Jump to content

Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 19

Cultural Marxism as a general term

Academically speaking, "Cultural Marxism" has 3 interpretations:

1) Frankfurt School's "Cultural Marxism"

2) Birmingham School's "British Cultural Marxism"

3) E.P. Thompson's "Thompsonian Cultural Marxism"

The merge 4 years ago was not a consensus but 3 admins decided to nuke it regardless, and since the FS was the closest interpretation, it got mover here. After that, the description of CM here has 100% focused on it being "a conspiracy theory", completely disregarding the academic history of the term. There are several aspects that have come into the Zeitgeist in the past 4 years, yet the wp:cabals here keep on pushing their personal agendas. The real world has moved past that, and Brexit and Trump have happened respite wikipedia terming things such as CM as conspiracies. Every discussion seems to focus on outdated articles, and wp:NPOV that do not represent the broader spectrum of opinions on the subject. Nergaal (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

More random sources that use the term Cultural Marxism:

Nergaal (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


The deletion of the previous article was done by EDITORIAL consensus (as adjudicated by 3 WP:uninvolved admins), you may not understand how EDITORIAL consensus (and consensus building) works on Wikipedia. See WP:TALKDONTREVERT (hint; there are well understood, journalistic rules on editing, including tone, sourcing, and reporting - take a basic journalism course if you want to succeed on Wikipedia, as well as build up your own media literacy skills).
On that note - none of your "random sources" relate to The Frankfurt School's critique of The Culture Industry, The Birmingham School's critique of massification and mass culture, or E.P. Thompson's critique of mainstream history as obscurant to labor history. This is what Cultural Marxism means academically; it's a critique of capitalist mass culture (and the homogenization of our culture via state and corporate means). That's the original academic viewpoint/usage of the term.
The view point in the (ideologically driven) opinion pieces you're posting - is not academic, nor even well informed. It's a right wing usage (of a left wing topic) and it's in line with William S. Lind's views - pushing the idea that The Frankfurt School somehow caused Identity Politics, and then the Social Justice Movement in some sort of planned Marxist take over of America. This did not happen. The Civil Rights movement, the women's rights movement, the gay rights movement, all occurred naturally (in America and elsewhere), and all predate The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, and E.P Thompson.
The conspiratorial usage in the articles you're pushing makes no logical or historical sense, and it doesn't line up with the original academic usage (that Cultural Marxism is a legitimate criticism of corporate mass culture, perhaps even one of the first critiques of neoliberalism). So I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here, other than proving that the term is often abused for political motives, and acts as a scapegoat in modern right wing media. --Jobrot (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
You are blatantly ignoring the issue I keep alluding to. 3 uninvolved admins nuked an article that now is linked here. The term "cultural marxism" has been used in a broader sense than just antisemite conspiracy theory, as at least some of the non-fringe links I posted don't make any sort of reference. So the stalemate is 1 nuked article/topic + one absolutist statement that is not even supported by broad sources + your so-called "consensus" reached years ago + blatant ignorance of recent discussions of the term = you don't care. But you do care make sure to make any reverts towards NPOV statements. Nergaal (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


The academic viewpoint is covered in the 2nd paragraph. The conspiracy theory viewpoint is covered in the rest of the section (and it's covered as a Conspiracy Theory). There is no other viewpoint to be covered. The rightwing view simply doesn't have any academic findings behind it (none that relate to the specific term "Cultural Marxism"), so it is not submissible here. That you are upset by the rigor of Wikipedia's policies on this matter is no concern of mine. That's something you'll have to deal with on your own I'm afraid.
Look at it this way: Ideally on Wikipedia; Scientists would edit the science related articles. Mathematicians would edit the maths related articles. Anarchists would edit the anarchist related articles. Well, this article is about left wing cultural theorists... so ideally, it should be written by left wing cultural theorists. This is how knowledge works. You don't go to a mechanic to cure your cancer, or a doctor to get your oil changed. That's just not how knowledge works. Conspiracy theories are the destruction of knowledge... the right wingers should get to say what right wing theorists were really saying. The left wing get to say what the left wing theorists were really saying. This is in line with policies such as WP:EXPERT and WP:FRINGE - I suggest you get over this, as it's a fact of Wikipedia policy. --Jobrot (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Dude, you are doing all the checkboxes of a cabal. You are pushing fringe non-NPOVs and framing them as "academic". An academic publication in a journal with no views is worthless. A book with no sales is worthless. I gave you links from Washington Times, Guardian, Forbes, Esquire, The Atlantic, while you keep on spewing "academic points of views" with absolutely no proof of relevancy. A doctor that does no operations is worthless when it comes to asking his opinions about operations. You are consistently pushing non-neutral points of views, and dismissing everything that doesn't fit your own personal agenda.
The first sentence in that section is ""'Cultural Marxism" [...] refers to a conspiracy theory" while using four references which none are both (1) are authoritative (2) make a clear statement to such a strong statement. It is irrelevant if the next paragraphs say anything else if the starting sentence "sounds" authoritative. Random readers won't read the details. You undid my "wider" statement as non-consensus, to a form which IT IS NOT SUPPORTED by authoritative sources. Nergaal (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
You are absolutely incorrect, the section gives several sources identifying CM as a conspiracy theory, and also goes into some detail about modern usages that takes part of the CM conspiracy theory and merges it. All you've done is give some of the same sources stating that cultural marxism is some conspiracy to promote identity politics and ruining western culture. Which is just another conspiracy theory, and is referred to that by reliable sources. Just because you seem to believe this conspiracy theory is true, doesn't make it so. All of your 'sources' are either describing the conspiracy theory, describing Critical thinking or opinion pieces from fringe sources. There is just nothing left to say. Unless you bring in some kind of new information, then I am done responding to your circular reasoning about the same thing over and over. Dave Dial (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Dave, please, give the explicit quotes that you think support that statement. Nergaal (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


