tag is inappropriate.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You're trying to pretend you don't understand my comments, but seeing you're a communist and a neo-marxist yourself, this tactic is perhaps understandable. WP:NPOV clearly says: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Which is what's happening in this article, the claims in the sources are passed off as facts.

"Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Additionally, WP:RS says that we should avoid questionable sources, which also includes extremist sources.--Bakaso (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What extremist sources are you referring to? Every source on this page passes WP:RS, is written in the voice of those sources, and fuflills weight.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

SPLC has been described by some as extremist. And it's written in the voice of the sources without stating so, which is the problem. For example the lead should read: Frankfurt School conspiracy theory is an alleged conspiracy theory, which according to some left-wing activists originated with a 1992 essay in a Lyndon LaRouche movement journal.--Bakaso (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

SPLC is a reliable source for wikipedia, and while "some" may consider it extremist, wikipedia considers it reliable. Do you have any sources within this text that would be considered unreliable and extremist by wikipedia's standards since that is what you need to prove to maintain the NPOV tag.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has been mentioned at WP:ANI#new user at Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, as well as the WP:RSN#Frankfurt School conspiracy theory "extremest sources".Coffeepusher (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Given the rather obvious lack of any widespread acceptance of the idea that this is an NPOV issue, I removed the template. WP:BRD applied. The "D" part has conspicuously failed to support the "B" part, so the "R" part wins... Guy (Help!) 22:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources

I've added the primary sources tag; this article needs to be much better sourced. Wikpedia discourages the use of primary sources (WP:PRIMARY.) The present sources fall into two categories: opinion pieces by Jay and Berkowitz, and primary source material from the alleged conspiracy theorists, used to illustrate their views. Just to be clear, Salmagundi is not a peer-reviewed academic journal. According to its website, it "routinely publishes essays, reviews, interviews, fiction, poetry, regular columns, polemics, debates and symposia." The Southern Poverty Law Center is an advocacy group. Neither is a disinterested source. Secondary sources would be very helpful in improving this article. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean they aren't a disinterest source? Interesting. It would be more interesting however if that was remotely relevent. WP:BIASED Is an interesting read.

While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..."Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

Your position here though remains unclear. Are you saying that because these two published with either Salmagundi or SPLC they are Primary sources? Your position on Salmagundi is highly suspect. However even if we were to follow that position it's a moot point as Salmagundi is a well regarded academic press. I mention that because it seems you talking on the basis of policy on Scholarship. The thing that really throws me off is that you would speak out on the SPLC and a university press but some of the other sources such as Michael Minnicino doesn't even come to your mind.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you following me around from article to article now? The reason that the other primary sources are not being discussed here is that they are being used only to illustrate the "conspiracy theory," which is an accepted use of primary sources. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes I'm following around or I'm reading articles with ties to LaRouche. Take your pick. I have to note here your insistence on focusing on the last of my comments and missing out where suggest that your argument is bogus. Jay work seems oddly like a secondary source and it is published by a reputable academic press. You could make the argument as you have that it is biased but that doesn't actually violate any wikipedia policy. As far as any thing else goes you haven't actually offered any actual policy argument of why any other supposed primary sources shouldn't be used.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

DELETION OR THEN MERGER

REASONS FOR DELETION ARE NUMEROUS AND VERY CONCRETE

WP:NPOV neutral point of view!

WP:OR -The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist

WP:V - means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

WP:FRINGE -A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article

WP:NOTOPINION -Opinion pieces, although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes".

WP:YESPOV -Avoid stating opinions as facts

WP:WEIGHT -Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

Further Commentary

WP:NOPAGE -notability is a very serious question here and the weak and non-scholarly material does not amount to a stand alone article. The article is a combination of some critic/red flagging of the criticism of the Frankfurt School theories labelled here as "Conspiracy Theory". Yes it can entertained that some claims & rumours are discussed on minor internet sites that amount to "Conspiracy talk", but it is no reason for a Wikipedia entry or let alone a stand alone Wikipedia article.

There must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability NRV. Usersame (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There was a nomination for deletion made one year ago, which narrowly failed after almost no discussion. You can view it here. You can appeal that decision on this page. I'd recommend that you study carefully how the process works before launching an appeal. If you do launch an appeal, please post a notice on this talk page. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It is labeled as a conspiracy theory because it is a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation. I'm sorry that you and other have attached a derogatory meaning to the phrase but there is actually np politically correct term to placate you with. Considering however the content of the article it is rather Ironic the need for a political correct term. As far as any other part of your argument Usersame, it kind of lacks the whole argument. It's NPOV? Which part? WP:NOTOPINION relates to editors and not sources. There is absolutely no policy that a source should be objective. WP:BIASED actually makes it clear that biased sources are perfectly acceptable. There are sources. You make no claim on which are unreliable. I would continue further but there is no real point. You make claims and you give little basis for them. I'm not sure anyone will delete this on a general Wikipedia:I just don't like it will work in an articles for deletion argument.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho wrote: There is absolutely no policy that a source should be objective. As written before: The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability NRV. I Think it is totally encyclopaedic that this odds and ends text is here and under this label. It has some bits that could be salvaged through a merger, but as it stands it's a bit too much! The partial weakness of Wikipedia is that fringe and non-notable texts slip trough because nobody was really there and a small unsubstantial group just happened to vote it through just so it could survive another day. Usersame (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. After the first half of your argument proved bunk I just skimmed thru the rest. I thought you were making the claim the sources had to be objective. When you say, "I Think it is totally encyclopaedic that this odds and ends text is here and under this label." Do you mean the "Political correctness"" and "Cultural Marxism" have been spliced together thru wikipedia editors original research? You have alot of holes in your argument that you need to feel in. You are claiming there is no signifigant coverage and yet there in sources is coverage by notable individuals both opponent and proponent. Your allegation that they just happened to vote it thru is abit spurious. They even relisted to attempt to get further comment. If you decide to reopen this you are going to have to have somethingelse to say besides I don't like it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Not question of liking or not! Substandard is not like or not, it's just lacking.

