[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

NPOV Tag

What exactly is being claimed as in dispute. All the statements are well sourced. --Jobrot (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

If it is in fact the title descriptor "Conspiracy Theory" I would point out that yes, this (in the eyes of key proponents quoted earlier on this talk page);- a theory about a school of philosophers subversively tricking or "brainwashing" (either the public or academia or the media or all three) and then taking over academia and the media in order to introduce (brainwash or trick) "dangerous" ideas into our society in general that will "destroy western culture" can in fact accurately be described as a Conspiracy theory (specifically a Systemic conspiracy theory as defined by Michael Barkun, on the Conspiracy Theory page, and in this specific instance; as studied by Chip Berlet (a journalist interested in studying the nature of conspiracy theories). I posted several links yesterday [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] to illustrate that ,yes, this is the common and currently widest use and understanding of the term 'Cultural Marxism'. I think there was some mistake yesterday with people thinking I was suggesting these links constitute reasonable references for the article. They don't. I was using them merely to illustrate that a cursory Google search reveals this as the commonly understood usage for the term "Cultural Marxism". I believe this, combined with the references that are already in place from the academics Jerome Jamin, J. E. Richardson as well as The Southern Poverty Law center (and associated academics such as Heidi Beririch), as well as direct quotes from the key proponents of the theory themselves (given earlier on this talk page, as well as the ones currently referenced in the section in question) constitute a valid justification for the continued and reasonable use of this title as a descriptor of the section (it also works as a firewall between what the Frankfurt School actually espoused and what the conspiracy theory is claiming). However, if the disputed NPOV tag is in place for other reasons, I'm certainly open to discussing them, and working through whatever aspects are considered non-neutral. --Jobrot (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe I've proven that the wide spread common usage (in line with Lind's usage, and the AfD) "that the Frankfurt School originated Political Correctness, Gay rights" (what Lind calls "normalizing homosexuality") "Feminism" (see gamergate), "Multiculturalism, Atheism and Civil Rights" (all of which is disproved by these movements predating the Frankfurt school) - and the fact this section has not been addressed, indicates that for the time being the dispute tag can be removed (for now). The fact that Gottfried's (a single individual's) less common, more moderate viewpoint exists, does not invalidate that the wide spread usage is more in line with Lind's conspiratorial usage (as argued above and elsewhere). Whilst the question of whether Gottfried is to be quoted in the section is still up for debate, this is not the same as debating the valid references that are already present. That is to say, the section is not in dispute, the title has no dispute that can be attached to it (the AfD decided the common usage was WP:FRINGE and that isn't likely to change)... so unless anything other than the section's heading was being questioned, I'd like to remove the dispute tag for now. Please respond here with the subject matter and reason you believe the section to be WP:NPOV if you intend on re-instating the tag. --Jobrot (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Reading this article for the first time, and knowing nothing of the subject matter, I also thought it quite inappropriate that 'conspiracy theory' is used as if a fact rather than reported as a claim made by opponents. I don't doubt that there are sources that use the term, but (as the article Conspiracy theory spells out) 'the term "conspiracy theory" has acquired a derogatory meaning over time and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies'; so Wikipedia should not be using an abusive term as a statement of fact. As an analogy, you may well find sources saying George Bush is an idiot, but describing him as such as a matter of fact (e.g. 'During his presidency it became clear that Bush was an idiot', or the heading 'President and idiot') rather than reporting someone else's description of him as an idiot is to say the least unencyclopedic. Ben Finn (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
George Bush being an idiot would go against Wikipedia's policies on Biographies of Living Persons, that can be read here if you're interested: WP:BLP - however this subject deals with ideas. The main idea behind the claim of "Cultural Marxism" the one that is repeated most thoroughly is that the Frankfurt school is the source of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism. This can be shown to be demonstrably false. A theory involving a party conspiring (in this case "to destroy western culture") which can be shown to be demonstrably false - is by definition a conspiracy theory. These points have been expanded upon multiple times on this very talk page that you're adding to, but namely in the exchange directly above this section. You're welcome to read through this page and the explanations there in, for a reference point I suggest you search this talk page for mention of 'Michael Barkun' and 'Michel Foucault'. Cultural Marxism is a theory about a conspiracy, and is demonstrably false. Hence the title Conspiracy Theory. It is only derogatory in so much as being incorrect is derogatory. --Jobrot (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Further more the current redirect was the result of the AfD on this subject, and so has administrative approval. If the term "Conspiracy Theory" is to be avoided on wikipedia then numerous pages would have to be changed, including pages on the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory, the Jewish World Conspiracy (which 'Cultural Marxism' often overlaps with), the New World Order (conspiracy theory), all the 9/11 conspiracy theories and all the Moon landing conspiracy theories. Just because a theory starts with a degree of fact, doesn't excuse it from the label. Yes the Frankfurt School existed, but no they are not responsible for Political Correctness or Multiculturalism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of FACT. That is exactly what makes it encyclopedic. --Jobrot (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Your assertion that opponents of cultural Marxism believe in a plot to "destroy Western civilization" is pure rhetoric that only serves to cloud the