@Nergaal: I've explained to you previously, this is not a WP:CABAL, it's an editorial consensus. It was formed on pages 5 and 10 of the talk page archives.
Your claim that the sources by John E. Richardson (BSc; PhD) at the Department of Social Sciences Loughborough University, Oxford Fellow Matthew Feldman (who has specifically studied fascist discourses), Jérôme Jamin (PhD and lecturer in Political Science at the University of Liège), and Martin Jay (who is specifically a Historian of The Frankfurt School), have "absolutely no proof of relevancy" is completely false. They are all in fact highly qualified and prestigious academics, who have studied and/or are working in appropriate fields relevant to The Frankfurt School, all of whom in their referenced sources are explicitly discussing the term "Cultural Marxism" as a right wing conspiracy theory... need I go on? As you can see, they do indeed have proof of relevancy. These are academics in appropriate fields, writing on the topic at hand, who are explicitly discussing the term "Cultural Marxism" as a right wing conspiracy theory. The Wikipedia community has formed a consensus to reflect them as WP:DUE reliable sources WP:RS.
Your counter to this has been to produce opinion pieces from right leaning media, written by lay people with no qualifications in the appropriate areas of academia. Further more the cabal of authors you offer show no knowledge of the writings of The Frankfurt School. Few of your links even mention The Frankfurt School, most only use the term "Cultural Marxism" once, and do so in passing as euphemistic and ideologically propagandist slander - showing no understanding of the academic terminology or history of the term. In short: your evidence is absolute junk. It has no place here. It's the stuff of overly simplistic right wing conspiracy theory, from the very same culturally destructive mass media the Frankfurt School sort to critique. Your sources have no merit. I cannot make this any clearer to you. In contrast the currently listed academic sources are genuine, clear, reliable, and not likely to be brought into any disrepute any time soon. Thank you for engaging in this topic and I hope you now have a wider understanding of the issue of reliable sourcing on Wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Nergaal, could I just point out that of the five links you have introduced, two of them (Forbes and The Observer) are editorials and therefore have no WP:WEIGHT; while one is a student newspaper ("The Phoenix News") -- none of these are even candidates to be RS in this context. That leaves you with "The Social Contract Journal", offering right-wing diatribe of no discernable reliability, and the piece in The Federalist whose whole contribution on the topic is "college-sponsored identity politics (a.k.a. cultural Marxism)", a turn of phrase which supports the conspiracy theory at least as well as it does the "general term" thesis. It looks to me that you, sea lion, are the one pushing a personal POV. Newimpartial (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Newimpartial, name-calling other editors is inappropriate. Teishin (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, Dennis Dworkin is also a Professor, Department Chair at University of New Reno, and you are 100% happy to ignore him completely in this article. Nergaal (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
You again, ignore what I am saying. The current sources don't even say "CM is a CT", except for Jamin one, and that one is in a book with no sales. That's like using a published article that nobody refereces as "an authoritative source". There are plenty of experts in this field, and the view of a single one that is unable to sell books is not authoritative. Nergaal (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This is fascinating how a group a cabals try to argue how they are not cabals. Currently there is a very strong statement "CM is CT" that very blatantly is not supported explicitly by authoritative sources. You guys keep ignoring that. But you are ok with stating any views that do not agree with yours as "fringe". You keep missing the point that Brexit and Trump are real world events that are not at all discussed in this article, even though they are relevant. You are perfectly happy using "refereneces" that are books with absolutely no sales. Have fun keeping wikipedia a shitplace for representation of actual ideas. There are 10 people just on this talkpage (not including archive) that keep talking about how the current coverage of CM is "not adequate", but you guys keep the personal non-neutral personal point of views as the absolute truths of this subject. Nergaal (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is another "student" newspaper:

Nergaal (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the mess you made. Please learn the basics of using a talk page at WP:TALK. --Jobrot (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
You have been shown numerous reliable sources that show your request for the fact that CM is a CT. And if you truly read the AfD for the deleted page, there were many there too. It doesn't help your cause to continuously refer to other editors, including the 3 admins who closed the AfD, as some sort of secret cabal that has pushed their personal POVs. You sound like a conspiracy theorist yourself. This is the last time I am going to respond to this silliness. I will give you some sources one last time.
  • Martin Jay, a noted professor of history and expert in the fields of Critical theory of the Frankfurt School, social theory & cultural criticism. Source
  • The Post-War Anglo-American Far Right: A Special Relationship of Hate - edited by P. Jackson, A. Shekhovtsov, Jamin Source
  • SPLC- Reframing the Enemy 'Cultural Marxism,' a conspiracy theory with an anti-Semitic twist, is being pushed by much of the American right By Bill Berkowitz Source
  • Cultures of Post-War British Fascism edited by Nigel Copsey, John E. Richardson -- Source
Now I am done trying to prove to those who only want to believe in some conspiracy theory, accuse others of being in some kind of Cabal conspiracy, and will not accept that it is a conspiracy theory. Dave Dial (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
It does not seem to be a matter of dispute that many reliable sources consider some usages of the term "Cultural Marxism" to refer to a conspiracy theory. What is disputed is whether all usages of the term refer to a conspiracy theory. Nergaal has presented many usages of the term, many from mainstream publications. Lots of them do not seem to be referring to a conspiracy. Teishin (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