And it’s not the subject if you are trying to hint at something. For an encyclopaedic writer or a Self-respecting Wikipedian it’s just very obvious. I am sorry that you did not bother to read my input before accusing me and pointing the finger. It was more than anything else written as a legal text which is also bit of a clue to what I do. I just don’t see anywhere the “I don’t like” you accuse me of. I am boringly straightforward with the WP breaches and the lack of characteristics that define a separate WP article. Perhaps you simply detected my straightforwardness which you felt was bit cold and thorough. I am sorry if I seemed a bit harsh.

The list of sources shows everything! This article on Wikipedia is simply an expansion pn Martin Jay’s political piece on alleged fringe elements that he perceives are doing/believing maybe something. Odds and ends are pasted on to corroborate that it is actually something and look hey somebody said something and so it is established fact that this exists and has “importance” and “noticeability”. - Undue weight to a Odds and ends text should not given to article that lacks so many of basic Wikipedia standards. Don't build the Frankenstein!

WP:COAT is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there.

WP:RS not using a reliable source, by omitting information that would show unreliability.

Consideration must be given to size, notability and potential neutrality issues. This article is a snippet which has been blown out of proportions.Usersame (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. A matter of fact the subject does not at all interest me. Far from it. I just have a nose for things that have so big holes they are clearly unseaworthy! I have no holes to fill; it's the text which is hollow. At first glance I understood that this odds and end text had slipped through and survived as a anomalous independent wikipedia article. I think it is our duty to keep Wikipedia going by adhering to good quality standards. Let's not sink the fleet because of one dinghy gone astray. Mit herzlichen Dank und Freundlichen grüßen. Usersame (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Straight forawrdness? No just all the holes in your initial argument. If it where cold, thorough, or even comprehensible I would have not had much to say. As for wikipedia standards, Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein and WP:COAT are essays not guidlines or policies. They may be standards but not wikipedia standards per se, as they are only the viewpoints of some wikipedians. You can apply these arguments but you to actual apply them to the debate here and not just throw them out as generalizations.

For example you keep talking about the need for reliable sources. Ok so which sources here are unreliable? Martin Jay PHD's source is provided in an academic journal. So which sources are unreliable why? Can you be straightforward about this?

Consideration must be given to size, notability and potential neutrality issues? Ok do you have a wikipedia policy or guideline standpoint that this is not of the proper size, notability, or neutrality? That would be a really good starting place. "I think there for I am" doesn't generally work out. You can't speak things into being. You can say this article isn't neutral but that doesn't make it so. You mention orginal research. While I can obviously reason that it is somewhere in the article that you are talking about, It's not clear. This article is not a solitary paragraph. It's not notable? Ok why? Your argument has to many holes in it. This borders on shotgun argumentation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the AfD nomonation has not been created in five days, I am removing the template from the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

What is this article even about?

This was raised above but apparently didn't lead anywhere.

The first sentence: "The Frankfurt School conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory postulating that the Frankfurt School of critical theorists had an agenda of subverting traditional Western values through interventions into culture."

Ah. Where is the conspiracy theory? Academics -- critical theorists no less -- trying to subvert tradition? That's what critical theorists do, more or less (it's the "critical" part). Is the conspiracy theory part really just the crazier allegations or the tone of the allegations? Should we have a Post-structuralism conspiracy theory article because Mike Huckabee, et al. think professors who say "gender is a construct" are trying to turn American kids into godless liberal homosexuals?

