Misplaced Pages

Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newimpartial (talk | contribs) at 12:33, 2 December 2024 (→WP:REFERS: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:33, 2 December 2024 by Newimpartial (talk | contribs) (→WP:REFERS: ce)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
    This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article.
    This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
    Article policies
    Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
    Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
    There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
    The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
    Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
    ? view · edit Frequently asked questions

    Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing how to improve this article.

    To view an explanation of the answer, click the link to the right of the question.
    Frequently asked questions about Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory Q1: Why is this topic called a "conspiracy theory" in the title? A1: Because that's what the reliable sources call it, and Misplaced Pages follows what reliable, independent, secondary sources say. See the sources listed in the footnotes in the lead of the article, for example. Q2: Why is it labeled "far-right" and "antisemitic" in the first sentence? Doesn't that show a biased, leftist point of view? A2: See answer #1; because that's what the reliable sources call it; see the citations for the first sentence. Q3: Dworkin (1997) has the term in the title of his book, so the field clearly must exist. A3: Not if he's the first one to talk about it. Dworkin said (on page 3) that "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline". If he's the first, then either it's not a preexisting field, or no one has discovered or named it before him. Either way, that would be a different topic; this article is about the conspiracy theory dating to the 1990s. Q4: I came here to read (or edit) about scholars who apply Marxist theory to the study of culture. A4: Much of this is covered at a different article, Marxist cultural analysis. Q5: Why is this labeled "antisemitic"? Plenty of people involved with the Frankfurt school were Jewish! A5: This article is about the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory dating to the 1990s, and the reliable sources consistently identify it as antisemitic. The Frankfurt school is a different topic, and dates back to Germany in the 1920s.
    This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
    It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
    WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconSocialism Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
    WikiProject iconDiscrimination Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
    WikiProject iconJudaism Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconAlternative views Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
    A warning about certain sources: There are two sources on the subject of "Cultural Marxism" that represent a citogenesis or circular reporting risk to Misplaced Pages as they plagiarize verbatim directly from an outdated draft that came from Misplaced Pages, which can be found here (2006 revision here). The sources are N.D. Arora's Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination (2013) and A.S. Kharbe's English Language And Literary Criticism (2009); both are from publishers located in New Delhi and should be avoided to prevent a citogenesis incident.


    History of "Cultural Marxism" Article/Redirect/DAB

    Since this topic emerged in our previous discussion, and given that some relevant pages on Misplaced Pages have been purged, I consulted the Internet Archive to recover missing information. Here are my findings, which may be pertinent to current and future discussions:-

    • Cultural Marxism was originally a Misplaced Pages article, with the earliest snapshot available from 2006.
    • From September to December 2014, the article underwent rapid changes, shifting its focus. Notable snapshots include August 2014 and December 2014.
    • On 29 October 2014, there was a brief discussion about whether to delete or merge the article with the "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" article. No conclusion was reached.
    • Between 5-22 December 2014, an extensive debate regarding merging the article with "Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory" took place, with Jimbo Wales actively participating. Ultimately, two uninvolved administrators determined there was no consensus to merge.
    • From 22-29 December 2014, after a contested AfD, three uninvolved administrators sided with the delete-and-redirect proponents, concluding that "Frankfurt School" or "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" would be the most suitable targets for redirection.
    • Shortly thereafter, a redirect was established from Cultural Marxism to Frankfurt School#Conspiracy theory. Both the old article and its talk page were purged (essentially, both pages were deleted and recreated, which accounts for the lack of complete history for these pages).
    • The Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article, which existed from May 2013 to December 2014, was also folded into the Frankfurt School at this time. Its prior history and talk remain available.
    • From 7 May to 17 August 2019, a Request for Comment (RfC) regarding the splitting of the content from "Frankfurt School#Conspiracy theory" section resulted in no consensus. View discussion.
    • Between 12 August and 11 September 2020, a similar RfC proposal was debated and deemed to have a clear consensus by the closing admin, the same one who closed the AfD in 2014. View discussion.
    • On 11 September 2020, the conspiracy theory content was moved from "Frankfurt School" to a new article titled "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory." The redirect from "Cultural Marxism" was updated to point to this new article, where it remains today.
    • On 28 September 2020, the article "Marxist cultural analysis" was created.
    • Regarding the creation of a "Cultural Marxism" disambiguation page, my search did not uncover any RfCs, though I did find two unclosed discussions from 2021 and 2022.