issue. You need only reverse the situation to see how much ideology factors into this. Think of progressives, who (rightfully) believe that conservative ideology is harmful to society, that it is wrong to place restrictions on abortion, refuse women rights, engender economic inequality, fail to take proper care of the environment, etc. Liberals may be distressed by the possible consequences of conservative ideology, but whatever language they use to express this fear does not invalidate the underlying idea that conservatives exist who hold these views and actively shape society in their own image. Reversing the coin again now, by the same measure, there are progressives who are just as enthusiastic about their views and make an equally vigorous effort to support them, and however intense the opposition to them may be, it is not demonstrably false that they hold the beliefs they do, and that they go out of their way to promote and support them. I reject your claim that the threat of cultural Marxism can be shown to be wrong, as you are making this claim based on the fact that certain claims made by certain opponents of cultural Marxism are false. By this same line of reasoning, we should add "conspiracy" to the title of all progressive articles because there also exist progressives who make falsifiable claims. Cultural Marxism itself may not warrant its own page, but it is ludicrously misleading to have it redirect to a right-wing conspiracy theory page, this coming from a self-identified progressive. How about a disambiguation page which links to the Frankfurt school, cultural studies, etc., as someone else suggested above me? Ptprs (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not my assertion that "opponents of cultural Marxism believe in a plot to "destroy Western civilization" - they state it explicitly themselves. And yes, some progressives believe that conservative ideology is harmful to society but that's not the same as claiming conservativism is an organized foreign plot whose intention is to destroy society (and certainly not the same as slapping a historically academic label on it and going out in public). It's also no where near as reductionistic as the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory which explicitly states that feminism, atheism, anti-racist and anti-homophobic movements are entirely reducible to an organized Marxist effort to destroy society. This is literally the attempt at folding many movements into one and labeling it communism.
Progressives to my view are far more likely to use phrases such as "harmful to women" or "harmful to the community" rather than make these huge hyperbole filled claims about the destruction of society.
So when you say but whatever language they use to express this fear does not invalidate the underlying idea that conservatives exist who hold these views you're only defending the underlying idea. Your phrase: "Whatever language they use" does NOT extend to saying things like "the modern conservative push by the Bush family (aka the Neo Silver Legion of America movement) to ban abortion is an organized effort to destroy western society so that the illuminati can take over" - there is most definitely a point in language from which reality is departed, and conspiracy ensues. Yes there are conservatives who want to ban abortion - this minute part, what you call "the underlying idea" remains true - but that doesn't VALIDATE the idea that the Bush family are part of a "neo Silver Legion" movement who are working for the illuminati.
MOST conspiracies build on basic facts (what you've called "underlying ideas"). The moon landing hoax for instance, starts with the actual effort to get to the moon. 9/11 conspiracies start with the actual world trade towers. The New World Order conspiracy starts with the actual banking system. Just because all these things WERE real, does not validate the parts of those conspiracies that can be proven to be false. No one is claiming that conservatives are pro-abortion, or pro-gay rights, or pro-multiculturalism, they tend to be anti-abortion, anti-gay rights and anti-multiculturalism... and no one is claiming otherwise.
I reject your claim that the threat of cultural Marxism can be shown to be wrong, as you are making this claim based on the fact that certain claims made by certain opponents of cultural Marxism are false. For starters - YOU HAVE NOT shown a definition for Cultural Marxism. If you bother to read the whole Frankfurt School article (or even better, some of their own writings) you'll soon work out that not even the Frankfurt School had a singular solid intent, they were not a unified movement and as mentioned in the article; even who counts as part of the Frankfurt School varies from scholar to scholar (and that's just the Frankfurt School). So don't go telling me that Cultural Marxism is a genuine threat without defining what you mean by Cultural Marxism. This page is not intended for political discussion, it's intended for editorial discussion. If you can find a liberal/progressive concept that makes grand over-arching claims that are falsifiable you're free to go to it and argue it as a conspiracy theory. But it is not my job, or the job of any other editors to back up or construct a page around your assertion that the threat of Cultural marxism is real. --Jobrot (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You are right to point to the lack of a shared definition as one of the key issues here. Looking through the available sources, the meaning of the term appears to vary depending on the political bias of the author, with the left characterizing it as a conspiracy with racist, sexist and paranoid overtones, and the right more likely to use it as a shorthand for a particular brand of liberal critical theory, the influence of which on society is presumed to be pernicious. Unless we can agree that the meaning of the term differs substantially based on who is using it and the context in which it is being used, no consensus on a definition can be reached. The old article did a better job of explaining this than I could (though the fact of its deletion suggests it was contentious in itself), defining the term in the opening paragraph in a way that does not invoke any unnecessary and exaggerated associations with conspiracy theories (even the most ardent progressives would have no problem separating opponents of cultural Marxism from subscribers to the Illuminati conspiracy theory), while also explaining the hostile views of the left in regards to the characterization of them, and concluding with an explanation of the fact that the use of the term by recent conservatives is different to its historical use. For alternative interpretations of the term, I would consult just about any right-wing article on the topic, unless we are considering these perspectives less valid than the equally polemical left-wing articles. The association of the term with opinions that veer into the conspiratorial can be confirmed with a quick Google search, but it is only one of several senses in which the term is used. To tar all opponents of cultural Marxism with the conspiracy brush and attack them on that basis is logically fallacious.