What am I missing? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  02:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If there is significant coverage from reliable sources that argue that Huckabee is part of a larger Conspiracy theory, then yes, you can write the Post-structuralism conspiracy theory article. The point of this article is that there is a sustained narrative which states that the Frankfurt school scholars engaged in a conspiracy to subvert culture which is a very different narrative from the commonly accepted history.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to improve the lead to explain that (i.e. the difference between the conspiracy narrative and what it is commonly accepted they were trying to do)? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Rhododendrites is making a good point. I don't think there is much disagreement from any side that the Frankfurt School was trying to initiate some sort of social change. It looks to me like the supporters of the FS are simply using the tactic of branding criticism of the FS as a "conspiracy theory" (which everyone knows is bad) in order to discredit criticism. Joe Bodacious (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen any reliable sources which argue that the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory, but I have seen many reliable sources that identify the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, and also seen many right wing publications and articles which fit the conspiracy theory narrative. The bottom line is that this article documents a fringe view of the Frankfurt School. If you have any reliable sources documenting the conspiracy theory of the conspiracy theory I would like to see them.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so could you summarize the fringe view (i.e. where their "actual" sociopolitical agenda stops and their conspiracy theorist-alleged agendas begin)? I think a summary (preferably in the lead) would clarify things a lot. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added the general characteristics of the conspiracy theory to the lede.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted that edit, for two reasons. First, there apparently many varieties of the theory, and they don't all share the characteristics that you listed. This was the problem with article that I saw last year -- it is incorrect to suggest that all versions of the theory are anti-Semitic, homophobic, etc. The second reason I reverted your change is that it does not address the problem raised by Rhododentrites, which is that we need to differentiate the "mainstream" view of the the Frankfurt School from the "conspiracy theory" view. The "conspiracy" view is adequately summarized by saying that the FS "had an agenda of subverting traditional Western values through interventions into culture" -- that much seems to be shared by all the different versions of the theory. What we need is a short statement, summarizing what supporters of the FS say it is doing. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources which discuss the conspiracy theory state that

"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."(Jay)

"Lind's theory was one that has been pushed since the mid-1990s by the Free Congress Foundation — the idea that a small group of German philosophers, known as the Frankfurt School, had devised a cultural form of 'Marxism' that was aimed at subverting Western civilization. The method, he said, involved manipulating the culture into supporting homosexuality, sex education, egalitarianism, and the like, to the point that traditional institutions and culture are ultimately wrecked.'Their whole plan,' he said, 'is the destruction of Western culture.'"(SPLC)

"The theory holds that these self-interested Jews — the so-called "Frankfurt School" of philosophers — planned to try to convince mainstream Americans that white ethnic pride is bad, that sexual liberation is good, and that supposedly traditional American values — Christianity, "family values," and so on — are reactionary and bigoted. With their core values thus subverted, the theory goes, Americans would be quick to sign on to the ideas of the far left." (Berkowitz)

So according to the reliable sources,"The conspiracy theory argues that the rise of certain cultural changes that the critics consider the 'ills of American culture,' things like acceptance of homosexuality, egalitarianism, environmentalism, sex education, feminism, and the decline of Christianity are attributable to the direct manipulation of society by members of the Frankfurt school." (my edit) It is one of the main characteristics which separates mainstream criticism of the school from the conspiracy theory. Each of the reliable sources points to using the Frankfurt school as either a subtext or overt statement for anti-Semitic conspiracies. How would you like to modify this text to summarize the reliable sources statement about the Frankfurt School Conspiracy theory?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Coffeepusher, please take a moment to re-read the post to which you are replying. The quotes you are citing describe particular variants of the "theory" (I'm not sure it's really appropriate to speak of "theory" in singular, since there appear to be a variety of theories that may not have much in common.) This is handled appropriately in the body of the article. What is needed in the lede is a short statement of what supporters of the Frankfurt School say it is doing, in contrast to what the critics/conspiracy theorists say. It looks to me like all parties agree that the School was trying to initiate social change, using culture. Apparently some people think the change is good, others think it is bad. We need to explain this to the reader -- that's what I understand from what Rhododendrites was saying (he can correct me if I'm wrong.) Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Joe, I did read what I was replying to. Those elements are what the reliable sources say are the commonalities of the conspiracy theory. The thing that makes it a conspiracy theory is the fact that they argue that the Frankfurt School had a unified agenda and goals (they didn't, in fact the group of scholars who came over during WWII weren't referred to as "the Frankfurt School" in the singular until Martin Jay talked about it in the Dialectic Imagination, and were characterized by more in group fighting, ego's and bickering than a tea party meeting). So it isn't a matter of "some people think it was good, others think it was bad" but that the "social critique" set forth by the Frankfurt School wasn't a unified program of social change which became the foundation for political correctness and a subversion of western culture. That is the difference between the two. I have reliable sources to back all this up.

So if you would like, I can put down "the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory proposes that members of the Frankfurt School set forth a unified agenda of social change, identified as cultural Marxism, that is the foundation of political correctness. This conspiracy theory uses an alternative history from the scholarly understanding of the Frankfurt School which argues that while members of the Frankfurt School did individually engage in social critique, they never developed any unified theory or collective political agenda in the United States." Coffeepusher (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think we're making some progress. I would skip the part about cultural Marxism because not all versions of the theory use that. Let me suggest the following, the replace the first sentence of the lede:

The Frankfurt School conspiracy theory postulates that the Frankfurt School of critical theorists had an agenda of subverting traditional Western values through interventions into culture, leading to what is called political correctness. This represents an alternative history from the scholarly understanding of the Frankfurt School, which argues that while members of the Frankfurt School did individually engage in social critique, they never developed any unified theory or collective political agenda in the United States. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Separating Fact from Fiction

The distinction made between the "scholarly understanding" and the "conspiracy theory" is still inaccurate.

The Frankfurt School did have a "unified theory" and a "collective political agenda." They all belonged to an institute whose central theory was Critical Theory, and whose agenda was to initiate political change through a new kind of Marxism that mixed in Freudianism and culture studies. And there's no doubt that they "played a role in shaping the 1960's counterculture." That's not a conspiracy theory. It's the mainstream scholarly understanding.