    Is this historical information useful? Should any of it be added to the FAQ? 87.116.182.140 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

    "... given that some relevant pages on Misplaced Pages have been purged, I consulted the Internet Archive to recover missing information." If you didn't know that all these discussions are archived on Misplaced Pages and are easily navigatable with the links at the top of this page, then there's nothing more for anyone to say other than good effort and I'm sorry you wasted your time? Archiving old and closed discussions is routine on most talk pages when the total amount of text on a talk page gets too big. Do you really think there's some nefarious "purging" going on or are you playing innocent with the old "I'm just asking questions, definitely not implying anything here." Yue🌙 21:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    Not strictly true. During the closing of the AfD, Admins decided to WP:SALT the old history of the page because it contained questionable conspiracy theory content being passed off as fact. This was done to prevent any misinformation propagating from Misplaced Pages or being reused. The history for the page is probably still out there, but I think only the Admins of Misplaced Pages would have it (and I'm not even sure if they keep it). There are probably versions of archive sites though. 101.115.130.228 (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    «During the closing of the AfD, Admins decided to WP:SALT the old history of the page because it contained questionable conspiracy theory content being passed off as fact» => This sentence make no sense. WP:SALT is not about purging history of a page but about «prevent the creation of pages. This type of protection is useful for pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated.» Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    The process of purging was disorganized. I didn’t go into details because it is a tangential issue. Here are some pertinent pages and discussions, in case you’re interested: 87.116.182.140 (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    A major thing I think you're missing out on - is the fact that BEFORE concerned Wikipedians started to look into the page in late 2014... say even immediately before that (before the graph on the webarchives starts to go up) - say the September 2014 version and everything before then... the page only had 9 sources. Of those 9 sources, only two authors actually used the term (Douglas Kellner, and William S. Lind). Their takes on the term are WILDLY OPPOSING.
    Kellner says "Hey, some Marxists have commented on culture, this might be a kind of cultural Marxism, but it's not a set school, or movement, or ideology, I'm just going to write about which Marxists have been cultural or dealt with culture in their writing... and they all seem to believe there's a Capitalist hegemony in the west." that's Kellner.
    William S. Lind says "Cultural Marxists" (he capitalizes both words, indicating he's formed a proper noun, or label identifying a concrete movement/group/ideology) - "Cultural Marxists are behind every Ivy League school, which are becoming more and more like North Korea! Cultural Marxists put gay people on Television! Cultural Marxism is political correctness, and gives you intellectual AIDS . Cultural Marxism was created by The Frankfurt School who didn't serve in world war 2, but instead worked in Hollywood! Karl Marx is behind modern progressive liberalism! They're also all Jewish!" - that's William S. Lind... and he'll go so far as to do this at Holocaust denial conferences.
    Later versions of the article have more sources that perhaps touch on the term, but they're from both of these conflicting camps. So Misplaced Pages didn't do anything in this debate, it merely observed (quite rightly) that these two camps existed, and were saying UTTERLY DIFFERENT things. Misplaced Pages doesn't like having pages where only 2 sources are actually relevant, and one of those sources - is kind of a conspiracy nut. We don't like to use conspiracy theories, as if they're WP:RS reliable sources. So Misplaced Pages now has two different pages, one for the kind of paleoconservative Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory that Lind largely is responsible for having started, the other for the type of Marxist cultural analysis that Douglas Kellner was writing about. That's what happened here, it just took a long time. The various moments of bureaucracy you've catalogued were part of Misplaced Pages's process in making sure we were respecting the sources, and their subject matter.
    Because The Frankfurt School are the actual subject matter for the conspiracy theory. People like William S. Lind can say things about The Frankfurt School - but if those things aren't true, if they're verifiably false (for instance, the Frankfurt School never "worked in Hollywood" as in the movie industry, as Lind suggests. They had no part in putting gay people on Television as Lind suggests, they're not even all Jewish as Lind suggests - Habermas was not from a Jewish background, most of them weren't practicing Jews). So I believe ultimately Misplaced Pages did its best to situate and differentiate between the conspiracy theory version of "the facts".... and the actual facts. That's what's happened here. That's why I can point to these two drastically different sources on the 2014 version, because it's the facts of the matter. It's how things went down, and where they'll likely stay. 101.115.130.228 (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    «some relevant pages on Misplaced Pages have been purged» => I don't think so. What are you alluding to and can you show evidences? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    «Is this historical information useful?» => It is misleading as long as you do not mention the history of Frankfurt School conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for pointing that out! I wasn’t aware that the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory was an article before it became a redirect. I’ve updated the timeline to include that information. 87.116.182.140 (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    Redirect is no longer to an appropriate location.