In your defenses of the deletion, you're attributing undue weight to left-wing sources which deliberately seek to discredit the beliefs of the right using rhetoric similar to that which you are employing in our discussion. We would not (for example) use primarily right-wing sources to dictate the tone and content of the article on feminism unless we were Conservapedia (and that is the reason nobody visits Conservapedia), nor would we use the controversial beliefs of the most radical feminists to tar the entire movement. It appears that we are both on the same side of the political fence, and on that basis that we should understand that this is not an ideological disagreement between us, but an argument about the weight that ideology plays and has played in the deletion of this article, as well as the choice of article for the redirection. There are any number of examples I can cite, but the one that leaps to mind is your statement that progressives express their beliefs in less histrionic ways than conservative extremists, which is just as true as it is misleading, in the sense that it is purely a rhetorical device which ignores the fact that a comparison between conservative extremists and progressive extremists would be far more reasonable and fair.
It is already a significant concession for me to agree with the deletion of the article, given that the general use of the term by conservatives obviously does not invoke the paranoid conspiracies you are talking about, and the idea that this kind of schizophrenia underpins conservative thought seems more the consequence of left-wing proselytizing than anything else, but all the same, the broader usage of the term should be reflected in a disambiguation page that includes the Frankfurt school as well as related topics such as cultural studies and critical theory. Ptprs (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a question of sourcing. The term does have a smidgen of an academic background (although not enough to sustain a whole wikipedia page). And in that academic sense, it was limited to Cultural Studies but never well defined (to the point that finding a usable reference from academia is difficult). So when the right side of politics claim to understand the term and use it to mean something that goes beyond the mere analysis of culture, and push the meaning towards being some kind of over-arching political conspiracy aimed at revolution - the original usage separates from the current usage. In particular, the right are fond of saying that Cultural Marxism is the source of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism. However this is demonstrably false. The modern usage of Political Correctness was coined by french philosopher Michel Foucault who wrote: "a political thought can be politically correct ("politiquement correcte") only if it is scientifically painstaking" when writing to Jean Paul Satre in the french fortnightly journal Quinzaine littéraire,[8] he later in Duccio Trombadori's Remarks on Marx wrote that the Frankfurt School was not influential to his thinking [9]... ergo the modern usage of "Political Correctness" does not come from The Frankfurt School nor "Cultural Marxism" (whatever that may be) likewise the concept of Multiculturalism is not innately Marxist, and is more a product of global travel and immigration.
So the right are not particularly good at defining Cultural Marxism as they have so consistently opened by making statements about it which are demonstrably false (not to mention the commonality with which they quote the "long march through the institutions of power" as having been said by Antonio Gramsci rather than Rudi Dutschke to the point that the common misattribution gets mentioned on Dutschke's page).
The right simply do not have a detailed understanding of the theorists they're accusing. The left point out that the theorists in question are complicated, contradictory and may not even be Marxists. But to attempt to construct a "movement" which if you're starting with Gramsci would span almost a century, and yet has only just been noticed and named now - well it's disingenuous and dishonest... especially because it just happens to fold all of what Political Scientist Dr. Heidi Beirich calls "Conservatism's bête noires" (black beasts) "feminists, homosexuals, secular humanists, multiculturalist, sex educators, environmentalist, immigrants, and black nationlists." into one category in order to label it all communism in one easy blow. It's lazy.
The long and short of it is that The Frankfurt School was poorly defined, as is "Cultural Marxism" so basing "Cultural Marxism" off the Frankfurt School is like nailing jelly to jelly. Then to claim all these modern political sub-groups are Marxist purely because the Frankfurt School were associated with Marxism (even though the Frankfurt School veer radically away from our common conception of Marxism)... well it gets kind of ridiculous. It's like saying modern quantum physics is secretly spreading Catholicism because universities were once upon a time emerged from monasteries and the monastic system. It simply does not work that way.
But yes, if there's something in particular you want to include in the article, you'll have to present a source. If you're interested I've constructed and heavily sourced my own views on Cultural Marxism and they can be read in my sand box here --Jobrot (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it is disingenuous to roundly dismiss progressives by placing them all under the poorly defined umbrella of cultural Marxism, but no more or less disingenuous than doing the same thing in reverse, implicitly purporting that self-proclaimed opponents of cultural Marxism are all inseparable and can be roundly dismissed on that basis. What if the subheading was changed to "Cultural Marxism" instead of "Conspiracy theory," considering the accusatory nature of the redirect is what seems to be riling people up? Ptprs (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
There frankly aren't enough WP:RS sources of respectable analysts, academics, experts or reporters using "Cultural Marxism" in a more reasonable, limited, well defined way. This is in part due to most users of the term either rallying behind or getting their understanding directly from Lind, or from some reproduction of his work. This effect is described in the current section:

"[Lind's work] spawned a number of condensed textual versions, which were reproduced on a number of radical right-wing sites. These in turn led to a welter of new videos now available on You Tube, which feature an odd cast of pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same line."

- that combined with the academic term being informal and never coming to wide usage or clear definition (even whom The Frankfurt School consisted of, let alone Cultural Marxism, is debatable). The result is that you just don't have that many reasonable or well informed people commenting on the topic. So yes, sadly 'conspiracy theory' captures most people's understanding and usage of the term. The informal academic term never got very far.
Mind you, there are interesting clues as to how we got here. This for instance:

"Some of the most suggestive criticisms of the path taken by many followers of the Birmingham School (not of its founders) emphasize that they have let themselves be caught out by a certain textual condition, where the text seems to acquire a self-contained condition, overlooking the connection with social contexts. Therefore, Fredric Jameson emphasizes the need to recover the critical theory of culture that comes from Marx, Freud, the School of Frankfurt, Luckács, Sartre and complex Marxism, and suggests redefining cultural studies as cultural Marxism and as a critique of capitalism. For this, the economic, political and social formations should be considered and the importance of social classes highlighted (Jameson, 1998)." [10]

- which I think is a very far-left alt-left idea (and it remained just an idea)... obviously there is very little in Cultural Studies that can be called innately Marxist - and indeed Cultural Studies it's self is not very ideologically driven. It's mostly just the visual analysis of messages a Culture gives (mostly via advertising). It's a humanities subject, and fairly banal to my mind, and I suspect a fairly banal process/idea to most modern academics. But you get a lone academic like Jameson suggesting reframing the whole subject and saying he wants to re-invigorate it with Marxist theorists (meanwhile The Birmingham School go a completely different direction), then you take a lone crack pot like Lind who (having cut his teeth during the Cold War) can't see past the word "Marxist" (and certainly has no idea about The Birmingham School moving away from The Frankfurt School), and he can't understand that Jameson didn't (nor could he, given The Birmingham School) follow through with his (bad) idea (about re-invigorating and re-naming Cultural Studies) - and things just get a bit silly and out of hand (Lind's misunderstanding flourishes and is repeated ignorant of the way things actually went). Then all of a sudden multiculturalism, atheism, or gay marriage are getting called "Cultural Marxism" for some reason (because we're trapped in Lind/Jameson's backwards viewpoint), and here we are discussing "Cultural Marxism" as if it means something (thanks guys, thanks Culture wars). When in fact it's a prolific conservative's misinterpretation of informal far-leftist rhetoric which was never acted upon. So yeah, I think we're basically at the bottom of a long, post-cold-war-post-culture-war slippery slope, and there's very little solid ground to be found here or held onto to build this term back up (nor do I believe it's useful to try). I think it's best to leave things as they are until someone who meets the requirements of WP:RS says otherwise (and right now all the WP:RS sources seem to agree with keeping the 'Conspiracy Theory' heading. --Jobrot (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that Lind, Buchanan or the others regards cultural marxism as a conspiracy? I have never come across such a statement. Gramsci's theories about the real power in society being in the culture, not in the economy is openly published. That Rudi Dutschke picked up this and helped in create the long march is also an accepted fact. Thats Marcuse from the Frankfurt School is the Father of the "New Left" is also common knowledge and accepted.
You bring up the concept of "to destroy western culture" as a proof of conspiracy. The ultimate goal of Marxism have always been to make the world Marxist, so why should Cultural Marxism be any different? Perhaps You disagree with the argument that communism and Marxism have this ultimate goal. Well, that does not make it a conspiracy theory. Traditionally Marxism wanted an armed revolution to spread marxism unitil it embedded all mankind and cultural Marxist wanted the same result though different means (by subverting the culture from within). Even if You don't agree, it's perfectly valid claims supported by tons of academic material from the Marxists themselves. Kaffeburk (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Lind says things like:

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

Lind is most definitely claiming a small group has taken over and "poisoned" both academia and the mass media. He claims the culture has been "stolen" and says that Karl Marx is "the man behind the curtain".

"The next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism" -William S. Lind

Lind is most definitely claiming there has been a planned mass deception of the populous with an intentioned outcome. Hence; he's claiming a conspiracy. --Jobrot (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources for Brievik being included

Just added another source for the inclusion of Brievik in the Conspiracy Theory section. This one is from Qantara.de which is jointly run by the German Federal Agency for Civic Education & the mainstream German news agency Deutsche Welle - so can be assumed to have the editorial oversight required by WP:RS - the other sources there come from The BBC, The New Statesman and The Guardian so all pass WP:RS. --Jobrot (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I read your latest source, and it seems to me that the entire Brievik paragraph is full of OR and SYNTH. All you can say, all the sources say, is that Brievik used the term 'Cultural Marxism' in his rant/manifesto, that opposition to multiculturalism was one of his key motivators (alongside resurrecting the Knights Templar and that sort of thing). However, just because someone mentions a term doesn't mean they are noteworthy significant enough to deserve mention in the article or section about that term. Seriously "contributed to the modern appropriation of the term"? What exactly is that supposed to mean, and how exactly is it more substantial than 'he mentioned it and other people talked about his mention of it'? Given that the term Cultural Marxism has been around, according to the article itself, since at least the early 90's, it's hard to see why you want to cite a 2011 manifesto as a major factor in the term's spread and influence. This is not a matter of whether you have enough RS's to confirm that he said it; it's more about whether his mention is notable significant enough enough for inclusion here. PublicolaMinor (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
He's notable as mass murder events are notable, and his in particular garnered more media publicity concerning the term than anyone else. If you look at the google trends data for the phrase "Cultural Marxism" [11] you can clearly see his actions were pivotal to spreading the term.
On a more policy based note, WP:NOTABILITY doesn't actually cover the content of articles, it only covers whether articles should exist or not ("Cultural Marxism" for instance doesn't meet notability requirements). To quote the policy directly: "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." - so if you want to the content removed you'll have to find some other angle. --Jobrot (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Woo, way to wikilawyer. Sometimes words are just words, and don't need to explicitly refer to thousand-word policy documents. I changed the phrasing above in case you're still confused.
I checked your Google trends link, and yes, there was a distinct spike in usage of the term in 2011. However, given that "Cultural Marxism" is a minority viewpoint, it makes sense that there'd be a spike in the data during the period when the term was used by more mainstream news outlets. Once the 'current events' aspect faded away, the graph shows that the number of hits went down to roughly the same level it had been before. The next 'spike' (still ongoing at this point) came in 2014, rather coincidentally the same time frame that the 'Cultural Marxism' article was deleted, redirected, and summarily dismissed as a "conspiracy theory." By your standards, RGloucester should also be included as "pivotal in spreading the term." Either way, it's pretty much the definition of WP:OR to use data directly from Google Trends to support your assertion that Brievik was a key figure in the movement's history. PublicolaMinor (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Well this is the talk page (WP:OR doesn't apply here), and I'm not suggesting the google trends data should be included in the article. I believe that second spike wasn't caused by wikipedia deleting the previous Cultural Marxism page. It was caused by GamerGate's interest in the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy/explanation for the world. This heightened interest in turn lead to the article and its sources being raked over the coals for reliability and verifiability (which brought us to where we are today). Perhaps GamerGate could also be included in the article if there are any WP:RS sources talking about the two concepts together (I know there are plenty of primary sources within their community, not sure about any solid secondary sources).
I'm not sure what you mean about RGloucester, but remember to use WP:GOODFAITH when bringing up other editors, this is not a place for idle gossip.
As you noted yourself the first spike covers "the period when the term was used by more mainstream news outlets" which like I say was caused by Breivik being in the news - and hence his actions lead to the spread of the term (and the articles talk about his prolific use of the concept). WP:OR uses WP:RS in its definition. So unless you're claiming that The BBC, The New Statesman, The Guardian and Qantara.de all fail WP:RS for some reason then I'm not sure how using them constitutes WP:OR (especially considering they're all subject to professional editorial oversight).
I think you've got causality a bit backwards in your understanding of how these events have unfolded. You know, wikipedia didn't cause the second spike, and the media didn't cause the first spike. Events must happen before they are reported either by the media or wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
We seem to be talking past each other. I'm not denying that you have plenty of RS's to confirm that Brievik did mention 'Cultural Marxism' as a conspiracy theory. I am denying -- and you have yet to answer this -- that the RS's speak to your claim that Brievik "contributed to the modern appropriation of the term". When I brought it up, your go-to evidence was not an RS, but a Google Trends graph. That was what I called OR. Not sure how you're not seeing it -- you can pile up source after source that Brievik used the phrase in his manifesto, but where is the RS saying that he was 'pivotal to spreading the term'?
It's ironic you chide me for WP:GOODFAITH immediately before calling my reference to RGloucester 'idle gossip.' You are aware that RGloucester was perhaps the single individual most responsible for ensuring the redirect actually happened? That's not to mention of course that it was his handling of the initial AfD that gave the whole issue as much media attention as it did. For heaven's sake, Jimbo himself got involved in reversing his decision, and RGloucester had it out with him in a debate on Jimbo's own userpage. Given that your only criteria for referencing Brievik in this article was 'his actions led to a brief spike in usage of the phrase,' then by the same logic RGloucester deserves the equal if not greater recognition.
As for Gamergate, they didn't get involved until after RGloucester's initial closure. Search for the term yourself on KotakuinAction -- the first related thread that hit the mainpage was titled "Wikipedia's Cultural Marxism article now redirects to an article called 'Frankfurt School conspiracy theory'". Your timeline confuses the cart and the horse. PublicolaMinor (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually the first post on KotakuInAction that mentions Cultural Marxism can be found here and dates back to October 2014, a full 2 months before the article was deleted. So it's you who are putting the cart before the horse. On top of that KotakuInAction is not where GamerGate started (it started with 4chan, 8chan and InternetAristocrat, these then led to the creation of KotakuInAction - so once again you're putting the cart before the horse). You need to separate cause from effect, all the way down.