First of all, this section is (as the heading states) for the Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory. Wikipedia is not here to bolster conspiracy theories, it's here to reflect reliable sources... and as you yourself admit - reliable sources consider Cultural Marxism to be a conspiracy theory. What you're really asking is "Hey can I put in some unreliable sources". So to appease you, let's look at Nergaal's sources:
Starting with the forbes source, specifically the author Bill Flax. This is from his own bio:
"I am a Christian, a patriot and a defender of liberty who tries to keep a sense of humor through the madness. I live in Cincinnati, Ohio and work in the banking industry. I'm blessed with a beautiful wife who homeschools our three children. It has become evident Washington now embodies the gravest threat to freedom. We must restore the vision of the founders before it is too late. This prompted me to begin writing. In addition to Forbes, my work has appeared on American Thinker, RealClearReligion and elsewhere. I'm also a contributing writer for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. My book, The Courage to do Nothing, will likely be the most politically incorrect take you'll ever read on economics. Please contact at billflax2@yahoo.com."
As you can see, he's allowed to write on the opinion pages at forbes (which I suspect have little to no editorial review) because he is a Banker. He has no qualifications in Sociology, Cultural Theory, Cultural Studies, History or the Frankfurt School. He is perhaps good with money though.
Now let's look at the article from thesocialcontract.com, the article is by Michael W. Masters. It looks like he's also in the financial sector, and involved in some shady business apparently. More importantly for our cause - he has no qualifications in the appropriate fields. The site he's writing for appears to have a focus on Human overpopulation - another topic that veers towards conspiracy theory.
Okay, theobserver.com it's your turn. The article is by Pete Ross, from his bio: Peter Ross deconstructs the psychology and philosophy of the business world, careers and every day life. You can follow him on Twitter @prometheandrive.
...at this point, I'm wondering whether Nergaal works in the finance and is being served google results accordingly (not that it's any of our business, nor would it effect anything said in this discussion). But Pete Ross again has no qualifications in the relevant fields (but again might be good with money).
http://www.thephoenixnews.com is Okanagan College's student news paper. So no luck there.
The final source being http://thefederalist.com this is the only article not written by someone in the financial sector. It's written by a woman who runs the blog "the snooping anthropologist" - she has an actual masters degree in anthropolgy. However, the federalist is not a peer reviewed journal of anthropology, and the most she writes of "Cultural Marxism" in the article is that the "Ramblers Analyzing Whiteness" (a catholic college university group) is "just the latest gutter-think in college-sponsored identity politics (a.k.a. cultural Marxism) sweeping the nation, leaving the idea of higher education in ruins." - this is not a notable or educated use of the term. Nor is it appearing in the context of a high quality academic journal or source. Indeed quite the opposite.
In conclusion Nergaal's sources have "absolutely no proof of relevancy" as they put it earlier (in relation to much more rigorous sources). They're non-notable. They endorse the conspiracy theory usage. They're not academic. The authors aren't qualified, and they have no place on Wikipedia. I hope that's clear enough for you. --Jobrot (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
This is getting pointless. If you input "cultural marxism" you automatically get directed to a section titled by cabals like you "CM is a CT". There is zero representation of ATHORITATIVE SOURCES supporting such an extreme point of view. As I've shown, there are quite a few, comparably authoritative sources addressing CM as a far more general term, besides what some idiots choose to attribute to Jewish-driven conspiracies. Several people in the field have expressed opinions completely devoid extremist views. The only point of view that is acceptable to cabals like you are extreme left-leaning opinions. Nothing centrist is currently covered. Nergaal (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Look at the other source from Forbes. It is from the publisher himself. He talks about Cultural Marxism as being in the same category of ideas as Neoliberalism. In this usage "Cultural Marxism" does not refer to a conspiracy theory; it refers to an ideology. This usage of the term in this way is common in non-academic media. Nergaal has provided relevant sources for this usage. The problem is that this article reflects only the conspiracy theory usage, and only from an academic perspective. As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory points out, it is derogatory usage. This is POV pushing. The article needs to reflect how the term is being used in mainstream political discourse. Teishin (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The opinion of the publisher of Forbes is not a reliable source on either political ideology or conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


The section of The Frankfurt School article in question is about a conspiracy theory which stems from a mischaracterization of The Frankfurt School. This is accordingly a WP:FRINGE topic, and only needs to include the notable WP:FRINGE aspects, and the notable WP:RS academics (in qualified fields, discussing the specific topic at hand). There is no requirement to include "People who maybe think the left are up to something". That's why Jordan Peterson prefers to talk about "postmodern neomarxism" - because he's aware the founders of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory have lied about the nature of The Frankfurt School sufficiently enough to discredit use of the term. I mean; they've been caught doing so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgzp9vGx01o.
I'm sorry your preferred term has been made unusable by people originally hijacked it and defined the (low quality of) discourse around it - but that's nothing to do with Wikipedia. We've reported the academic viewpoint, and the viewpoint of the people who popularized the term (such as William S. Lind, or Andrew Breitbart who claims The Frankfurt School sort to spread necrophilia). That their political positions have ruined it for people who don't know how to say "left wing cultural hegemony" is not Wikipedia's fault. Nor is it our job to preserve or protect ideological misconceptions for you. That an unqualified so-and-so at forbes or on a blog wishes to use the term to describe gays taking over the catholic church, or black people not wanting to get shot - has no place on Wikipedia. This is made clear by the various sourcing policies. Good day. --Jobrot (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Bias and Omissions

The section “Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory” is almost laughably tendentious. Generally, critics of “Cultural Marxism” do not themselves call it a conspiracy so much as a fact of life given the extraordinary intrusion of its adepts into the academic community. "The term remained academic until the late 1990s, when it was misappropriated by paleoconservatives as part of an ongoing culture war” Why “misappropriated?” Also the correct designation should be the culture wars. A culture war? Which one was that? "Weyrich first aired his misconception of Cultural Marxism in a 1998 speech...” Misconception? Becasue Weyrich didn’t accept the theory any reference to it apparently dooms it to the status of a “misconception." It’s worth noting that not a single mention of the Dutschke/Gramsci project of a “long march through the institutions,” an article of faith among many modern Critical Theorists and the main basis for most criticisms of same, is to be found anywhere in the entire article. Orthotox (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That's what reliable sources say. See for example "Reframing the Enemy 'Cultural Marxism,' a conspiracy theory with an anti-Semitic twist, is being pushed by much of the American right" on the SPLC website. TFD (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no particular interest in disputing whatever "laughably tendentious" framing you see in the section, Orthotox, but I might as well mention here that my usual editing just inadvertently addressed some of the potential POV language you noticed, such as the use of "misconception". This was simply because I considered such language to be potentially POV, not because I was trying to address your complaints. In fact, I only noticed this talkpage section after I submitted my edit. I was unsure about whether to change "misappropriated", too, but decided to do so after your comparison of it with "misconception" convinced me that it was in the same framing as "misconception".
If you are interested in reviewing these edits, you can find them here and here. Whether the section still remains "laughably tendentious" to you is your determination, but I lack any particular reason to consider the section's text to be so. If I did, I would probably have edited it more extensively. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