The only versions of the narrative that could be considered conspiracy theories are the ones that

• claim the Frankfurt School invented political correctness at Columbia University in the 30s in a plot to destroy the American way of life (the religious right/conservative view)

• accuse the Frankfurt School of being evil Jews plotting to corrupt white gentiles and exterminate them through immigration (the white nationalist/anti-Semitic view)

The first one is debatably just an overly simplistic partisan attack rather than a true conspiracy theory, and the second one is pretty standard neo-Nazi rhetoric that's not really specific to the Frankfurt School. So like others here, I question the entire premise of this article and whether it should even exist. But if it does remain, there needs to be a clearer distinction between what's historically true and what's fabricated, and between legitimate criticism, biased attacks and conspiracy theories. 2A02:2770:0:0:21A:4AFF:FE2C:4029 (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

~~

From what I can tell, it's seen as a conspiracy that the authors of Frankfurt School Marxism formulated theories and conceptual ideas that, if applied, could directly undermine traditional American ideals. Isn't the entire point of cultural critiques and alternative ideas and solutions to challenge, undermine, or remove traditional ideals and replace them with new ones?

One of the fundamental basics in Marxism is class struggle. Wouldn't this "conspiracy theory" of Cultural Marxism fit that? By eroding or self-censoring (political correctness) the traditional values of a society (such as the USA) or the ability to discuss ideas that are obstructive to the Marxist neccesity for the working class to begin seizing the means of production. In order to destroy the class system, one must first remove or censor the institutions that enforce it. The Church is an ancient example of a natural order, and is a reason why post-Karl Marxist theorists argued that religion was an "opiate of the masses" that must be Purged.

Different Marxists argued different ways to remove the enforcers of class systems. Trotsky argued for violent overthrowal, but the Frankfurts argued for (peacefully delivered) media propaganda and pyshcological manipulation of ignorant people into supporting their ideals.

It seems that Cultural Marxism, in essence, is the peacible promotion of Marxism through psychological application of mass media and manipulation of societal norms and taboos. Basically, by making things antithetical to the Marxist goal a taboo or forcing them underground (such as removing challenges to a given movement because "it might offend someone"), it slowly makes the ideas espoused in Marxist thought more palleable. It's not instant.

It is not a stretch to say the creators of the Frankfurt School of Marxism sought to destroy traditional values and religion. It is not a conspiracy because Marxism literally requires such fundamental change to end classism, so anyone desiring to implement any Marxist ideology must start to destroy the old order, by blood or ballot. That includes American values and that includes Christianity.

After the Russian Revolution, the USSR was greatly active in trying to turn America red. This is proven. Joseph McCarthy was not wrong; he was simply decades ahead of his time.

--99.104.188.245 (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Frankfurt School never wanted to "psychologically apply" Marxism. What the Frankfurt School did was examine how the culture industry is controlled by the ruling capitalist class, and used to subvert genuine cultural expression and entrench capitalist ideals. The point is to reveal the man on the other side of the picture screen for what he is. Please stop with your WP:OR bunk. RGloucester — ☎ 04:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

IP, you are asking why it is considered a conspiracy theory to claim without evidence that the Frankfurt School had a secret agenda to lead a conspiracy to overthrow the American way of life. TFD (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

1984

Ok, so now there is not a Marxist applied to all Culture "Cultural Marxism" proposed by Frankfurt School. I should burn some sociology books, they where conspiracy.

(I really do not know if you guys are trying to rewrite history, mock critics of applying marxism to analyze the whole society, or simply reframing the term to a more convenient one. But this one is backfiring you, it is too evident the manipulation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.155.244.175 (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Dworkin's book

https://www.dukeupress.edu/Cultural-Marxism-in-Postwar-Britain/index-viewby=author&lastname=Fish&firstname=Stanley&middlename=&sort=newest.html

"Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies" by Dennis Dworkin. We don't need more proofs, a lot of books and webs says about "Cultural Marxism". This page are an attempt of rewrite history. Does someone have the previous version, before the change? Mirai19 (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I debunked that article at the other page. That book is using the word in a niche way. It does not even include the Frankfurt School, or Gramisci, as being part of "Cultural Marxism", and does not support the previous article's existence. Pulling out books without reading them is not likely to get you far. RGloucester — ☎ 13:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice censorship by redirecting Wikipedia's "Cultural Marxism article" to this page

Also, great job tossing anti-Semitism and white supremacy in this article to make it seem like only crazy traditionalists, conservatives and other bigots would ever make claims using this term. Absolutely no bias in the slightest

I'm ashamed of what Wikipedia is becoming. Preceding unsigned comment added by David F. Bright (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This page needs a lot of work