The sources cited for the line about Brievik, do mention that "The “cultural Marxism” that Breivik blamed for Europe’s Muslim takeover is a conspiracy theory that was born in the US." ie that this is where he "appropriated" the term from. Likewise it's also noted in the sources as well as explicitly included in the section that a document which uses the term: William S. Lind's "Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology" was emailed to over a thousand people so that they paid attention to Breivik's next actions (which were to go out and kill a bunch of people). So I'm not sure how you're invalidating him as having popularized the term. These facts are in the sources. As a wikipedian I'm sure you know that we're not allowed to plagiarize - so when we're not quoting a source directly, we must repeat what they've said in our own words. Breivik helped appropriate and popularize the term.
As I've stated before, WP:OR does not apply to talk pages, so stop trying to tell me I'm committing it here. Please keep the discussion editorial and relevant to the wikipedia article. Likewise for your comments on RGloucester. --Jobrot (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This grows ridiculous. If you look at what I wrote, I referred to the first 'Cultural Marxism' post on KIA "that hit the mainpage." There were plenty of posts that referred to 'Cultural Marxism' prior to the one I named, but none of them were upvoted or discussed to any real extent. (Also: 46 upvotes, really? And this is what inspired Wikipedians to take a harder look at the original article? I didn't realize so many of us were so obsessive.)
Likewise, I thought I was pretty clear when I said you engaged in OR both here and in the article itself. Look at your own post-- source #1 says Breivik used the term, source #2 says he sent out his manifesto and a book about related topics (political correctness, multiculturalism, etc.) to about 1000 addresses. His actions were responsible for a spike in usage of the term -- a spike that started on July 22nd and dropped off almost entirely by the end of the month. And for this you call him "pivotal in spreading the term"? I will ask again, where is your RS for that claim?
Finally, I fail to see how you find my comments on RGloucester irrelevant -- I was drawing a direct analogy between the two cases. Brievik acted, the usage of the term spiked. RGloucester acted, the usage of the term spiked. If the only evidence needed for inclusion in this article is that, then both should be included. But if you agree with me and think it'd be ridiculous to mention RGloucester as a major popularizer of the term, then you need to find a better argument for why the other one should be. Why are you so insistent that 'Cultural Marxism' be defined by association with a mass murderer? PublicolaMinor (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
If you want to seek out WP:RS sources to include RGloucester in the article, that is up to you (as inadvisable and inane as that idea is). If you have any that meet WP:RS, you can bring them here for editorial discussion. I'm not insistent that Cultural Marxism be associated with mass murder. Brievik has caused that association, not me. I'm merely telling you that its inclusion meets policy requirements. --Jobrot (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The term goes back to the 80s if not the 50s, as the AfD discussion mentioned there are thousands of articles, books and academic texts where "Cultural Marxism" is specifically mentioned [12], according to Wikipedia apparently the only notable mention of it is in some manifesto from 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.62.204 (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
If there is something you want added to the article that wasn't addressed during the Articles for deletion discussion] feel free to tell us... and NO, the term does not go back to the 50s (i suspect you're parroting this information from elsewhere without actually knowing). It goes back to 1973 (maximum) and is conjecture all the way. As you can read in The Frankfurt School page - not even "The Frankfurt School" was a set definite thing and who is included in The Frankfurt School "may vary among different scholars" - "it is not the title of any specific position or institution per se, and few of these theorists used the term themselves."... and that's just The Frankfurt School - not even saying anything of this more modern term "Cultural Marxism". --Jobrot (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I just revised the paragraph -- moved it down into chronological position (after the Tea Party paragraph), removed the claim that Breivik substantially popularized or 'contributed to the modern appropriation of the term'. I also removed two of the four sources for being explicitly labeled "Viewpoint" and "Opinion"; just because it shows up on a RS's website doesn't make an opinion piece impartial. I did some research and will be replacing the other two sources with a 2011 news article from the BBC summarizing Breivik's manifesto. PublicolaMinor (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You've actually removed all four. So I've put the two that weren't be framed as opinion back in. The others may be re-included at a later date, but don't worry, they'll be framed as opinion. --Jobrot (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You have a tendency to not read what you respond to. I said I had removed two already, and would replace the other two with a more to-the-point BBC news article. You ignored the second half of that notice, just like you ignored my repeated statements above that I don't want to include RGloucester in the article (I specifically called it "ridiculous") and that I had mentioned him by way of analogy. As for the sources themselves, I figured it'd be better to cite a news article about the contents of the manifesto (since that's the subject of the paragraph itself), rather than two articles about Breivik's "fellow travelers" and rising specter of Islamophobia (since that's the subject of the section, but tangential to the paragraph's claim). PublicolaMinor (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I only respond to whatever arguments you're making at the time. If you continue an argument about including RGloucester over multiple comments, then I'm forced to assume that it's something you're considering. The supporting references support Breivik as using the term and advocating for the conspiracy. Your accusations about whether I read what I respond to are completely unnecessary and step over the line (what I read is my concern and unknowable to yourself). You've now attacked two editors, and I'd advise you to follow WP:GOODFAITH more closely lest you be seen as an unconstructive editor working against Wikipedia's intent: Constructing a quality encyclopedia. Please keep this talk page for editorial discussions, and refrain from accusations and personal attacks against your fellow editors. --Jobrot (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You're "forced to assume" an implicit meaning to my words that runs directly contrary to my explicit meaning? Yeesh. Those in glass houses should not throw WP:GOODFAITH stones. I'm also curious to hear why you think I "attacked" RGloucester -- I brought up his name and his role in the AfD and use that as background to draw an analogy, but I'm at a loss to know which of my words you think constituted a personal attack.
I entirely agree when you say "The supporting references support Breivik as using the term and advocating for the conspiracy. That is why I changed the article text, to avoid the earlier statement that Breivik was somehow pivotal in spreading the term or determining its modern usage. We seem to have found a compromise in the article text, and it's clear that we're not going to get very far in persuading each other, so why don't we call it a day? PublicolaMinor (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. --Jobrot (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

A volley of possible new sources

This article is quite simply WP:NPOV and WP:OR of the worst kind imaginable. Please keep in mind what trade literature has to say on the subject and don't develop your own theories or try and portray a very common term in cultural studies as a "conspiracy theory", this is unsuitable for an Encyclopedia.

Here are a few examples via Google Books to this and other variants of the term, I'd like to start with a basic definition and short description of it:

"Cultural Marxism is a form of Marxism that adds an analysis of the role of media, art, theatre, film, and other cultural institutions in a society, often with an added emphasis on race and gender in addition to class. As a form of political analysis, cultural Marxism gained strength in the 1920s, and was the model used by the Frankfurt School; and later by another group of intellectuals at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, England.″

Here are other examples you can refer to while describing the term:

62.157.60.248 (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just added a warning about not including Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination by N.D. Arora and English Language and Literary Criticism by Discovery Publishing House to the top of this page as they represent a Citogenesis risk to wikipedia - having been cribbed directly from wikipedia (here) (there were numerous sources brought forth during the AfD which were advertised as "Compiled from quality wikipedia articles" and I feel these two works (both originating with Indian publishers) are an extension of those sort of cheap academic rip offs. The original text on wikipedia pre-dates both sources (with the wikipedia text [13] appearing in 2006, and the two indian sources appearing in 2009 and 2013). Obviously including these would go against WP:Circular - I suspect they were your best chances of getting included (as they deal with the subject directly), and so I'll investigate the other sources at a later date [it's past my bedtime here] - although I can already see some such as the self-published Kellner essay, Jameson's Conversations on Cultural Marxism and Dworkin's Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain which were already debunked during the AfD go there if you're interested in finding out why. --Jobrot (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what authority do you have to claim that you "debunked" academic sources and opinions by famous philosophers and critical theorists with their own Wikipedia pages, do you have any credentials that everyone should know of that you aren't sharing here, since you seem to have started editing due to the deletion of this article and have spent most of your time saying you "debunked" sources you don't like while linking to fringe sources [14][15] or singular academic publications like this to support your "claims"? There is far more literature proclaiming and describing "Cultural Marxism" than saying it's a "conspiracy theory", please keep to what the sources say and don't develop your own theories via WP:SYNTH 62.157.60.248 (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Lind is a primary source for Lind's own opinion and has been used as a supporting reference to back up a secondary source which described Lind's views. As an originator of the Conspiracy Theory he is relevant and can be sourced in this way. Martin Jay is a credentialed scholar of The Frankfurt School, as well as an Intellectual Historian writing for a long established quarterly journal and is being quoted directly. I'm not sure what your intended complaint is about this reference, but as far as I can tell you its inclusion is perfectly legitimate. --Jobrot (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
What you are saying is that Lind is a primary source for Lind's own opinion which you dub a "Conspiracy Theory", but somehow Jameson and Kellner are not? And all the other academic texts and books explicitly referencing "Cultural Marxism", many of them linked above somehow don't exist or have been "debunked" by you, because presumably you are some sort of authority on this subject while all these other academics are not? 62.157.60.248 (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting that you've claimed Jameson explicitly references "Cultural Marxism" because the phrase "Cultural Marxism" does not appear ONCE in the body text of the 296 pages of "Conversations on Cultural Marxism" that you claim explicitly references "Cultural Marxism" [16] - the phrase only and I restate: ONLY appears in THE TITLE. Leaving readers to guess about the conversations relevance to Marxism. So it's fortuitous that you've made the mistake of claiming this book explicitly references "Cultural Marxism" when it does not, as it highlights a simple fact: I am no better than you. I merely look more deeply into the sources, and more deeply into Wikipedia policy. This is why I am able to catch things like N.D. Arora's Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination and A.S. Kharbe's English Language And Literary Criticism as possible citogenesis risks before they are added to the article. This is exactly what makes me a good wikipedian/editor. It doesn't make me better than anyone else, as anyone could do this - I just happen to bother. --Jobrot (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
In reference to Kellner, his essay has been uploaded to his own personal directory on an academic server - this is a privilege that many students also get. Hence there is no evidence for it being peer reviewed, ergo as far as WP:RS goes, it's on the same level as any self-published blog or web document. It's a matter of policy, no special power or authority on my part - I just happen to be familiar with some of Wikipedia's policies (and requiring editorial/peer review of academic documents is one such policy). --Jobrot (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Obviously it goes without saying that second hand Indian rip offs of wikipedia drafts manufactured to pose for sale as genuine academic documents do not count as "trade literature" whatever that terribly "authoritative" sounding term is meant to mean. --Jobrot (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Having had a brief look at the remaining sources, I don't like your chances. Many of them use the term Cultural Anthropology, Cultural Sociology or Social Theory - I'd like to point out to you that merely using the term "Cultural" does not constitute "Cultural Marxism" also Social and Sociology are terms separate from Socialism, and don't infer, suggest or equate to Cultural Marxism in any way - I'm not sure why you've included these references (feel free to enlighten me) - likewise, that second to last link is about Asian Media Studies and from the link I can't see that it has anything to do with the subject at hand. The remaining texts talk about feminism needing to create a 'cultural marxism' but say nothing of the intended meaning of that phrase, whether it means a Culture of Marxism a Culture that mimics aspects of Marxist culture, a Culture that borrows Marxist imagery or whatever. The usage is not definitive, descriptive (and seems to be introducing the term as if brand new) and I see nothing in the writings that can contribute to the article or the subsection (which - as described on this talk page elsewhere - is part of the problem with the yee oldie academic sense of both the term The Frankfurt School and the term Cultural Marxism - they were INFORMAL. Never well defined (different academics claim different people were in, or out of The Frankfurt School), which is why the section is so lacking when it comes to the academic use of Cultural Marxism - because quality sources are difficult to come by. Even in the recent article written by our own MetaMagician3000 [17] only a few sources could be found (and some of those relate more strongly to British Cultural Marxism and The Birmingham School - which are different entirely as they advocate a mixing of classes, so drift even further from economic class based Marxism). I'm not going to pretend this is an easy section to edit or add to. It's not, for various reasons, these are just some of those reasons. --Jobrot (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Please make the section heading CM not CT