SPLC? Them again! I was just “reverted" on another talk page for questioning the objectivity of this notoriously “progressive” organization. But matters of opinion aside, now that I have your attention, please address the glaring lacuna I’ve pointed out to you and consider including a section on the so-called “long march.” Or would it be easier simply to “revert” me? Orthotox (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If you don't think the SPLC is a reliable source, you're gonna have a bad time here. Likewise, if you can't assume good faith from other users, you're gonna have a bad time here. Although given that you came to complain about this section to begin with, your understanding of academia is probably the result of an echo chamber dedicated to a conservative narrative. This is very common, and you should watch this video before denying it. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The SPLC is a politicized source. It's reliable for its political angle, and this is indeed a political topic. But as for truth, they're just another opinion about it. They're certainly representing a common opinion about it that should be represented in Wikipedia, but it's just one view of this matter. Teishin (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I believe Ian thomson was hinting at WP:FALSEBALANCE. The SPLC tends to be a well researched and accurate source of information with systems of editorial oversight and correction in place. Therefore it's more deserving of representation on Wikipedia, and is not just one view of this matter. Your statement suggests that all sources are equal and equally worthy of representation on Wikipedia. They're not. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Jobrot (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
That's not what the Wikipedia editors on the article about the Southern Poverty Law Center describe. They recognize that Wikipedia must have a neutral editorial stance, and they list criticisms of the Southern Poverty Law Center. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Controversies_over_hate_group_and_extremist_listings This is not false balance at all; this is real balance. It's what we're supposed to be doing as editors. Teishin (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
An arugment from policy trumps an argument from "Wikipedia editors on the article about the Southern Poverty Law Center say". I'll stick to the policies. Thanks. --Jobrot (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The policies are different from what you think they are. That's the issue. The Cultural Marxism article does not meet Wikipedia's editorial standards. Teishin (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
"The policies are different from what you think they are". I've directly quoted policies to you multiple times now. These policies are very precise and specific. --Jobrot (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I, too, have directly quoted policies to you multiple times now. You are cherry picking among the policies for the purpose of POV pushing. Teishin (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
You have only linked to policies, I have quoted them. You've been rebutted each time. If you read the policies, their meanings are clear, and not in your favour. This is something I and multiple other editors have shown you. I am starting to suspect you're WP:NOTHERE in WP:GOODFAITH but are instead here to be disruptive. You need to WP:LISTEN and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Proceeding without specific suggestions about the article will be considered a violation of WP:NOTFORUM. --Jobrot (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Jobrot, I already made an edit. You reverted it. Nergaal also made edits, which I in general support, and which you have reverted. It seems useful at this point to outline the major disputed points.
1. External criticisms of this article. My position is that these criticisms raise valid points about the failure of this article to be neutral. I understand your position to be that these criticisms are not only invalid, but they are irrelevant and need not be discussed.
2. What is this topic? My position is that this is a topic in common political discourse, as evidenced by mentions in a large number of publications, some of which were identified here by Nergaal. You state that your position is that “this is a left wing academic topic (and that's where "a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources" is to be determined from - how prevalent is it within academia on The Frankfurt School).”
3. Multiple interpretations of “Cultural Marxism.” My position is that this article needs to address other usages of the term, most specifically the usage of the term to represent an ideology, but also potentially other usages. I understand your position is that there are no usages of the term that do not refer to a conspiracy theory, and if there are any, they’re strictly fringe usages inappropriate for the article to address.
4. Valid sources. My position is that “Cultural Marxism” is now in widespread use in political discourse. To represent this, the article needs to use both mainstream and politically biased sources to represent the range of thinking about the term. I understand your position is that the only sources that may be considered valid are academic sources. My counter position is that the academic sources (and some others, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center) are politically biased (n.b., which in my position still means that they need to be included as a view on the subject). I understand your position on this is that these sources are objective and are the only valid sources.
5. Wikipedia’s editing policies. When you and I read the policies, we interpret them substantially differently. One aspect of this is that I argue for holistic readings, i.e., that many factors must be considered and the policy must be understood as a whole; whereas I understand your readings to be narrow, i.e., that particular sentences or sections capture the issue at hand.
6. POV pushing. My argument is that this article represents POV pushing. Similar criticisms of the article come from Nergaal, Orthotox, and 185.7.229.101 on the current Talk page. I understand your position to be that the POV presented in the article is the only true POV.
7. Treatment of editors. I have pointed out that the rhetoric here is overheated, and that it is inappropriate to use disparaging terms with regard to people who hold differing opinions. As a result of making this and the points above, you have accused me of being “WP:NOTHERE in WP:GOODFAITH but are instead here to be disruptive.” And you’ve put ominous warnings on my Talk page. My position is that these accusations are false, and the falseness of them is demonstrated by the points above. I am engaging in a proper discussion to elucidate the problems and differences of opinion regarding the article.Teishin (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts. Not of your personal opinions or definitions. You've quoted no policies, nor have you offered any reliable sources. Clearly you do not understand what "proper discussion" entails on Wikipedia. You are recommending we go AGAINST Wikipedia policy. You are recommending we include unreliable sources, and pretend as though opinion is fact. Wikipedia will not do that. We are not here to do that. You are wasting your time. --Jobrot (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Teishin, I am not Jobrot but as another editor who has participated in this discussion, I will give my perspective on your "seven points".

1. The external criticisms are irrelevant; as a general rule, the editing of Wikipedia articles is not, and should not be, influenced by how they are discussed elsewhere. This article is no exception.

2 and 3. The topic "cultural marxism" has two relevant meanings: it is a term within Marxist discourse on culture and the culture industries (which is why this discussion is taking place in the Frankfurt School article), and it is a term used by conspiracy theorists to construct a non-existent ideological project.

4. Nergaal's "long list of publications" does not, in general, meet the criteria in WP:RS that would make them suitable for consideration in editing this article. Your suggestion that WP editors should seek out primary, non-expert uses of the term "Cultural Marxism" and define a "widespread" usage on that basis is sheerest WP:SYNTH and not suitable for an encyclopaedia. There is no restriction that only academic sources be used (although any discussion of the Frankfurt School that is not based on academic sources belongs to some other reality than our own), but they do have to be secondary sources, rather than opinion pieces by non-experts. Also, the evaluation of academic sources should not be whether they are or are not "politically biased" - which is an impossible distinction in many cases - but on whether they are considered credible by other experts in the field.

5. Wikilawyering is never considered appropriate, particularly from those whose understanding of WP policies is limited.

6. The current article, including the section on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, is an attempt to boil down a complex web of texts and concepts; it certainly has not been written or edited to "push" one point of view to the exclusion of others. On the other hand, the view expressed by Cultural Marxism conspiracy theorists (that there is an ideology called Cultural Marxism which is engaged in certain social engineering projects) is WP:FRINGE and, per policy, should not be reflected in the article in Wikipedia's voice.