This page right now really reads like a rant against this fringe theory (I'm not sure if it actually qualifies as a "conspiracy theory" proper, but I'm still kind of vague on what it means), without ever really bothering to properly explain what it is or what the point of view of those who are proponents for it are talking about. Remember, Wikipedia is WP:IMPARTIAL and has a WP:NPOV; we should be able to explain what people we disagree with are talking about without ranting about it. The page, as it is, doesn't do a very good job of presenting what "Cultural Marxism" is according to its proponents. We should be able to do this, yes? Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this article is terrible. It should be removed, reverted to the cultural marxism article or completely rewritten. Diyoev (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and I'm trying to stay away from WP:Battlegrounds, but strictly from a content perspective I agree this article needs some work. At the very least, there needs to be a clear statement of what on Earth we're talking about, especially now that this article has been merged with 'Cultural Marxism'. I'd imagine my university professors in English and Literature would be rather displeased to learn that they are advocating for a right-wing conspiracy theory, but that's the impression this article gives. To be clear: about half of my English professors, at a well-reputed four-year university in the United States, clearly and openly advocated for viewing classical and modern literature through an essentially Marxist lens, though one divorced from Marxian economics. I'd have a hard time arguing that their beliefs could be classified as anything other than Cultural Marxist, so I'm inclined to disagree that it's a conspiracy theory that such people exist. Now, I don't doubt there is a conspiracy theory that such people are united in a grand and secret alliance to kill Santa Claus or whatever, but that's as different as chalk and cheese. We need to establish a distinction between the facts on the ground, and the right-wing conspiracy theory about those facts - just as the article on the Bilderberg Group recognizes that the group exists, and separately that there are conspiracy theories about that group's secret plans to establish a one-world government.

I haven't yet done the heavy-lifting of identifying the Reliable Sources, but I'd tentatively state that these are the pertinent facts to flesh out a 'Background' section: European intellectuals emigrated to America during and after WWII, bringing with them various schools of thought regarding philosophy and literature (though I'm not sure whether these schools overlap entirely with the Frankfurt School). These schools of thought were informed by continental European culture, including Hegelianism and its philosophical offshoot Marxism, and in some cases were inimical to contemporary American culture. Like anyone ever, these intellectuals wanted their ideas to spread, and because they were basically the academic equivalent of the Beatles at a time when America was just started to flex its international muscles, these intellectuals were embraced by American academia and enjoyed an outsized influence on the American academic culture ever since. It's not much a stretch to say that this academic influence has also affected American popular culture. To what extent, is entirely up for debate. It should be easy, however, to see what aspect of this is a conspiracy theory, which is the notion that this whole sequence of events was orchestrated by the Frankfurt School to infiltrate the American university and undermine public morals. But Occam's Razor should allow us to distinguish that conspiracy theory from the fact that 'cultural Marxists' exist, that they sought to influence academia, and that at least in certain disciplines they largely succeeded. PublicolaMinor (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-related point: given that Marx's great innovation was combining the Hegelian dialectic to a general theory of materialism or economic determinism (hence Dialectical materialism), and given that 'Cultural Marxism' as defined tends to shy away from the economic side of Marxist thought, then yes, it is absolutely true that a better term for it would be 'Cultural Hegelianism' or something similar. However, at this point we've returned to the issue of WP:Commonname, referenced above. PublicolaMinor (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Marxism has never been separate from culture. Marx's first works dealt with culture. Your definition of a "cultural Marxist" is based in "original research". People may work in Marxist critical theory, they may analyse culture with a Marxist lens, but that doesn't make them part of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism". None of the theorists that article referenced called themselves "cultural Marxists", nor do scholarly works call them "cultural Marxists". They were just-plain Marxists, perhaps Western Marxists. "Cultural Marxism" refers to one thing, which is a conspiracy theory created in the 1980s by right-wing Americans that posits that "political correctness" and "multiculturalism", usually associated with American liberals, are a form of "Marxism". Of course, we know this is not the case. Marxism does not support multiculturalism, it does not support liberalism, and it does not support "political correctness". These pundits retroactively applied this label to a broad swathe of theorists who had never been classified that way before. Yes, Marxist critical theory is sometimes called "cultural Marxism" with a lowercase "c". This usage, however, is rare, and is descriptive, not a proper noun for a school of thought. Those ideas have their own articles, such as Cultural Studies and Western Marxism. The primary topic for the phrase "Cultural Marxism" is this political conspiracy theory, one must merely use Google to find out that this is the case. Given this, we must not have multiple articles on the subject, and we must use a WP:NDESC title to avoid legitimising the conspiracy. The prior page was being used as a soapbox for advocacy by people who advocate this theory, used to try and make people think that "Cultural Marxism" was a real theory. It misused sources, or was largely unsourced. Mostly, it contradicted the sources, or used sources that did not even mention "cultural Marxism". What's more, it mostly duplicated this article. As such, we only need one article on the subject, that is, on the conspiracy theory. We don't need WP:POV forks. Other forms have their own articles already, and a hatnote is provided to direct people to Cultural studies. RGloucester — ☎ 13:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but could you give reliable sources about the distinction between "Cultural Marxism" and "cultural Marxism"? I've never heard about the lowercase or uppercase 'c' making a difference here. If this distinction isn't made in reliable sources, isn't making it at Wikipedia an instance of original research? DracoDruida (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

As a proper noun, "Cultural Marxism" implies a coherent school of thought. This does not exist, and reliable sources do not support its existence. "cultural Marxism" is not a proper noun, but a descriptive phrase. It does not imply a coherent school of thought, but merely the many parts of Marxism that have to do with culture. We have articles on this stuff already, which is very rarely called "cultural Marxism" anyway. RGloucester — ☎ 17:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Other references about "Cultural Marxism"

This isn't a forum. This isn't a place where we can write our opinions or desires. Only facts, please. The "Encyclopaedia Brittanica" have a entrance for "Frankfurt School":

Frankfurt School, group of researchers associated with the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt am Main, Ger., who applied Marxism to a radical interdisciplinary social theory.