I don't care about whatever you guys are all into, but a heading should be as descriptive as possible. It is currently failing. Maybe "Political conspiracy of cultural Marxism" or similar. The current heading is a big fail. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal would be fine. RGloucester — ☎ 03:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer "Political conspiracy theory of cultural Marxism" or "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory" or "Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory" as I believe the inclusion of "Conspiracy Theory" to be a point of accuracy and have been forced by many users, multiple times on this talk page to argue and justify that "Conspiracy Theory" is a valid descriptor (a synopsis of my argument can be found in the comments for the signpost article: [18]) --Jobrot (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I suppose the term "Conspiracy theory" would still be in the body text, so I guess the proposal is fine by me. But we'll need an admin to effect the change, as the redirect page is currently edit protected and can only be changed by admins. --Jobrot (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The current heading came as a result of the merger from the now deleted Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory page. The phrase Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory had appeared in various places that pre-date Wikipedia's usage, and so has been given credibility on those grounds. Of course, given that this is The Frankfurt School page, the "Frankfurt School" part was dropped from the heading - leaving only "Conspiracy Theory" (with the rest of the text being inferential from appearing on the Frankfurt School page). Whether that constitutes a 'big fail' as you say, I'm not sure (seems pretty minor to me). Regardless, that's why it is as it is. Perhaps an expansion back to "Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory" is in order? --Jobrot (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing from other editors on this matter so we can gauge the consensus. --Jobrot (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Any of the more descriptive ones would be fine with me. I guess I like "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory" the best but only by a little bit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
In accordance with WP:RFP I've put in a request to the appropriate admin for lowering the protection on the redirect page so that we can change the heading (without breaking the redirect). If nothing comes of it I'll put a more general request in at WP:RFP. Thanks for your interest in this topic. In the meanwhile, hopefully some other editors will comment as to clarify consensus. --Jobrot (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I've dropped the protection to semi; can I suggest changes are only made when there's a clear consensus to do so, though? At the moment, there appear to be at least three options on the table. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I would support "Cultural Marxism (Conspiracy Theory)". It's clear from what Jobrot has said before that this page does not address the common usage of 'Cultural Marxism' among conservatives, but only about the fringe conspiracy theories related to that usage, as attested by RS's. This would be more descriptive and avoid the earlier conflation between the two. PublicolaMinor (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Although I disagree with PublicolaMinor's reading of what I've said, I am fine with "Cultural Marxism (Conspiracy Theory)" being the heading - it seems PublicolaMinor is fine with it too, and Peregrine Fisher seems reluctantly okay with it. User:RGloucester would you have any objections? --Jobrot (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no need for the parenthetical. Just write "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". RGloucester — ☎ 05:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agree. Or just leave it as is. Dave Dial (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone ahead and made those changes! Congratulations on helping to come to the first consensus based decision this talk page has seen in a long time! --Jobrot (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Who founded it?

"The Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung) was founded in 1923 by Carl Grünberg, a Marxist legal and political professor at the University of Vienna" --Frankfurt School

"Founder: Felix Weil" --Institute for Social Research —User 000 name 18:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Friedrich Pollock "was one of the founders of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt am Main"
I suspect all three are true (and more), as I found a source here (From Max Horkheimer) that sites Friedrich Pollock as cofounder on page 391 - and Felix Weil (an economist whom Germany's Foreign Minister offered to name the institute after) as cofounder on page 396. It also talks about the "Society of Social Research" - which was a club at the University of Frankfurt am Main, and about Carl Grünberg (a Professor, lawyer and sociologist) as being the first appointed director of the Institute of Social Research (page 381). However, this source here (by Martin Jay) says (on page 32) that Germany's Foreign Minister Walter Rathenau was the actual founder, but also talks about the purpose of the Institute from Carl Grünberg's perspective on page 293.
So I suspect it was a University society (The Society for Social Research) which via Felix Weil was funded by Walter Rathenau to become an The Institute of Social Research as directed by Carl Grünberg (a Professor), and with the backing of other members of the society such as Friedrich Pollock. --Jobrot (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"Interwar period"

In the first section, first paragraph, it says the Frankfurt School was formed between the "interwar period" in Germany. I assume this means between the first and second world wars, but there's no information supporting that assumption. Mentioning which year it was formed might be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.25.204 (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As the Frankfurt School is an informal post-hoc grouping of a variety of thinkers, it's difficult to define when they "formed"... but the information you're after may well be on the Institute for Social Research page. --Jobrot (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2015

Please change the title "Conspiracy theory" to "Cultural Marxism" for neutrality. This immediately proves it's a political theory, not a conspiracy theory.

"The theory is associated with American conservative thinkers such as William Lind, Pat Buchanan and Paul Weyrich, and has received institutional support from the Free Congress Foundation." Ideloctober (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 Duplicate of above request. Stickee (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The above request has turned into a debate. This is a much simpler request for a title change. Ideloctober (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 01:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Its not the sort of issue you will ever reach a consensus on. It should however be obvious that conspiracy theory is POV. Rather frustrating with these articles where a minority blocks common sense and neutrality. Any procedures available to get this sorted out (other than keep waiting for a never occurring consensus).--Batmacumba (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The original theory as created by William S. Lind during the 1990's Culture Wars fits directly into Michael Barkun's definition of a "Global Systemic" type of Conspiracy Theory. Using Lind's own words makes this apparent:
"The next conservatism should unmask multiculturalism and Political Correctness and tell the American people what they really are: cultural Marxism" -William S. Lind
"Its goal remains what Lukacs and Gramsci set in 1919: destroying Western culture and the Christian religion. -William S. Lind (strange that Lukacs would attempt to destroy his own society)
"The next conservatism needs to reveal the man behind the curtain - - old Karl Marx himself." -William S. Lind
"Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)" -William S. Lind (living in Hollywood isn't the same as being a part of the movie industry, and nothing of the sort is mentioned in any bio of any member of the Frankfurt School.)
Here is Michael Barkun's "second type" of conspiracy theory - the "Global Systemic" type:
Main article: Conspiracy theory
Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. While the goals are sweeping, the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.
And here are Lind's words inserted into that defintion:
Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world [The Media, Academia, Hollywood and ultimately America]. While the goals are sweeping ["destroying Western culture and the Christian religion"], the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization [The Frankfurt School] implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions [Academia, the media and Hollywood]. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.
Not only that, but many WP:RS authors have written about the theory as being a conspiracy theory, and it fits in with WP:FRINGE. I hope that clears things up for you. --Jobrot (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frankfurt_School/Archive_5&oldid=1136718301"