7. I have attempted to maintain good faith throughout this discussion, though the list of seven points could be used as an example for certain topics in marine biology. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


Teishin, let us be clear. There are no reliable sources for "cultural Marxism" to be anything except a conspiracy theory, and all the opinion pieces, self-published works, and people writing outside of their areas of expertise can make it so. WP does choose reality against conspiracy theory, and to do so is not "POV pushing" in terms of WP policy. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial, let me be clear. You are POV pushing. You are rejecting multiple reliable sources for Cultural Marxism. Nergaal listed many. You are doing so to POV push that it is a conspiracy theory. You are rejecting the evidence of mainstream publications and well-known public figures. This is POV pushing. Teishin (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Nope. I have reviewed each of the sources proposed, and none of them move beyond the categories I just mentioned (opinion pieces, self-published works, and people writing outside of their areas of expertise). If you want to add a paragraph to the article about the "well-known public figures" who endorse the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, I suggest that you proposed some sourced text, though of course it would have to conform to BLP policy since such a claim could be seen as damaging to their reputation. Newimpartial (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Neither Dutschke or Gramsci are members of The Frankfurt School, and the term "Cultural Marxism" (academically speaking) refers to the critiques of mass produced culture made by The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School (aka British Cultural Marxism), and E.P. Thompson (aka Thompsonian Cultural Marxism). Also, there's already a page on The long march through the institutions - which already notes Marcuse' praise for the idea. Your error however, is one of translation. "Cultural Marxism" (again, academically speaking) does not equate to "Anything Marcuse may have praised" - hence cigars and women not being examples of "Cultural Marxism" (even though Marcuse had a fondness for them). To reiterate: Cultural Marxism (academically speaking) refers to the critiques of mass produced culture made by The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School, and E.P. Thompson. Of course, for the most part (non academically speaking) - it's a right wing conspiracy theory about secret communists infiltrating academia, the media, and identity politics - none of which is true (indeed, they critiqued the media and identity politics). Hope that sorts you out. --Jobrot (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory?

I was very surprised that a "popular" term these days doesn't have its own article. I've read through the AfD from 2014 and still find it strange how it was handled. Regardless, that AfD now redirects to a section that "labels CM as a conspiracy theory". To say that this formulation is strange is an understatement. So I looked at the "proof" provided here that CM = conspiracy theory:

"'Cultural Marxism" in modern political parlance refers to a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of an ongoing movement to take over and destroy Western culture.[54][55][56][57]

  • [54] the quote literally talks about how Fidel Castro endorses a conspiracy theorist
  • [55] is a book that has received ZERO reviews on Amazon. All Google Scholar hits for the word "conspiracy" do not show any reference to CM.
  • [57] Google Scholar gives 10 hits in the entire book to the word "conspiracy" and none of those talk about Cultural Marxism

I find such crass misuse of references to "support" such an extreme position on CM as extremely unconstructive, and lacking any ounce of good faith. It is hard to argue how a wp:CABAL does not apply here. I will go ahead and make some sensible rewordings. Please bring forth explicit references agreed explicitly that show CM as a conspiracy theory. Nergaal (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The wording you're attacking was decided by community consensus: WP:CONSENSUS (see talk archives, specifically pages 5 and 10 of the archives) - whilst WP:CCC it is up to you to show that you've changed the consensus here. Please don't make further changes in this regard until you can form a new community consensus. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Whatever consensus there was in the past, the current situation has changed. What several years ago may have represented a wide-spread opinion is now no longer the case. Wikipedia is being publicly criticized for the POV pushing evident in this article. This situation needs to be corrected. Teishin (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
A reliable and academic viewpoint from qualified sources isn't POV pushing. --Jobrot (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
It is POV pushing when it is presented to the exclusion of other, mainstream POVs. Teishin (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." -WP:DUE --Jobrot (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Nope. Those sources you don't like are indeed allowed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources Teishin (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


From the page you're linking to:


"Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether."


Also WP:ONUS.


Basically what that's saying is what we've been telling you. Reliable sources outrank unreliable ones, and are used to contextualize the unreliable sources. Accordingly the article does include pro-conspiracy sources (like the kind you're pushing to have included) - but they're always derided and contextualized by the reliable academic sources in the relevant fields. --Jobrot (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
All of the sources are biased. Yes, some sources have more reliability than others, but there are no firmly reliable sources. That's where the error is. And, no, I am not pushing to include pro-conspiracy-theory sources. I am pushing to get this article to Wikipedia's editorial standards. This article represents POV pushing. It is inherently false to claim that the academic sources are reliable on a political issue where the academic sources themselves are at issue. The circularity of the argument is like when Nixon said that if the President does it, it is not illegal. Teishin (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
As explained to you previously (See this diff for details) Wikipedia does NOT adhere to the conspiracy theory belief that academia has been corrupted or brought into disrepute as far as sourcing. You're getting your belief/suspicion on the topic confused with Wikipedia's policies (the two are not the same and don't take the same POV on the matter).
You seem to think the claim that "academia has been corrupted" is automatically valid. It's not. Wikipedia, and its policies do not agree with you. Academia is still considered on this site to be the highest in terms of reliability of sourcing. Accordingly WP:RS still applies (regardless of whatever your beliefs are on the matter). That's the nature of taking a POLICY BASED approach. You can't sneak around it. If you want to argue that Wikipedia should no longer adopt academic sources, THIS TALK PAGE (WP:TALK) is not the place to do so (take it up with the Administration or Jimbo Wales if that's your position). --Jobrot (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The current section contains the original academic meaning (which I define as The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School's and E.P Thompson's critiques of Mass Culture, and The Culture Industry). The second paragraph covers it, so I'm not sure what your complaint is (the original meaning is already in there).
Wikipedia is descriptive, it's not normative. The Cultural Marxism section therefore attempts to describe the change in meaning over time. The community has sort to do this. It covers the previous academic meaning (again, that's what the 2nd paragraph is about), as well as the hijacking of the term and ergo the idea that it's now irrevocably linked to a conspiracy theory. Attacking a source as not being popular enough on Amazon (ad populum) or as being all of 7 years old - really doesn't float my boat in terms of a convincing argument. The current section has upwards of 40 references, it is very well sourced and hence it will be difficult to sway opinion here. --Jobrot (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Where was that wording decided? Can you show me consensus arguing against my formulations? Regardless, you have yet to address how are 4 citations, 3 of which do not support a statement, one of which is an ultra-niche source, supposed to "reference" a VERY controversial statement. It's even cute that you didn't even bother to look at what reference I added. Go read wp:CABAL again. Also, I am pretty sure that "when it began to gain currency among" breaks all sorts of MoS guidelines for an encyclopedia, to which you had no issues keeping. Nergaal (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
It appears that the issue about whether those citations support their supposed claims is still outstanding. Teishin (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Entirely untrue, the sources have been shown here to be highly qualified and reliable, where as Nergaal's sources have been shown to be opinion pieces woven from whole cloth by laypeople, completely unqualified and uneducated on the topic of The Frankfurt School and their writings. --Jobrot (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Your objection is proof of the point I'm trying to make. The term "Cultural Marxism" has broken out into mainstream usage. It is being used by "lay people" who are "uneducated" about the Frankfurt School. They are using the term differently from the priestly cognoscenti. There may not have been many such references back in 2014, but now "Cultural Marxism" is in widespread usage. Just today I saw a meme were it was part of a joke. These "lay people" are being published in large-circulation mainstream publications. They are not using the term like the academics are. They are using it like it is an ideology, like the term "neoliberalism" is being used -- which, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism is not called a conspiracy theory. Teishin (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." -WP:DUE --Jobrot (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Nope. You cannot exclude sources you don't like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources Teishin (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