    Due to changes to the Marxist cultural analysis page, it's no longer an appropriate redirect. That page (it has been determined by two editors who are claiming consensus), is now just for the general discussion of all things cultural by any Marxist theorists, so will no longer be specific to The Frankfurt School. I'm suggesting the hatnote at the top of THIS ARTICLE, now direct users to the The Frankfurt School article, rather than the page for Marxist cultural analysis (which is now essentially set up to become a duplicate (or even broader form) of the Western Marxism page). 101.115.145.140 (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

    I can't see any such consensus on that talk page, and given that it's such a controversial topic a consensus of just two editors doesn't seem appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    I would also point out that the conspiracy theory and those who believe it have no idea what cultural analysis or the Frankfurt school really is. The conspiracy theory is about made up nonsense, so point towards Marxist cultural analysis is the most appropriate target. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    This IP comment seems to me to make at least two problematic assumptions: (1) that the scope of the Marxist cultural analysis article is wider than the relevant scholarship supports, such that it is too vague to be a useful disambiguation from this page; and (2) that the disambiguation for this page "ought to be" to the Frankfurt School, as though the CM conspiracy theorists are "really talking about" the Frankfurt School when they invoke the Cultural Marxism trope.
    I believe neither of those assumptions survives a confrontation with the relevant scholarship, which means a proposal based on one or both of these assumptions doesn't really merit consideration. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    There are no references to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory that DON'T refer to The Frankfurt School, Antonio Gramsci, and other forms of Gramscian cultural analysis (this is mentioned in the AfD).
    Show me one reference to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory that references Trotsky as a founder of it. You can't Newimpartial, you just can't. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    This IP comment does not carry any relevance that I can see: the inclusion of Trotsky - or not - does not define this article one way or another. Newimpartial (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

    Cultural Marxism disambiguation page

    Someone created Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) last week. How do other editors feel about this? Newimpartial (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

    This is a multi-page WP:CROSS-POST . I suggest moving the discussion to Talk:Cultural_Marxism_(disambiguation). 87.116.177.103 (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
    When that dust settles, is there any support for renaming this article to Cultural Marxism (conspiracy theory)? (which already exists as a redirect to this article). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    I doubt that there will be; there certainly hadn't been significant support for similar ideas the last five or six times they were proposed. Newimpartial (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    I still support this disambiguation page.
    While i'm here, some argued in this talk page that there was never a Cultural Marxism page, and I found it.
    There was a Cultural Marxism page, but it was (as this page is) contentious, and became renamed 'the Frankfurt School', and then, after much debate by revisionists, to the current "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy theory" page.
    I think worth a read for those who have been watching this page:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20140519194937/http://en.wikipedia.org/Cultural_Marxism I am a Leaf (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    One possible approach is to rename "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" to "Cultural Marxism" and "Marxist cultural analysis" to "Cultural Marxism (academic use)." Another option is to rename "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" to "Cultural Marxism (conspiracy theory)," rename "Marxist cultural analysis" to "Cultural Marxism (academic use)," and have "Cultural Marxism" redirect to "Cultural Marxism (disambiguation)." None of these options has been explored, as far as I understand. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    They've been explored (and rejected) before, several times. A move proposal along those grounds has essentially no chance of gaining consensus. MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    I think good idea. Been a while since the legitimacy/existence of any nonconspiratial use of the term cultural marxism has been argued, but I believe the disambiguation page leaves less room for argument about the topic.

    When was the last time anyone brought up Douglas Kellner, a so-called third generation Frankfurt School theorist using the term 'cultural marxism' to describe Marxist cultural analysis (in a non conspiratorial way)?

    'Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies' - https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf I am a Leaf (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    I believe the last time this was discussed was October 30 (currently visible on this page). So it hasn't really "been a while" since this issue was discussed (and a related proposal was rejected). Newimpartial (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    Never used the language "been a while" I am a Leaf (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
    It looks like the paragraph with that text was part of your comment - if not, a signature is missing. Newimpartial (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
    No signature was missing. Indents just got messed up subsequently. diff. MrOllie (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

    2024-11 sources

    The Salon article https://www.salon.com/2019/05/05/a-users-guide-to-cultural-marxism-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theory-reloaded/ that i already mentionned in this talk page quote and link an article by Bruce Wilson in his blog: https://4thgenwar.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/trumpcultural-marxism-4gw-and-terrorism/ which can not be used as reliable source in Misplaced Pages in my opinion. Salon also published an interview with Bruce Wilson at https://www.salon.com/2016/07/16/donald_trumps_weaponized_platform_a_project_three_decades_in_the_making/ which can be used as reliable source in Misplaced Pages in my opinion. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

    Salon is not a particularly reliable source per Misplaced Pages:Perennial sources, if I’m not mistaken Dronebogus (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    You are welcome Dronebogus. Relevant link: WP:SALON.COM. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    According to the interview, Bruce Wilson co-founded the blog Talk To Action. According to Misplaced Pages, Talk to Action was co-founded by Frederick Clarkson, so i ping User:Daask. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

    Cultural Marxism DAB

    Should the hatnote be changed to {{redirects|Cultural Marxism|other uses}}, which links to the Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) page? 10:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Survey