Or here, we can find this:

The Frankfurt School (German: Frankfurter Schule) is a school of neo-Marxist interdisciplinary social theory[1] associated in part with the Institute for Social Research at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany. Mirai19 (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

We already have an article on the Frankfurt School. You'll find it at this page. This article isn't about the Frankfurt School, but about the conspiracy theory. RGloucester — ☎ 17:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

References

It isn't a theory if it's a fact. 89.72.225.87 (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If you believe it is a fact then you are confusing the issue of what's happening in real life (the reality) and the school of sociological analysis that's attempting to explain it (the theory, based on a school of philosophy). It's a fact that Frankfurt school analyses situations in a particular way, but if you think that people who seem to espouse 'Cultural Marxist' beliefs or opinions are all such philosophers, you're akin to the person who throws themselves down stairs and blames 'physical Newtonians' for the subsequent gravity-related pain. Tesseraction (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What is happening? Blatant propaganda.

What was once an article on an offshoot of Critical Theory has been scrubbed from Wikipedia and, in an example of blatant bias, labelled a 'right-wing conspiracy theory'. This was an article with academic and journalistic sources. Anti-semitism and white-supremacy have now been shoehorned into the article, as if the religious background of the scholars who developed these theories is somehow attacked by any notion that Cultural Marxism - the idea that culture is central to oppression and inequality - is a real school of thought.

Let us not ignore the Elephant In The Room here. We all know why this article has been suddenly obliterated; Gamergate. A dispute literally dubbed by many on both sides to be a 'culture war', because that is exactly what is.

Given that some of the main proponents of the redirect seem to be engaging in tendentious editing for the Russian side of the Ukraine crisis, they may actually be going to bat for the good name of Marxism. Rhoark (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The article, as it stands now, is in blatant violation of NPOV, written from the ground up, line by line, to dismiss any notion of Cultural Marxism being a real concept, despite the fact that it is referred to everywhere, across Wikipedia and beyond, in all but name.--174.59.252.243 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

As I say below, the problem with your suggestion is not that 'Cultural Marxism' (also known as 'sociology' - a specific branch of it, as in) does not exist as a concept, it's that you're confusing a sociological analysis with the principles of a civil movement. You're putting the cart before the horse - the movement exists regardless of how it's analysed by academics. The Frankfurt School analyses it in a specific way. The concept of such analysis exists, but the problem with the issue, and why it becomes a conspiracy theory, is the treatment of such a school of analytical thought as an astroturf movement driven by overly-bearded German speakers to make society <x y and z go here>. There is definitely a new left-wing movement that came to prominence since the internet really came into its own, but acting like this is uniquely the fault of a particular school of philosophy is the definition of conspiracy theory, and given that the evidence mostly relies on 'black people complain about racism' and 'women complain about sexism' it's not exactly evidence of a great conspiracy so much as... people complaining about their lot in life, perhaps fairly. Tesseraction (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Restored old version for a week or so

First a quote from Talk:Cultural_Marxism:

I have restored the version before the highly controversial redirect with this comment: "Restoring older version in order to facilitate orderly discussion with broader community - please do not revert without consensus - 7 days is not too long to discuss this with a wider group." I have no strong opinion on whether the merger should happen or not, but given the level of outrage that this has generated, a wider discussion is warranted. Please everyone stick strictly to the question of whether there are valid sources prior to "Cultural Marxism" recently becoming a meme identifying this as a scholarly concept. Anything else is basically irrelevant. If this is a recent invention of "conspiracy theorists" then the redirect should stand. If there is an older tradition of the concept of "cultural marxism" then this article should be about that. Another option is to have two articles: 'Cultural Marxism (academic school of thought)' and 'Cultural Marxism (meme)' - or something like that. Please discuss in a civil manner.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd ask that we continue further discussion over there rather than there, just to make sure we have a streamlined process. We should also notify all relevant Wikiprojects and so on.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Why does Cultural Marxism redirect to here

Culturual Marxism is an actual school of thought, it's not a conspiracy theorist term so it should have its own article like it used to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.30.61 (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a conspiracy theory term. No such school exists, and the Frankfurt School has nothing to do with enforcing "political correctness". RGloucester — ☎ 22:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a term that is commonly used to describe studies of culture from a Marxist point of view, there's nothing weird about it. Philpapers (the reference for philosophy publication) use it in their definition of Socialism and Marxism: "Marxism, however, also refers to a systematic, dialectical, and historical analysis of capitalism; a reflexive form of critical social theory with an emancipatory intent; a historical materialist methodology; theories of class formation, conflict, and ideology; as well as to critiques of alienation, reification, and commodity fetishism. There are now several different schools of Marxist thought, from Humanist, Structuralist, and Autonomist Marxism, to Analytical, Feminist, and Cultural Marxism, among others." http://philpapers.org/browse/socialism-and-marxism The original article was fine (although it could certainly be expanded) but the merge is certainly not justified. --Jbieler (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Just report RGloucester, he has broken the rules by the massive editing he's done, it's filled with blatant lies and doesn't refer to any reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.190.170 (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If you take a look at the original article to Cultural Marxism, the talk page clearly shows this is not the first time he has attempted erroneous edits in favor of his own political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.73.58.22 (talk)

Agree with RGloucester. TFD (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with him on what? This is blatantly against the rules of wikipedia, you can't just claim something is a conspiracy theory and then remove an entire article based on the accusation of a single person, that's absolutely ridicilous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.190.170 (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In order to have an article we need to identify literature about it in order to establish its notability. The definition for "Cultural Marxism" was sourced to José Guilherme Merquior's 1986 book. Western Marxism. No page number is given and I cannot find where he supposedly defines the term. Hate Crimes provides an explanation on page 118 that the term is used by extremists to describe a theory about the Frankfurt School.[2] I did find a source that said the term has been used to refer to a change in emphasis by Left parties from economics to issues which are called cultural in Europe and social in the U.S. (The Strange Death of Marxism: The European Left in the New Millennium, p. 124)[3] Do you have a definition that you think justifies an article? TFD (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Major notability issue that this article even should exist much less be the target of that kind of redirect. Wikidgood (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If this article is going to go, then "Cultural Marxism" needs to accompany it into the rubbish bin. RGloucester — ☎ 00:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein may be an essay and not a policy, but it certainly describes this article to a "T". 71.95.204.9 (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. Someone just poked me about this article. It appears that "Cultural Marxism" is by far the WP:COMMONNAME: we're talking more than an order of magnitude more hits. It also does not appear to have had any clear consensus on the merge; indeed, several of the folks for the merge claimed that it was not notable, despite folks finding 1700 papers on Google Scholar which use the term. These articles could clearly use some love, but the term "Cultural Marxism" clearly seems to be the more prevalent of the two, so regardless, it should be under that name per general Wikipedia policy. We report on conspiracy theories and schools of thought all the time, and while it appears that the folks who use the term "Cultural Marxism" are primarily enemies of whatever Cultural Marxism is it probably should be under the name which is actually used. I don't think the term "Cultural Marxism" is unduly prejudicial as an article name. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Link, please. I'd be interested to see your search terms and the actual content of the yields. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Google. "Cultural Marxism" -Wikipedia yields 267k hits; "Frankfurt School conspiracy" -wikipedia yields 5.7k, while "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" -Wikipedia yields 10.5k. Not even close. Whatever it is, its primary name is Cultural Marxism. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No, Google results are not what I asked for. You cited Google Scholar: I am asking for a link to this citation which includes the search terms you used, the calibre of the scholarly articles, as well as confirmation that they actually use the term 'Cultural Marxism' and not, oh, let's say 'cultural studies', etc. Your search link, please. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Here i'll grab some Google Scholar results for you, using "" allows you to only see results with that specific wording so i'll be able to avoid your issue.

    - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Cultural+Marxism%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C50&as_sdtp= - 1,750 Results  
    - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Frankfurt+School+conspiracy+theory%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C50 - 0 Results
    - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Frankfurt+School+conspiracy%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C50 - 11 Results 

https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2466433?hl=en - These modifiers can be utilized with Scholar as well as normal search results, "" as a syntax ignores capitalization so "Cultural Marxism" And "cultural Marxism" should display the same results Finbee (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Good to MEAT you. Riddle me this: how many socks does it take to prove that you don't know your Critical Theory and Cultural Studies from your conspiracy theories? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of the term "conspiracy theory"