Actually, according to WP:ONUS I can! The consensus of Wikipedia from the deletion discussion 3 years ago, to this talk page and its archives, to the numerous times the topic has come up at the administrative incidents notice board (you can search their archives if interested) - says the consensus on the topic goes AGAINST the conspiracy theorists viewpoint. This section is not going to do a 180 anytime soon. --Jobrot (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Quite a lot has changed in those three years. The topic of Cultural Marxism has had a large scale entrance into mainstream political discourse. The press is criticizing Wikipedia about this article. Editor after editor have attempted to fix this article, just to have their appropriate fixes reverted. Whatever consensus there once was is gone. This article must change, and soon. Teishin (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


Quite a lot has changed in those three years quite a lot has changed, but the consensus hasn't been shown to have changed. Nor have the views of the key a relevant proponents of the conspiracy theorists. Hence you not citing any reliable sources. As already explained to you (diff) - the article you claim is criticizing Wikipedia is not criticizing the current section. So again; your point is irrelevant. --Jobrot (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Other sources that are not represented by the supposed "consensus":

I am bored, but even reasonably-centered sources like these, even those that mock the term "cultural Marxism", don't label it as a conspiracy theory. Nergaal (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Where was that wording decided? the title of the current section (Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory) was decided on page 5 of the talk page archives, under the section "Please make the section heading CM not CT" - you can read the community consensus there directly. Likewise, the decision about the lead (and referring to the term as a conspiracy theory in general) can be read on page 10 of the talk page archives. All of page 10 (with a summation provided by an uninvolved editor).
You can continue to claim that a WP:CABAL of editors is working against you, but as long as the consensus remains as is (and has not been proven to have changed) then your edits will be reverted on those grounds (that they're against consensus). That's just how the system works.
As for the articles you've posted, they're mostly one off mentions in opinion pieces (one of which, The Washington Times, affiliated with the Moonie cult). None of them mention The Frankfurt School, nor do their authors provide any credentials in the relevant areas of Sociology. Douglas Kellner is the only relevant source you've listed and he's already used in the current section.
Cultural Marxism is the critique of mass culture and the culture industry as performed by The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School and E.P. Thompson (that's the terms academic usage) - it doesn't relate to immigration, same sex marriage, post-modernism or whatever other hot button topics you're trying to link it to (via opinion pieces). Please don't violate the consensus again. Thank you, --Jobrot (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Dude, I don't car about Frankfurt School. Admins have decided to TNT the Cultural Marxism stand-alone article. Since then, it has gone through several forms and it ended up as a section here titled "CT". As long as CM redirects to a section here, FS article can't pretend to label ALL of CM as a CT when OBVIOUSLY not all sources agree to that. You undid a middle-road version that at least discusses how it has been referred as a CT SOMETIMES, and if you are careful, most of those CT sources are not authoritative. If CM was "seen" as a CT 4 years ago, both Brexit and Trump election have proven that it is more than just that. This article does not discuss any of those developments, and since a small group of cabal admins have decided to nuke it in 2014, this is the most relevant discussion on CM views (and again, there is not even an academic consensus on it being a CT). Nergaal (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not whether the articles mention the Frankfurt School; it's whether they discuss Cultural Marxism. A bunch of these are from mainstream publications: Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Guardian, Forbes. The issue at hand is that the concept of Cultural Marxism has spread from its original usage to become broadly used with respect to politics and culture. Teishin (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
If you don't care about The Frankfurt School - then you're in the wrong place. Please restrict your usage of this talk page to editorial discussions about The Frankfurt School article as per WP:talk. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
It's perfectly reasonable for Nergaal to say he doesn't care about the Frankfurt School. The topic of Cultural Marxism has become substantially separated from that usage. It is being referenced as an ideology now. That's what Nergaal is talking about. He's right to complain about how Wikipedia has organize this topic. It does not match current widespread usage. Teishin (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't care about what Nergaal says. I care about what reliable sources say. --Jobrot (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The only thing I see that you care about is declaring any source that agrees with your POV to be reliable and declaring anything or anybody that doesn't conform to it to be unreliable so that you can POV push. Teishin (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The only thing I see that you care about is declaring any source that agrees with your POV to be reliable and declaring anything or anybody that doesn't conform to it to be unreliable so that you can POV push. - so you're violating WP:GOODFAITH. It is time then to post some warnings on your talk page. --Jobrot (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The sources you are providing have either already been considered & rejected in the AfD, are describing Critical thinking. Cultural studies or some other ideology we already have an article for, or the conspiracy theory. Just because you claim that there have been more usage since 2014, doesn't make it true. In fact, there has been less usage of the term since then. Running around changing the wording and making these claims doesn't change the long standing consensus here. You've brought no real new argument, nor new sources. In fact, your attempt to insert "a new source" is from the same source you claim has "no Amazon reviews" in your above agrument. Which is also false. So before you make any more changes to this, or any controversial article, get consensus first. Dave Dial (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Nergaal is correct that usage of the term "cultural marxism" has increased greatly. See Google Trends https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=cultural%20marxism . Recent citations are around triple what they were in 2014. Teishin (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
You are using the Trends incorrectly(which I think you know) and searching two separate words. You are also searching people just searching the term, not 'citations'. I could say, hey look at "Trump Nazis" and how many searches since 2015. But then I do a news trend search, and the results are much different. Much like if you do a news search of "Cultural Marxism". Dave Dial (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
One gets the same results if one uses quotation marks https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22cultural%20marxism%22 . Nergaal's claim that usage is increasing can be substantiated. Your claim that usage is decreasing cannot be. Incidentally, snide remarks accusing editors of intentionally presenting incorrect data makes for a hostile editing atmosphere. Teishin (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." -WP:DUE --Jobrot (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The point here is that the public's use of the term "Cultural Marxism" has undergone a major change since 2014. Usage of the term has become far more common. It is now no longer a technical, academic term. It is now a term in widespread political discourse. Teishin (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
"'Cultural Marxism' in modern political usage refers to a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of an ongoing movement to take over and destroy Western culture." - that's the view of reliable sources on the matter. --Jobrot (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