    Withdrawn as moot, disambiguation page had been deleted at AfD. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    • No that disambiguation page should be removed, as per my comment on the poll on the disambiguation talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      The disambiguation should remain.
      This article literally has YEARS of argument about whether the topic sentence is too contentious, and whether this article is appropriately neutral. The disambiguation page accurately covers basically anything which the term “cultural marxism” may mean, and to deny that the term is used in the ways presented on the disambiguation page is demonstrably false and there is a decade worth of edits on this page (including the fact that this article was created using the nonconspiratorial title ‘cultural marxism’) displaying as much.
      All nonfrivolous arguments about the content and POV of this page are made null and all complaints are rectified by a disambiguation page. I have not seen a bona fide argument against it. It simply is a solution which works for everyone. I am a Leaf (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      No the dab page is solely a solution for those on one side of the argument. Quite obviously therefore it is not an acceptable compromise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      What do you mean one side of the argument? The side of the argument that recognizes that the term's use very well is ambiguous?
      This should be the only side of the argument, as stated, because there is well over a decade of people complaining about how the conspiracy is not the only way to use the term. I am a Leaf (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      And what is a good "compromise?" Because as stated in my reply, no argument has been made against the disambiguation page aside from people who are plainly ignoring the use of the term outside the conspiracy theory context.
      Is the solution not to compromise at all and to delegitimize the ambiguous nature of the term because anyone who disagrees is part of the ravenous revisionist horde? That seems to be the position you are taking, and that is a position which is plainly called bigotry. I am a Leaf (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      A good compromise would be the current setup, where readers are not misinformed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      A disambiguation page is a list of extant Misplaced Pages articles. Even if it were to be kept, it it's not going to be turned into a WP:COATRACK covering basically anything which the term “cultural marxism” may mean - that is not the function of a disambiguation page. MrOllie (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      The disambiguation page as it remains is perfect. I am a Leaf (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      It is disambiguates to exactly two articles. There's nothing perfect about that. Per WP:ONEOTHER a DAB page is not needed. TarnishedPath 01:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      Hahaha what do you MEAN??? A term can be ambiguous due to only two different uses of the term. What would you recommend changing? I am a Leaf (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      I see, my response to WP:ONEOTHER is that the two topics which are being disambiguated are so different as to not be subtopics of a main topic.
      That is, either the conspiracy theory is a subtopic of the western marxism or marxist cultural analysis page, or marxist cultural analysis is couched as a subtopic of the conspiracy.
      NEITHER of these are adequate solutions, and therefore WP:ONEOTHER is not the correct issue to be bringing up here. I am a Leaf (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      WP:DISAMBIG has nothing to do with 'subtopics' or 'main topics'. It's a navigation page, so readers can find articles when names are similar. If there are only two articles we don't need a navigational page. Perhaps you've been confused by the page's reference to 'primary topics' - WP:PRIMARYTOPIC just means that most incoming web traffic should be routed to one of the articles. It is purely about page views and what the readers are expected to be looking for. MrOllie (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      In this case all a disambiguation page would be is an extra click. Someone ends up on this article, but they wanted Marxist cultural analysis, so they would have to click on the hat link to the disambiguation page, and then from there there is only one other option they would be headed to. We should just send them to their final destination right away and save the extra click. MrOllie (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      This is a frivolous argument.
      You think it would be worse that people are presented with an overview of what a term might mean, instead of immediately being presented with the most pejorative and conspiratorial possible use of the term?
      How exactly is the conspiracy theory being presented first better?
      Would it be best if, when someone searched “moon landing” that they were immediately presented with “moon landing conspiracy theory” page?
      To respond to another criticism from another in this thread - From the WP:ONEOTHER page:
      Disambiguation helps readers quickly find a desired article in cases when a term could reasonably apply to more than one article.
      In this case, we have
      1. a now nonexistent page called ‘Cultural Marxism’ which was about Marxist cultural analysis, and has since become “cultural marxism conspiracy theory”
      2. a decade worth of people saying that “cultural marxism” as used in the lede is unreasonable, contentious, revionist, and so on. If you’ve been here long enough you’ve seen probably hundreds of arguments to this tune.
      3. Evidence of academics (Dworkin, legal scholars like Kevin Roberts, and yes, even the hack psychologist cultural critic Peterson) using the term to generally mean Marxist cultural analysis, post structuralism, Frankfurt School and so on and so forth.
      Is it that you think that all these people do not ~reasonably~ use this term? Or is it that you think that this use of the term “cultural marxism” could not ~reasonably~ apply to more than one article? It must be one or the other, if not, the disambiguation is entirely appropriate.