I believe certain assumptions of Cultural Marxism to be wrong and do not support this concept, however: it certainly is a concept and we clearly know what is meant by it, similar to "decadence" - whether you believe in it or not. The term "conspiracy theory" is charged with a wide array of connotations, many of which are not linked with the concept of Cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism can be defined by a set of certain specific beliefs about society, and therefore constitutes a legitimate term for a particular way of analysis. I would, therefore, advise to change the title of the article to simply "Cultural Marxism" and let people make up their own mind about whether they deem the idea a conspiracy theory or not. The problem with the current title is that it makes people as different and opposed as Peter Hitchens, Anders Breivik and, say, Alex Jones appear to be in the same political category, which they obviously are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.226.15 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This article documents a notable a fringe conspiracy theory which makes claims that are not supported by mainstream scholarship on the Frankfurt School based on the available reliable sources. There are additional articles on the Frankfurt school and Cultural Studies which document what members of the Frankfurt School actually did based on the available scholarship in the area.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a topic that seems notable. The problem is the efforts to make this article the central clearinghouse for any use of the term "Cultural Marxism" or general non-academic counterpoints to the Frankfurt school. Most of it doesn't satisfy the dictionary definition of a conspiracy theory, and even for the things that do, the use of the term is prejudicing and constitutes PoV trapping. Rhoark (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussions or theories about Cultural Marxism are not inextricably tied to the Frankfurt School, though. It may very well be fair to apply the label of "fringe/conspiracy theory" to allegations of Cultural Marxism being some sort of philosophy or movement promoted by the Frankfurt School or its followers, but Cultural Marxism exists as its own independent concept. Why should Cultural Marxism not have its own article with a sub-section discussing these allegations and that the supposed ties to the Frankfurt School are based on shoddy reasoning, rather than redirecting the entire article directly to here? This seems to be a serious glossing over of the entire concept, for no reason that I can determine. Why not have a "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" page and a "Cultural Marxism" page exist independently? Dyreza (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source that explains the difference between the Frankfurt School and cultural Marxism? TFD (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I was unable to find one. However, my understanding is that "Marxism applied to culture" and "Cultural Marxism" have gradually drifted into two different terms based on gross misusage of the latter. Perhaps a decent middle ground would be a disambiguation page rather than a redirect? Dyreza (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I have started a discussion proposing a disambiguation page at Talk:Cultural_Marxism#Reinstate_with_disambiguation Rhoark (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Marxism applied to culture" could mean lots of things, for example "socialist realism" or the statement "religion is the opiate of the people". If and only if you have a source that ties all this together then create an article about it. But it has no relevance to this one. TFD (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I do think the term "conspiracy theory" is far too loaded of a term. There is nothing whatsoever conspiratorial in positing a line of intellectual influence from various Frankfurt School theorists to current trends like "political correctness". In fact, I think there's a very good case to be made that Marcuse's repressive tolerance essay was a big influence on later kinds of Western leftism that question, or are even quite hostile to liberal ideas of free speech. Again, this is simply a matter of intellectual influence, the same way there's a line of influence from the Austrian school to current free-market libertarian ideas on economics. No shadowy Illuminati or Protocols of Elders of Frankfurt required, and really not appropriate to label it a "conspiracy theory". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps then you could mention some of these reliable sources that posit a line of intellectual influence from the Frankfurt School to political correctness. AFAIK that is the conspiracy theory - that modern U.S. liberalism is really Marxism. TFD (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur with TFD, let's take a look at these reliable sources which posit "a line of intellectual influence from various Frankfurt School theorists to current trends like 'political corretness.'" Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Will do, and I will dig these up. However, I really don't think "As far as TFD knows" is a worthwhile standard for anything, and as far as the strong claim that any and all claims of the intellectual influence of Frankfurt School theorists on the current "cultural left", political correctness, etc amounts to "conspiracy theory", I think the burden of proof lies with those making the strong claim, not vice versa. I don't deny that there hasn't also been plenty of exaggerated and conspiratorial claims in the right-wing media concerning the Frankfurt School, but that most certainly does not mean that any and all claims of intellectual influence are part of said conspiracy theories. Also, my point on "intellectual influence" vs "conspiracy" stands, and I do think you'd do well to make an effort to understand that distinction. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you agree that there have been "plenty of exaggerated and conspiratorial claims in the right-wing media concerning the Frankfurt School", that alone justifies this article. Now if you have any reliable sources that document the connection you believe exists, the burden is on you to present them. Otherwise, we cannot add the information. TFD (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014

Paul Gottfried emphatically denies that he as ever treated Cultural Marxism as a "conspiracy." To the contrary , he has argued that a modified form of Frankfurt School Critical Theory has become the dominant ideology of the post-Christian West and is now presented as an advanced form of liberal democracy. Gottfried has also repeatedly challenged the idea that Cultural Marxism represents a recycling of orthodox Marxism. In fact he has argued the two have little in common as worldviews and has even defended the charges of heresy leveled by traditional Marxists against Critical Theorists. 2601:1:580:3DE:879:32FE:EFC2:A4E1 (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP was simply pointing out, correctly, that the long quote of Gottfried here is original research and was not mentioned by the SPLC or anyone else as conspiratorial. Shii (tock) 03:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Time for a redirect and merger to "Frankfurt School"

This article is primarily based on synthesis of the works of the primary sources for the "substance" of this "conspiracy", i.e. Lind &c., and the one or two sources that label Lind (&c.)'s work a conspiracy, along with some that mention neither the conspiracy nor Lind &c. In most cases, the sources do not support the text. I do believe that there is such a conspiracy theory, but I believe that whatever content we have on that should be at the Frankfurt School article. This article, on the other hand, is too much of a mess to save, and gives WP:UNDUE weight. RGloucester — ☎ 23:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so too. It's not surprising this article has problems because it was started as a split from Cultural Marxism by Fuzzy mongoose (talk · contribs), although it has had independent development as well --Pudeo' 01:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is mostly WP:SYNTH and the amount of reliable literature is fairly small. Now that there is no longer a Cultural Marxism article to argue against, let's turn it back into a section. Shii (tock) 13:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

since we have created the subsection of "conspiracy theory" in the Frankfurt School article, I have modified the redirect to that subsection. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

page deletion

It's been several months since this page or the redirect has been necessary, and considering that the term isn't widely used, and the only link I've seen to this specific page is from an outdated article by someone complaining about wikipedia's standards [4] - I would feel more comfortable (for wikipedia's image) if the redirect was broken, as the original page only existed for a short time and is now only serving to bring wikipedia into disrepute. If anyone has an issue with this, feel free to contact me on my talk page. --Jobrot (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)