A lot has changed in the public discourse in just the past few years. The term "Cultural Marxism" is being increasingly used, and used in a greater variety of meanings than it once was. I agree with Nergaal that this subject needs to be reconsidered in light of the changes of the past few years.Teishin (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Your viewpoint that there is some merit to the idea that there's been a "Cultural Marxist" take over in academia is WP:FRINGE. I've provided you with evidence that there has been no Marxist mass take over in academia. I've told you that scholarly articles STILL (contrary to your opinion) hold the highest rank in terms of reliability on Wikipedia, and provided you with such. You however, have provided no such scholarly evidence from individuals within the related fields (ie. Sociology, Cultural Studies, The Frankfurt School, ect). Instead there has been presented a multitude of opinion pieces. There is accordingly nothing new of worth or notability to consider on this matter (according to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia). Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia of academic facts, not of WP:NN personal opinions. Thank you and good day. --Jobrot (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Jobrot, please do not project onto me what viewpoints I have. Just because I tell you about the other viewpoints doesn't mean that I have them. My viewpoint is that this article suffers from POV pushing. There are other POVs that are not being represented. This article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality.Teishin (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
There are other POVs that are not being represented. - you seem to be labouring under the idea that Wikipedia has to reflect ALL points of view equally. This is simply not the case (particularly on WP:FRINGE topics which involve conspiracy theories).
It is only incumbent on Wikipedia to cover RELIABLE sources on a topic (in this case the topic is The Frankfurt School's approach to mass culture). Right wing media opinion pieces do not count as reliable sources on the (left wing academic) topic of The Frankfurt School's approach to culture. Nor do articles which are "pro-conspiracy". It is that simple.
I'll put it this way; academic sources should be used for academic topics, and this is an academic topic. To quote from WP:DUE:
"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." [emphasis added]
I hope that clears things up for you. This is a left wing academic topic (and that's where "a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources" is to be determined from - how prevalent is it within academia on The Frankfurt School). Wikipedia doesn't seek, nor is it required to cover the conspiracy theory from the believers perspective. Otherwise the pages on bigfoot, 9/11, and the moon landings would look very very different. --Jobrot (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Cultural Marxism is not a left-wing academic topic. Perhaps it once was, but the topic has broken out into the public discourse about politics and culture. That's why there are so many mentions of it in mainstream publications -- aka "reliable sources."
Incidentally, there is a Wikipedia entry on Bigfoot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot and it neutrally reflects the multiple views on the topic -- just like any good Wikipedia article should. Regardless of how much one is convinced that own's viewpoint on a topic is without doubt correct, it is important to understand that there are other viewpoints. Just because one views such viewpoints as "fringe", if they are represented in mainstream publications and voiced by best-selling authors, they're not fringe. Teishin (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
That's why there are so many mentions of it in mainstream publications - it's not a matter of just being mentioned. It's a matter of what the source is saying about the topic. Yes, The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is covered by mainstream news sources, for instance in this al jazera opinion, this vice media piece or this opinion in the guardian - but they all treat it as a right wing conspiracy theory. This viewpoint is already covered in the current section.
Likewise no where in the bigfoot article does it say "Bigfoot is definitely real" - on the contrary, that wikipedia article has headings like "Sightings", "Misidentification" and "hoaxes". Whilst it's interesting reading, it's presenting bigfoot as having no real credible evidence (despite people looking for it, and the article exploring that people have done so). --Jobrot (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
This is textbook example of wp:cabal. First nuke an entire article because 3 admins decided that. Then move the remnants to a section somewhere. Then make sure that section is termed "conspiracy theory". Then link any attempt to update "consensus" by "look at consensus years ago. Wikipedia used to be a useful place. Now cabals like you make it be useful for propagandists. Keep getting wikipedia losing relevance. Nergaal (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
You keep posting right wing opinion pieces as if they're left-wing academic sources (they're not). You accuse all editors who disagree with you of being in a WP:CABAL even though the editors who decided the AfD were chosen at random in order to be WP:uninvolved (with one of them even disclosing their involved status and electing to be replaced with a new randomly selected admin). I don't think you have a good idea of how Wikipedia was designed or functions here. Basically to long term editors you're making your own case look worse and worse by pursuing ill informed arguments, sources and tactics. You'd be better off trying to WP:LISTEN to what others are telling you, in order to gain your bearings here, rather than attempting to go to war with this talk page (who you've presumed are in a conspiratorial WP:CABAL).
You're not the first to try to inject right-wing WP:FRINGE pro-conspiracy viewpoints into this topic. No one has succeeded, and there's a fairly obvious reason as to why. That reason is that it's a left wing topic. Just as we wouldn't get a bunch of left-wingers to write the Thomas Sowell article (Sowell being of the right wing, left wingers unreliable on their understanding of him), or the article on Austrian School economics (again a right wing topic); so you're not going to have any success here (a left wing topic). You're here to defame, your sources are ideologically driven, and you need to reconsider your own position and purpose here, rather than just assuming there's a WP:CABAL conspiracy against you.
...and no, I'm not saying that right wingers can't have entirely accurate readings of The Frankfurt School's criticisms, or of The Birmingham School ect... (and thus be constructive contributors) I'm just saying they're not likely to, and so often don't (just as left fundamentalists aren't likely to with right wing topics). Paul Gottfried comes the closest to having an accurate viewpoint from the right (or at least did at the time of publication of his book), and writes of Cultural Marxism in his "The Strange Death of Marxism" that "Nothing intrinsicaly Marxist, that is to say, defines "cultural Marxism," save for the evocation or hope of a postbourgeois society... ...The mistake of those who see one position sequeing into another is to confuse contents with personalities." - that's about as accurate as right wing sources get; to admit that it's a conspiracy theory - or that at least; there is a conspiracy theory attached to the term. --Jobrot (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It would be useful if everybody toned down the rhetoric and eschewed making accusatory statements.
It's perfectly fine for Nergaal to point to "right-wing" opinion pieces. That's because the topic is a matter of controversy and this controversy spans the left-right spectrum. This is not merely a left-wing topic, and even if it were I don't see how that would matter. The problem here is that the article is not neutral. It is not respectful of the diversity of viewpoints on this subject. Teishin (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
As already explained to you (and many of the people you've pinged) Wikipedia doesn't have to be respectful of the diversity of viewpoints on this subject - in fact it is intentionally NOT respectful of the diversity of viewpoints on this subject. A WP:FRINGE viewpoint (ie. that the SJW phenomena is a product of a "Cultural Marxist" plot initiated by The Frankfurt School in the 1960s) - isn't WP:DUE to be covered with any respect. It is WP:DUE to be covered as WP:FRINGE because it lacks "prevalence in reliable sources" (ie. academia on The Frankfurt School). Now you can either accept that's the case - or I can keep explaining it to you. It's up to you. --Jobrot (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
What you're refusing to recognize is that the viewpoints that you are claiming to be "fringe" are being discussed in mainstream publications these days. If what you consider to be fringe is now part of mainstream political discourse, it is by definition no longer fringe. Perhaps that was no so in 2014, but a lot has changed since then politically. Cultural Marxism is now no longer a technical academic term. It is part of the political discourse. Perhaps this article once met Wikipedia's editing standards, but it now no longer does so. Teishin (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
What you're refusing to recognize is that the viewpoints that you are claiming to be "fringe" are being discussed in mainstream publications these days. If what you consider to be fringe is now part of mainstream political discourse, it is by definition no longer fringe. Not true. Plenty of mainstream media sources discuss conspiracy theories. The point is they discuss them AS conspiracy theories. The closest they come to legitimating them is the "just asking questions" model (hey I'm just asking questions here). This is not the same as backing the conspiracy theories as if they're factual or true. I've yet to see a reliable mainstream news source say "The Frankfurt School are the secret force behind the gay rights agenda, feminism, civil rights and atheism". --Jobrot (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Jobrot, the article right now has "fringe" view points. They are published in books with not even an inch of being relevant, as in having any sales. And even if the references were not fringe, they don't even make the statement "cultural marxism is a conspiracy theory". You are pushing a fringe point of view, that ONLY covers the extreme left point of view. An encyclopedia is meant to cover ALL points of view, and give a fair balance not the left-most possible view, published in non-peer-reviewed pieces, with no sales whatsoever. Just because you agree with left-wing opinions, does not make right-wing pinions fringe by default. Also, keep in mind that all the "evidence" you bring is 10 years old. Both Turmp and Brexit has happened less than 2 years ago. Nergaal (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Trump and Brexit have nothing to do with The Frankfurt School's approach to culture. They're absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Wikipedia covers WP:FRINGE viewpoints as fringe. Wikipedia covers conspiracy theories - as conspiracy theories. That's the value judgement placed on those views (see WP:DUE). There is no article which claims that the Sandyhook School Shootings was performed by crisis actors. There is no article that claims 9/11 was an inside job. Wikipedia specifically deals with these claims by highlighting that they are false conspiracy theories. It derides them using factual evidence to counter them. That is Wikipedia's approach to conspiracy theories - it highlights them as false. To quote Carl Sagan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"... and that evidence has to be direct and meaningful. --Jobrot (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It's sad that you keep ignoring my points. If books with no sales as authoritative sources, but real-life events that at least in part happened as a push-back to (what at least some sources have mentioned as) CM, then you are seriously narrow minded, and no amount of scientific evidence will change that. Keep on being a cabal. Nergaal (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dave Dial: you have yet to disprove any of the statements I made about the 4 sources. I introduced a source that actively talks about the subject, is easily searchable, AND is referencing a more neutral statement. Currently the article has A VERY STRONG STATEMENT that uses 4 completely crap sources. Every strong argument needs strong sources. Having "more neutral" statements means refenceing can be more loose. Stop being a wp:cabal. Nergaal (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to get into an edit war here, but I have made some changes to the wording of "conspiracy theory" and replaced it with "controversy" or "controversial theory" where applicable The reasoning is, as per wp:npov, it is important to use as neutral language as possible to describe a phenomenon and to avoid stating opinion as fact. As this is a contested rather than settled matter, it is important to avoid stating the opinion that it is a conspiracy theory as a fact.

One more thing that I noticed is awry with this article. The sentence that reads: "The term remained academic until the late 1990s, when it began to gain currency among paleoconservatives as part of an ongoing culture war in which it was argued that the very same theorists who were analysing and objecting to the "massification" and mass control via commercialization of culture were in fact working in a conspiracy to control and stage their own attack on Western society, using 1960s counterculture, multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness as their methods" Cites the references numbered "56," "65," and "66." 56 is a SPLC article. . . it is almost inarguable that SPLC is not a Neutral source. Numbers 65 and 66 are webarchive sources from an political think tank that no longer exists. I'm not sure what Wikipedia' policy is on using disbanded think tanks as reliable sources, or think tanks, in general, as reliable sources. That being said, as per WP:NPOV, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." This section, very obviously, does not meet that standard right now. Krakaet (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edits have been appropriately reverted. The wording was "conspiracy theory" to reflect all the reliable academic sources on the subject (they refer to it as a conspiracy theory, we reflect that). The wording was also decided via a consensus of editors (this consensus can be found in the talk page archives). The "think tank" you're referring to is The Free Congress Foundation - and is being used to report their (and specifically William S. Lind's) point of view, as a paleoconservative and pioneer of the conspiracy theory usage. Wikipedia reports the relevant, notable and reliable views with appropriate due WP:DUE weighting. That's how NPOV works. That's how the current section is written. Many have tried to find fault with it, none have done so conclusively using reliable sources and arguing from policy. I suggest you don't repeat the mistakes of others. You can find the evidence of the term being a conspiracy theory (both the academic evidence, and the right wing evidence) on this very talk page. Feel free to investigate it yourself, these diffs should help you locate the relevant information: right wing discussing it as a "hidden" conspiracy theory and credentialed academics referring to it as a conspiracy theory. Both sides agree it's used as a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory claims The Frankfurt School is responsible for attempting to use Identity Politics (or some variant of, eg. Feminism, Black civil rights, gay rights, atheism) to destroy western civilization. --Jobrot (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Krakaet, you're correct that this article is an egregious violation of WP:NPOV. It's so bad that external articles criticize this article for its POV pushing. Jobrot misinterprets WP:DUE weighting to support his point of view. Specifically, he deems only academic sources to be of relevance, despite this subject being in the domain of common political discourse.Teishin (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:FRINGE, "common discourse", folklore and conspiracy theory simply do not have the same status on WP as knowledgeable sources. Will it take yet another RfC on Cultural Marxism to settle this (again)? Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
As already explained to you diff that article does not refer to the current section. Jobrot misinterprets WP:DUE weighting to support his point of view. Specifically, he deems only academic sources to be of relevance, despite this subject being in the domain of common political discourse. - that's not my position. Non academics are also included in the current section, in the form of key right wing proponents and pioneers of the conspiracy theorist usage. --Jobrot (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frankfurt_School/Archive_14&oldid=871430937"