      I am a Leaf (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      You're arguing about stuff that is simply irrelevant. Perhaps the term could apply to some hypothetical third article, but since we do not have an actual third article to list, the topic doesn't need a disambiguation page. MrOllie (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      It is irrelevant that the term Cultural Marxism was the page under which this page was originally created, and that the topic of the page was Marxist cultural analysis? It is irrelevant that many academics use the term cultural marxism in a non conspiracy theory way? This argument is not simply handwoven away. I am not speaking in hypotheticals. I am a Leaf (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      Since this discussion is about a hatnote and a disambiguation page, yes, that is all irrelevant. We have two pages to link, no more and no less. MrOllie (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      What is your issue with the disambiguation page? There is no rule stating that if there are only two that the disambiguation page must not exist. This is a grossly strict reading of WP:DISAMBIG and is not supported by the text of the article. I am a Leaf (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      Yes, there is. It was linked for you earlier in this thread. MrOllie (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      And I quoted the language in the article which supported my position, and you did not. I am a Leaf (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      No, WP:ONEOTHER is directly on point. You came up with some irrelevant stuff about 'subtopics' that in no way undercuts the obvious point of that guideline. If you want to stick with irrelevant arguments, be my guest. We're just repeating ourselves, so it seems useful conversation is at an end. Feel free to take the last word in this sub thread if you need it, I won't reply here again. MrOllie (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
      WP:ONEOTHER is literally about the distinction between primary topics and other (if you will, sub-) topics.
      Do you read these articles? Or do you just cite them fervently in the hope that the person challenging your ideas does not read them too?
      In addition WP:DISAMBIG states plainly
      This page in a nutshell: Disambiguation helps readers quickly find a desired article in cases when a term could reasonably apply to more than one article.
      You suggest only one article is insufficient for a disambiguation page, yet the WP:DISAMBIG page and WP:ONEOTHERboth plainly state that that is not such a strict rule as you suggest. I am a Leaf (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    • No. This RFC shouldn't have been opened in the first place, and the disambiguation page should go to AfD. - MrOllie (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    • No (Summoned by bot) Cultural Marxism refers to the conspiracy theory. Readers should be directed to Marxist cultural analysis if they are interested in reading about that subject. TarnishedPath 13:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    • No. This RfC is inappropriate, and the bogus dab page should be in AfD by now. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      @Orangemike, it certainly is. TarnishedPath 14:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Yes if we keep the dab, and No if it's deleted per the afd; isn't that straightforward? What MrOllie said, I guess. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (disambiguation). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
      The AfD was initiated immediately after the RfC started, presumably because the nominator wanted to shorten the discussion from 30 days to 7. However, this resulted in the discussion being split between two locations, which is far from ideal. Speaking of split discussions, see my WP:ONEOTHER comment in the Discussion section above; it relates to your comment in the AfD. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
      Presumably it was initiated because the nominator thought that the page should be deleted, something the RFC process does not do. MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
      Correct. RFCs and AFDs are entirely different discussions. TarnishedPath 01:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
      Given the consensus that the conspiracy theory article is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term Cultural Marxism, the only permissible use for the disambiguation page is via the hatnote in this article. In other words, updating the hatnote is a prerequisite for using the dab page. This is why it's appropriate to address the hatnote discussion first, and why that discussion should take place on this talk page. Additionally, since the dab page was created only a few days ago and no other articles link to it, making it effectively invisible to readers, there is no compelling reason to rush its deletion. Using the AfD to influence the outcome of the RfC doesn't seem like the most constructive approach. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
      7 days is more than enough time to demonstrate that it is needed per WP:D2D and WP:ONEOTHER. TarnishedPath 07:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
      By simple logic deciding if the page should exist should happen before deciding how to use the page. If the page doesn't exist then deciding how to use it is nonsensical, only if the page is exists does discussing how it's used make any sense.
      That's not using AfD to influence the RFC, that's doing things in their logical order. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Comment. Because this DAB has only two pages, I lean towards deleting it. However, I've seen an increasing tendency among conservatives to use "Cultural Marxism" for its plain meaning of "Marxism in culture" (or at the very least, aspects of culture they perceive as downstream of Marxism). This terminology is now reflected in secondary and tertiary sources, e.g. here in the OED (which notes its roots in the original antisemitic conspiracy theory, but also notes the way it's taken on a broader meaning). My suggestions would be to split this into two pages (maybe Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and something like Cultural Marxism (phrase)), which could both be included in a DAB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Closed Limelike Curves (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Yes, I support simplifying the hatnote and linking to the disambiguation page. Some editors argue that the "See also" articles are irrelevant or merely padding, but I respectfully disagree. Cultural Bolshevism is historically and topically related to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, as both articles explain, and similarly, Western Marxism and Cultural studies are closely linked to Marxist cultural analysis, with all three overlapping to a significant degree. One unique link, which isn't available in the other articles, is the Wiktionary entry, which is particularly important given that the term cultural Marxism has over time become a highly politicized meme. None of the articles directly address this aspect (nor should they, as this is the role of Wiktionary). Including both the Wiktionary link and the "See also" articles not only aids navigation but offers readers valuable context that isn't provided elsewhere, making this a reasonable exception to the WP:ONEOTHER guideline. As with any guideline, exceptions may apply, and in this case, I believe it's necessary to help ensure that Misplaced Pages remains accessible for all readers, regardless of their political views. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    • As the original poster, I am withdrawing the RfC because the issue is now moot following the deletion of the Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) page during the AfD process. For reference, here is the archived dab page that was deleted. I will also add a subsection below to address an outstanding question about the hatnote that a few of us discussed earlier, and welcome any additional input from others. Thanks to everybody for participating in the RfC. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Post-AfD Hatnote Poll

    The current hatnote reads: "Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For the Marxist approach to social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis.

    Should the hatnote be simplified to make it easier for a casual reader to understand?

    1. Do nothing.
    2. Simplify to: For the Marxist approach to cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis.
    3. Simplify to: For the Marxist view of culture, see Marxist cultural analysis.
    4. Simplify to: For the Marxist theory of culture, see Marxist cultural analysis.
    5. Something else (please specify).

    Feel free to list your options in order of preference, if you'd like. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    Option 1 but I also find Option 4 adequate. I am a Leaf (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    Nullification Just to re-iterate my concerns expressed elsewhere, Marxist cultural analysis is a WP:coatrack of not particularly orthodox "Marxists" (some of whom aren't Marxists at all), which two authors are attempting to WP:OWN in order to force the appearance that Sociology is by definition Marxist. It's no longer a suitable hatnote for the page. I'd suggest no hatnote. 117.102.150.254 (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    @117.102.150.254 do you mean WP:POVSPLIT? If so I agree, because when I hear the term Marxist cultural analysis I think Frankfurt School (the WP:COMMONNAME) and not what occupies that article. If someone were to propose a merge I'd support it. TarnishedPath 10:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    The IP is arguing at article Talk that only Orthodox Marxists should be considered "Marxists", that the Frankfurt School were not (mostly) Marxists, and that instead of "Marxist cultural analysis" WP ought to have a "Gramscian cultural analysis" page that somehow includes Frankfurt. I doubt vety much that this IP's concerns are the concerns of other editors - but who knows, at this point? Newimpartial (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Newimpartial, when they state Orthodox Marxists do they mean Marxism–Leninism? Not that I'm going to get involved, but if so that strikes me as No true scottsman. TarnishedPath 11:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    IANA Marxist, but I think Orthodox Marxism means roughly the opposite—Marxists who aren't M-Ls (i.e. reject Lenin's views). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

    Marxism can be anything now.

    Due to the actions of one editor, Marxism, according to the Marxist cultural analysis page, "...does not have any authoritative definition" so I don't see how the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page can be incorrect any more. If Marxism doesn't have a definition, and if cultural studies started with the works of Karl Marx in 1859 (as also claimed by the current Marxist cultural analysis page - then that seems to confirm and validate the Conspiracy theory's claims that Cultural Studies originated with Karl Marx and is part of Marxism. Unless you're telling me the one editor who now WP:OWNs the Marxist cultural analysis is wrong? Well, for now it's being said in Wikivoice there, so perhaps the DAB hatnote for this article needs to be reconsidered. Strangely the page on Cultural Studies says that field of academic discourse started in the 1960s.... that conflicts with Marxist cultural analysis's claims it started 100 years earlier with Marx's writings. 101.115.134.142 (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    This is not what is claimed on the Marxist Cultural Analysis page. The page says that people in the ‘overlapping and antagonistic traditions’ of Marxist cultural analysis take inspiration from Marx’s texts, not that Marx was already doing Marxist cultural analysis avant la lettre.

    Think about it like Christianity. Quakers clearly take influence from the life of Christ and the Gospels, but it would be ridiculous to say that Quakerism started with Jesus.

    And yes, Marxists debate what Marxism really is all the time (just as conservatives debate what conservatism really is or who really counts as a conservative). Yet, the lack of an “authoritative definition” obviously does not mean that things can mean anything. Perhaps you’re right that the editor should get out of Wikivoice and mention the source authors directly (either Lee Artz or Peter Brooker). However, you should probably take your comments to the Marxist Cultural Analysis talk page, in that case. The hat notes of both pages are there to point out that “yes, Marxists have theorised about culture”, but that what they have actually said and done is distinct from the claims of Lind or Minnicino or other proponents of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Ex-periment-evie (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
    What @Ex-periment-evie said.
    Also, please at least tag me if you are going to cast aspersions against me.
    It would also be lovely if you took a moment to explain why you have a long history of editing around a contentious topic with constantly shifting IPs instead of your username. Patrick (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
    See Etymological fallacy: "a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes a word's original meaning is the same as its current meaning." It doesn't matter what Marxism means but what the concept of cultural Marxism means to the conspiracy theorists who created the concept. TFD (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
    Nothing will ever confirm the conspiracy theory, as the conspiracy theory is made up nonsense. No word play will ever change that fact. If you want to discuss the hatnote there's an RFC above. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

    WP:REFERS

    @Newimpartial, I'm surprised by this revert. It appears true that, as you write, "'Cultural Marxism' is the imaginary object of the conspiracy theory". But more pertinently, it is also the name of the theory, in addition to being its object. Therefore, per the MOS as documented at WP:REFERS, we should avoid using constructions such as "refers to". We are describing the concept, not its name. Sandstein 12:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

    My revert reflects multiple discussions on this page, which show no consensus to replace the longstanding "refers to" formulation with "is" or any other replacement text. To the best of my knowledge, the most recent of the many discussions is this one. Newimpartial (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Categories: