Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 19 |
Why the Cultural Marxism Section Fails to Meet Wikipedia Editorial Standards
Jobrot has mentioned that they needed to see the specifics of Wikipedia’s policies explicated on this Talk page identifying how the Cultural Marxism part of the article fails to meet the standards of those policies. In summary, these failure are about neutral point of view and including other points of view. I have made a stab at fulfilling Jobrot's request, as follows. Perhaps other editors would like to add other ways this article fails to meet Wikipedia's standards to this list.
The article fails a achieving a neutral point of view.
WP:NPOV says “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia…. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines….”
The article fails because it uses judgmental language (i.e., “conspiracy theory”).
WP:YESPOV says “Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."
The name of this section of the article indicates bias (i.e., “conspiracy theory”).
WP:POVNAMING says “the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment. The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is the main topic being discussed.
The article fails because it lacks balance.
WP:BALANCE says “Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly….”
The article fails because it lacks multiple points of view.
WP:OPINION says “At Wikipedia, points of view (POVs) – cognitive perspectives – are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects.” …Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know: Who advocates the point of view What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)”
The article fails due to excessive and inappropriate classification of alternative points of view as fringe. Notable fringe views need to be represented.
WP:NFRINGE says “A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.”
The article fails because of its selection of sources.
WP:NEUTRALSOURCE says “Arguments often arise which contend that a given source ought to be excluded as unreliable because the source has an identifiable point of view. These arguments cross a wide variety of topics and stem from a common misunderstanding about how NPOV interacts with RS. The neutral point of view policy applies to Wikipedia articles as a whole: articles should reflect an appropriate balance of differing points of view. The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and reliability--not the source's neutrality. Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view.
A particular problem is this insistence of some editors that only academic sources may be used.
WP:NEUTRALSOURCE says “Most Wikipedians see peer-reviewed journal articles as the holy grail of reliability. The fact of the matter, however, is that no article written in any decent journal has ever been "neutral" in the bizarre sense in which Wikipedia uses that word. (However, peer-reviewed journal articles do use neutral sources as support for points which do not constitute original research.) The goal of scholarship (as represented by scholarly publication) is to make points and then defend them (or in some cases attack them). Scholars engage in expanding the boundaries of knowledge, by advancing their own claims as true; "neutrality" is not even part of the calculus. (However, original claims are "advanced as true" by means of building logical arguments atop consensus facts which are already well-supported by multiple neutral sources. The original claims are presented in a neutral way, by appealing to the neutrality of the axioms of logic itself.)
Scholarship is, in every sense, fundamentally opposed to Wikipedia policy. The core of scholarship is original research, synthesis, and asserting that a scholar's vision of reality is in fact the correct one (some would call this bias). High qualityscholarship relies on primary sources, and only engages the secondary literature in order to either acknowledge the sources of ideas or attempt to refute points made by others. Particularly in the humanities and social sciences, scholarship is little more than an extended argument.
Academic papers may present the "best case" for their own conclusions, and some are later refuted either partially or in their entirety, either due to faulty methodology, or as new research is done to improve on the results. It is very difficult for the expert to distinguish good research from bad[why?], and utterly impossible for the amateur. There are no neutral arbiters who weigh the claims of competing research programs and declare a winner, and the peer review process certainly does not help here. Different journals have their own biases and loyalties. A paper submitted to one journal might well be acclaimed as excellent, but while another journal would reject it out of hand, particularly in divided fields (consider, for example, the American-British divide on IPE. A paper that would be well received in many British or European outlets would be rejected immediately at International Organization)."
This article fails because it doesn't include non-academic reliable sources. (N.b., while past usage of the term “cultural Marxism” is about history, current usage is not.)
WP:SOURCES says “If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Magazines Journals Mainstream newspapers”
The article fails because it doesn't include biased sources.
WP:BIASED says “Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context.”
Teishin (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Teishin, please don't cite WP essays as if they were policies or guidelines, just because they support your POV. Doing so shows your ignorance of how WP works, and wastes the time of all concerned. Also, the wall of text looks like it was placed there by a large marine mammal. Newimpartial (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- The policies and guidelines don't in fact support Teishin's POV. Teishin is complaining about a lack of non-academic reliable sources being included - when in fact; books by academics published OUTSIDE of academia are already included. Personal correspondence written by The Frankfurt School OUTSIDE of academia are included. Book reviews and secondary materials (refs [56][72][73][74][75][76][77]) written OUTSIDE of academia (in favor of the conspiracy theory) are included. In fact most sources used in the section are reliable non-academic sources. Teishin's claim that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory section, lacks reliable non-academic sources; is hence completely false. --Jobrot (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Jobrot has mentioned that they needed to see the specifics of Wikipedia’s policies explicated on this Talk page
- again you're misrepresenting me. I'm perfectly aware of Wikipedia's policies (as you can see on any one of the talk page archives - I'm discussing policy on all of them). What I said is that arguments need to be backed by BOTH Wikipedia policy AND reliable sourcing. You've omitted that second part WP:RS entirely.
- For clarity on this subject - I've gone through your comment and highlighted every instance of the words "Reliable sources" found in the policies you're arguing from. That's what this comes down to - you want to include unreliable sources - but the very policies you're arguing from mention OVER AND OVER again, that unreliable sources (such as those you want to include) can't be used. They can only be used in the reporting of notable opinions (and unreliable or incorrect sources are to be couched as such; notable but incorrect).
- You're not offering any reliable sources - next time WP:LISTEN rather than wasting your time, and the time of other Wikipedia editors on long but irrelevant commentary. Listen to my whole statement, not just the part you want to hear or argue about. You need both policy AND reliable sources. --Jobrot (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
You know what your problem is @Teishin:? - you're trying to WP:PUSH a conspiracy theory. That's your problem. --Jobrot (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Jobrot, the above was in response to your complaint above dated 04:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC) where you complain about my only citing policies and not quoting them: “You have only linked to policies, I have quoted them. You've been rebutted each time. If you read the policies, their meanings are clear, and not in your favour. This is something I and multiple other editors have shown you. I am starting to suspect you're WP:NOTHERE in WP:GOODFAITH but are instead here to be disruptive. You need to WP:LISTEN and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Proceeding without specific suggestions about the article will be considered a violation of WP:NOTFORUM.”
Your response to my providing you with detailed quotes from the policies indicates that your rebuttals do not conform to the policies. You are distorting the policies.
Your response is illuminating about how you’re going about doing that. I suspect this is getting to the heart of the problems in this article, why this article has become such a problem that it is being condemned by multiple external sources, and why there’s been so much edit warring on it.
Our problem here is that anytime anyone such as Nergaal offers reliable sources, which Nergaal did in abundance, you argue that they are not reliable. Any attempt to edit the article by adding new sources you reject because you deem the sources to be unreliable. Here I’ve provided the key Wikipedia policies demonstrating that Nergaal has provided reliable sources. You completely ignore the fact that the policies contradict the criteria you’re using, and claim the policies mean the opposite of what they say. Then you declare that no constructive proposals have been made. Yet all attempts at making proposals you strike down claiming that the proposals use unreliable sources. This produces an endless circle and it undermines any effort to correct the problems with the article.
According to WP:PUSH POV pushing is associated with several characteristics that match your behavior.
“They argue that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral.” This is exactly the point I made above.
“They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme” Your edit history is almost entirely devoted to the Frankfurt School, Cultural Marxism, critical theory, and identity politics.
“give undue weight to fringe theories” Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory is a fringe theory.
“They revert war” This article has a huge history of revert wars.
“They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing,” “They hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors and become an expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They outlast their competitors because they're more invested in their point of view.” I looked through the archives of this article. It’s amazing how much you’ve written and how passionately.
“They will often misrepresent others or other discussions in an attempt to incriminate or belittle others' opinions.” I’ve had to complain that you’ve misrepresented my position, and that you’ve acted to incriminate and belittle me.
I suggest you also look at WP:TE. In particular I wish to draw your attention to:
“Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view. Just as some articles are likely to receive more counter-NPOV edits than others, some writers are more likely to make them. Tendentious editing is what these writers do. Thus a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behavior is generally characterized as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. It is usually an indication of strong opinions.”
“Articles, and particularly their titles, must conform to policy regarding the neutral point of view and verifiability.”
“One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources You find yourself engaging in discussions about the reliability of sources that substantially meet the criteria for reliable sources.There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner. This may take the form of arguing about the number of or validity of the information cited by the sources. The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint.
“If you see it as your mission to protect article content from the POV overzealousness of conservatives who don't care about Wikipedia policy, you are as POV as they are. If you see it as your mission to protect article content from the POV overzealousness of liberals who don't care about Wikipedia policy, you are as POV as they are. If you see it as your mission to protect article content from anyone who doesn't care about Wikipedia policy, you are a good Wikipedia editor.”
To move forward you must stop resisting the usage of sources deemed reliable under Wikipedia policy. In particular these reliable sources are
WP:BIASED biased sources WP:SOURCES non-academic sources WP:SOURCES mainstream publications WP:SOURCES magazines WP:SOURCES newspapers
You must also accept that Cultural Marxism is a political topic and is therefore subject to WP:OPINION. It is not a hard fact that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory. That’s just one opinion about it. And because this subject is a matter of opinion, the article requires WP:BALANCE in order to achieve WP:NPOV.
Further, you must come to accept that views you personally consider to be fringe are at least so notable now that they qualify for inclusion according to WP:NFRINGE. You also need to accept that your opinions are just opinions. Other people have opinions too, and those opinions can’t be discarded merely because they don’t match your own opinions. On matters such as this article we are not in a position to know whose opinions are true.
You need to WP:LISTEN to what other editors are telling you about this article failing to meet Wikipedia’s NPOV standards and stop preventing other editors from fixing the article to comply with those standards via your constant dismissals of reliable sources as unreliable, contrary opinions as fringe, and multiple views as false balance.Teishin (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oh hey Teishin! Welcome back! 9 am Monday morning huh? Good weekend? Urhg, Mondays amiright? - so anyways, like I was saying - you need policy and reliable sourcing. Understood this time? Okay cool. Talk again soon, love you! --Jobrot (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Teishin, I suppose it is ADF to assume that you were quoting WP:TE naively and innocently, but I can't help feeling that it would show more actual respect to you to credit the truly masterful exercise in irony that seems to arise from your actual project here.
- To be clear, no reliable sources have been presented to suggest that Cultural Marxism is anything but a conspiracy theory, and as far as I am aware none exist. You are aware, I hope, that NFRINGE is literally the whole reason the Cultural Marxism section of this article exists at all; otherwise the article on the Frankfurt School would not need this tangential content.
- For some reason, Teishin, you feel that all opinions on political topics are of equal value and are to be treated as having equal WEIGHT. Actual WP policy -- like the real world -- recognizes a heirarchy in which some opinions are true and others are FRINGE. How can we tell which is which? Per policy, it is the consensus or preponderance of actual, reliable sources that decides. The size of the sea lion herd at a particular promontory is of no relevance whatsoever. Newimpartial (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Look Teishin, I respect you going through all that policy. I really do. So I'm going to put in some of the effort which you skipped; namely nominating one of Nergaal's sources as the best source of the bunch. This would be the forbes opinion piece by Bill Flax. So we have our nominated source, now let's investigate it - together.
- We start out, as you note, at WP:RS - and thanks to your hard work you've already listed what type of source this is - it's a magazine (indeed a type of publication that's listed as a possible non-academic reliable source). Okay, all good so far. Magazines have editorial oversight, and so are considered somewhat reliable (not as reliable as academic sources, but that's another story).
- So let's keep going with this. We can see by clicking the source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/11/29/the-careless-use-of-the-race-card-in-the-u-s/ that straight away we have some problems. It's in the opinion section. That immediately bumps us down FROM WP:RS to WP:RSOPINION. Here in this policy (which is entirely applicable, given it's a forbes OPINION piece) we can read: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." - so as you can see, any text from this source would have to read something along the lines of "Bill Flax of Forbes magazine said...".
- It gets worse. Going back to the nominated link we can clearly and immediately read the line "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." - this is forbes basically saying "we have used no editorial oversight here". This now disqualifies this source entirely. But for the purposes of being thorough - let's keep going with it.
- But what more is there to do? Well, let's see what the actual quote about Cultural Marxism in the article is. Searching the article the only text that uses the term "Cultural Marxism" is as follows "Cultural Marxism, so prevalent in our culture, presumes the power structure precludes minority progress." - unfortunately this quote is not very usable in that The Frankfurt School not only presumed a power structure they defined it as: The Culture Industry. The author of the forbes article however has left what they intend to mean by this term as ambiguous. This is in part due to the fact it's a passing reference, and the "source" we're looking at is focused on other topics - what I mean by saying this, is that it's best if a source is directly and extensively interested in the topic we're quoting them on. This is not a requirement, but it is best. As WP:RSCONTEXT puts it: "editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible."
- Things get worse though. It appears this source (as it's now been boiled down to just Bill Flax's passing opinion) is not significant, and so it wouldn't even be WP:DUE for inclusion (and I believe this was the first reason given to you). But what does this mean? Well, let's investigate - according to WP:DUE "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." - later in this policy, it pretty much describes what we do in the current section. We "...briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief." This is what the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section seeks to do. It covers the history and development of a false idea (namely the idea that Bill Flax is pushing; that The Frankfurt School created, wrote and manipulated identity and racial politics, into an ideology called "Cultural Marxism" - this did not in fact occur. They were in fact legitimate western theorists, with legitimate commentary on the nature and consumption of commercial and political culture).
- Finally, on just a rational level, with WP:FRINGE in mind. Let's look at Bill Flax's bio once again. In it he states that "It has become evident Washington now embodies the gravest threat to freedom" - this is heading towards a conspiracy theorist viewpoint. He further states that he's "also a contributing writer for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation." - when we look up this organization, we can see from their Wikipedia page that they are a "conservative Christian public policy group that promotes a free-market approach to care for the environment that is critical of much of the current environmental movement. In particular, the Cornwall Alliance rejects claims of detrimental global warming." - so again, we have someone who is politically motivated, and into conspiracy theories (in this case, the Global warming conspiracy theory). This is where the source ultimately leads. It is the only reasonable conclusion: This source (the most credible of the sources Nergaal offered) has no credibility at all. Not by Wikipedia's standards. Not by any reasonable standard. Hope breaking that down for you helped as to what we look for in terms of WP:RS reliable sources. I can assure you, this same style of investigation has been performed on all the sources offered.
- Please do note, this source was done by the 4th paragraph of the above. The fact that I've elucidated on some of the more political aspects of source checking, does not mean this decision is a political one. It is often the nature of politics that one side is more right than the other. This topic just happens to be more right to the left. I think you're taking this as a political bias - when it is merely a factual bias. --Jobrot (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
"He further states that he's "also a contributing writer for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation." "
Pay a bit more attention to Bill Flax's other listed affiliations:
- American Thinker: "There is no limit to the topics appearing on American Thinker. National security in all its dimensions -- strategic, economic, diplomatic, and military -- is emphasized. The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us. Business, science, technology, medicine, management, and economics in their practical and ethical dimensions are also emphasized, as is the state of American culture."
- RealClearReligion. Apparently one of the properties of RealClearPolitics. "Patrick Stack of Time magazine has described the site's commentary section as "right-leaning".[1] The site has been described as being run by conservatives, and containing "opinion pieces from multiple media sources".Google. In 2009 RealClearPolitics was described as a weblog "in the conservative pantheon" by Richard Davis.Google. Google. ... "In an interview with the conservative magazine Human Events, McIntyre described the philosophy behind the Web site as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values". Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions". He further stated, "we have a frustration all conservatives have", which is "the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives".
Bill Flax is likely a supporter of Conservatism in the United States, and his articles are quite likely to parrot some popular memes of American conservatives. Such as "Cultural Marxism". Dimadick (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Dimadick, please don't clog up talk pages with ref tags. Simple links will suffice on talk pages (this is not namespace, a reflist is not required here). Also, please learn to indent your comments as per WP:TALK.
- It goes without saying that Bill Flax is conservative (a conservative libertarian, if my reading is correct). This is irrelevant to the section in question. He is not noteworthy and the conservative viewpoint is already thoroughly covered. His opinion brings nothing new, nor is he a key proponent in the history and development of this WP:FRINGE concept. --Jobrot (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
From a purely superficial, objective level: I am pretty sure that if we count out # of left-leaning references with # of right-leaning references we get a clear sweep. If you eliminate every single right-leaning reference, and allow only left-leaning, AND hardcore-left opinions to stand, OBVIOUSLY anything on the rigth-side is going to be perceived as conspirational. Academic sources are left-leaning to begin with, so it is likely they are going to be over-represented in articles like this one. But pushing that even further, to the level that right-leaning sources are actively removed, and replaced with left-leaning opinion articles, that are not even peer-reviewed by fellow left-leaning reviewers, will only result in a joke of an article. I have no idea who this Flax guy is, but if even somebody hired by Forbes is not worthy-enough for wikipedia, as a voice for an under-represented opinion, in a heavily left-leaning topic, while left-leaning non-peer reviewed sources are promoted to untouchable levels, there isn't much place for discussion. Nergaal (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- I thought you had read WP:FALSEBALANCE, or was that the other guy? Anyway, counts of unreliable sources are never where it's at. Finally, anyone editing this topic should at least be aware that nothing can be both superficial and objective... Newimpartial (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- I double-checked: [2] and [3] are not mutually exclusive. Nergaal (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- In this topic they are. We're talking Frankfurt School. Newimpartial (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- In short, EVERYTHING "the owners" of this article disagree with will be purged sooner or later. No tiny addition to this article that doesn't skew it even more towards the NPOV balance will be tolerated. Nergaal (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- In short, Wikipedia really is a collaborative, communicative, consensus-based, editorial project. You really do have to appeal to your fellow editors (in WP:GOODFAITH) using your knowledge of good fact checking, good sourcing, policy, and journalism.
- What you did was immediately accuse everyone else of being part of an organized political WP:CABAL against you. A viewpoint you still seem to hold. You've poisoned the well in that regard.
- Wikipedia is not to blame for your approach here. You are. --Jobrot (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing collaborative when 5 editors argue for something and 2 people revert everything to the old state. There is nothing AGF about every non-felt-leaning source being pulled out of the article. The N in NPV stands for neutral, not for left-leaning. Nergaal (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia isn't simply a matter of having the numbers. If 5 people all have bad reasoning and bad sourcing, which doesn't line up with Wikipedia policy or good editorial practice, those 5 people will be rejected regardless of having a numerical advantage. This is why you should WP:LISTEN to editors who understand policy better than you do, rather than attacking everyone as "leftists". --Jobrot (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Please review WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLEGROUND. This talk page is reserved for editorial discussions on The Frankfurt School article. If you want to discuss how Wikipedia is run, I suggest you do so elsewhere. --Jobrot (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Repeatedly issues have been pointed out and anything coming from a conservative source is thoroughly dismissed; again, this person was allowed to write for Forbes, FFS. Meanwhile, non-conservative, obscure books, that have no proof of sales, and are not peer-reviewed by anybody, are used as authoritative sources in a NPOV section. Additionally, a peer-reviewed source source by the same author, clearly labeling CM as bot a CT and something else, is casually removed. There is no impartiality when it comes to what sources are used in the article. Consensus to you means 2-3 people casually dismissing everything they disagree with, while accepting far lower thresholds for "supportive" opinions. And this has been going on for a very long time, the talkpage archives are full of people arguing against the 2-3 people that wp:OWN this article. Nergaal (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, this article is watched by a lot of editors. Occasionally we have an editor or two come by and make the same tired arguments that have already been decided, by reliable sources. All you and the other editor have done is repeat the same tired tropes of propagating the same conspiracy theories. Mixing and matching sources to try and make it seem as if a conspiracy theory is not connected to the current description of the conspiracy theory. Editors tire of making the same points over and over, so leave it to other editors. So take Jobrot's advice and review WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLEGROUND, because this is getting absurd. Dave Dial (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- "No, this article is watched by a lot of editors." In my case, it is on the watchlist because it is often vandalized and has to be cleaned up, not because of the discussions between editors. Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- What on Earth does "~to try and make it seem as if a conspiracy theory is not connected to the current description of the conspiracy theory." mean? Do I need to point out that such circular logic is complete nonsense? -- Sleyece (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, this article is watched by a lot of editors. Occasionally we have an editor or two come by and make the same tired arguments that have already been decided, by reliable sources. All you and the other editor have done is repeat the same tired tropes of propagating the same conspiracy theories. Mixing and matching sources to try and make it seem as if a conspiracy theory is not connected to the current description of the conspiracy theory. Editors tire of making the same points over and over, so leave it to other editors. So take Jobrot's advice and review WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLEGROUND, because this is getting absurd. Dave Dial (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Repeatedly issues have been pointed out and anything coming from a conservative source is thoroughly dismissed; again, this person was allowed to write for Forbes, FFS. Meanwhile, non-conservative, obscure books, that have no proof of sales, and are not peer-reviewed by anybody, are used as authoritative sources in a NPOV section. Additionally, a peer-reviewed source source by the same author, clearly labeling CM as bot a CT and something else, is casually removed. There is no impartiality when it comes to what sources are used in the article. Consensus to you means 2-3 people casually dismissing everything they disagree with, while accepting far lower thresholds for "supportive" opinions. And this has been going on for a very long time, the talkpage archives are full of people arguing against the 2-3 people that wp:OWN this article. Nergaal (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing collaborative when 5 editors argue for something and 2 people revert everything to the old state. There is nothing AGF about every non-felt-leaning source being pulled out of the article. The N in NPV stands for neutral, not for left-leaning. Nergaal (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I double-checked: [2] and [3] are not mutually exclusive. Nergaal (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's an usual interpretation of policy and guidelines. To take one example, WP:FRINGE, you write "Notable fringe views need to be represented." The guideline actually says that notable fringe theories deserve their own article, not that they should be mentioned in articles about non-fringe topics. See "Mentions in other articles". There is no requirement to mention them in other articles, although this article does. But we are certainly not supposed to provide "undue weight," such as suggesting it is anything but a conspiracy theory. The example is astronomy and astrology. We might mention in an article about Mars its astrological significance, but we would not give parity or even credence to those views or use astrology magazines as sources. TFD (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that a self-identified [cultural Marxist] who in the time-span of 6 months decided it constitutes a "Conspiracy theory" is the one responsible for [successfully deleting the article] that was visible on Wikipedia for 7 years and explained the term in a neutral manner using authoritative sources, since then Jobrot is mainly making sure that it is kept so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.96.167 (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- That so-called "neutral article" presented something as actually existing that does not actually exist (and no reliable sources suggest that it does). That's why it is a conspiracy theory, yo. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- The previous (deleted) article only had 9 sources in total. Only 3 of those sources discussed the term "Cultural Marxism" explicitly - and 2 of those 3 came from a single author (Douglas Kellner), meaning it really only had 2 uniquely authored sources who actually used the term "Cultural Marxism" explicitly. Only 2 sources fitting that description.
- The current section uses over 40 sources (and Douglas Kellner is still in the mix). The vast majority of those 40 sources explicitly discuss the term "Cultural Marxism" in their text. There is simply no comparison between the previous article and the current section. The current section is a more well researched document. --Jobrot (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Creating a 'Cultural Marxism (Cultural Studies)' page, to later merge to.
As "the heat" seems to be off this topic, and based on the above information, combined with what was decided here, as well as discussions that happened on talk pages with various people (my own talk page, this talk page, and others), I move that this draft (or something like it) go into namespace, and then at a later point in time, the decision can be made on whether to merge the two (the newly published draft, and our current section here) into a single page. I will probably not be back until mid December, so please note any objections or curiosities below. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Strong oppose– That is almost exactly what was deleted, and it is still full of the same WP:SYNTH and unsourced rubbish. An article on the conspiracy theory may well be worthwhile as a notable creation, but certainly, a WP:POVFORK of cultural studies is not. RGloucester — ☎ 15:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Cultural Studies is a specific academic discourse which at times might house or describe versions of Cultural Marxism, but they're not the same thing (academia moves faster than that). Modern Cultural Studies will basically just look at culture from a multitude of different perspectives (from anarchism, to liberal feminism, to Christian conservatism) often throwing in a lot of art-history and pop-culture, often asking students what different POVs might take away from a cultural artefact, and how their social values effect that (it's essentially Hall's Encoding/decoding model of communication model in action). That's part of why modern Cultural Studies is more associated with The Birmingham School, where as Cultural Marxism is more associated with The Frankfurt School (and high culture). Conflating Cultural Studies (academic course), with Cultural Marxism (body of literature and works) is inaccurate. The body of literature that makes up the philosophies of these thinkers differs greatly from what is taught in Cultural Studies (although obviously the two relate to each other historically). I think you're conflation of Cultural Studies and Cultural Marxism lends its self to conspiracist thinking, and is somewhat diminutive to the true works of The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School and E.P. Thompson (all of which get called Cultural Marxisms in source texts 1, 2), so you don't leave me much room to agree with you here. Also no, the draft and the salted article are not the same. The article that was salted only had 9 unreliable sources (few of which used the term "Cultural Marxism"), the draft in question has 65 sources (many of which use the term "Cultural Marxism").... and WP:FORK isn't a good response to someone claiming WP:COATRACK as it's a good thing to WP:FORK a WP:COATRACK... and as stated, I intend to ultimately have Academic Cultural Marxism and the conspiracy theory, on the same page, so it covers all relevant perspectives. RE: Consensus, I'm really not seeing an argument against this action (as requested many times on here, as discussed in various places now)... and it would be good to have a series on culture (to go along with Cultural conservatism and Cultural liberalism). We're here to build an encyclopedia, right? --Jobrot (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's not right at all. Complete nonsense, in fact. There is no 'cultural Marxism' as coherent school of thought. That was the conclusion made in the AFD, and none of the sources you cite support your assertions. Again, the relevant term was occasionally used in a niche sense by a few select academics as an alternative term for cultural studies and critical theory, but it never gained broader currency. The literature of the relevant 'thinkers' that you cite in that article never refers to cultural marxism, and is not commonly classified as such by RS. Essentially, as was argued in the AfD, the only reason that these sorts of conclusions were being made, independent of RS, was to try posit the existence of some vague school of thinkers, so as to provide a foundation for the conspiracy theory to flourish. In reality, this broad group of thinkers is not linked in the manner you portray it, and basically consists of a lot of people who may well have taken a marxist approach to culture, but that doesn't mean they are part of some 'cultural marxism' school of thought with no clear definitions. You do not have the right to overturn the AfD result unilaterally, and so you'd better stop, or I'll have to take this to ANI. Your persistence over the years in abusing sources to try and revive this article is uniquely horrible...and indeed, I think you may not well be WP:HERE to build an encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 23:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Cultural Studies is a specific academic discourse which at times might house or describe versions of Cultural Marxism, but they're not the same thing (academia moves faster than that). Modern Cultural Studies will basically just look at culture from a multitude of different perspectives (from anarchism, to liberal feminism, to Christian conservatism) often throwing in a lot of art-history and pop-culture, often asking students what different POVs might take away from a cultural artefact, and how their social values effect that (it's essentially Hall's Encoding/decoding model of communication model in action). That's part of why modern Cultural Studies is more associated with The Birmingham School, where as Cultural Marxism is more associated with The Frankfurt School (and high culture). Conflating Cultural Studies (academic course), with Cultural Marxism (body of literature and works) is inaccurate. The body of literature that makes up the philosophies of these thinkers differs greatly from what is taught in Cultural Studies (although obviously the two relate to each other historically). I think you're conflation of Cultural Studies and Cultural Marxism lends its self to conspiracist thinking, and is somewhat diminutive to the true works of The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School and E.P. Thompson (all of which get called Cultural Marxisms in source texts 1, 2), so you don't leave me much room to agree with you here. Also no, the draft and the salted article are not the same. The article that was salted only had 9 unreliable sources (few of which used the term "Cultural Marxism"), the draft in question has 65 sources (many of which use the term "Cultural Marxism").... and WP:FORK isn't a good response to someone claiming WP:COATRACK as it's a good thing to WP:FORK a WP:COATRACK... and as stated, I intend to ultimately have Academic Cultural Marxism and the conspiracy theory, on the same page, so it covers all relevant perspectives. RE: Consensus, I'm really not seeing an argument against this action (as requested many times on here, as discussed in various places now)... and it would be good to have a series on culture (to go along with Cultural conservatism and Cultural liberalism). We're here to build an encyclopedia, right? --Jobrot (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, so now you think that Cultural Marxism isn't just another name for Cultural Studies, as you were JUST saying in your previous argument (how about some consistency here? I have it, I've been arguing the same thing, with increasing levels of evidence since DURING the AfD), now you're saying there's no such label as Cultural Marxism in Academia, despite all the credible sources using it to describe the general view of the same three groups of thinkers repeatedly, source after source will mention; The Frankfurt and The Birmingham School, and to a lesser degree E.P. Thompson - who all JUST HAPPEN to be critiquing different aspects of mass production under capitalism? It was even discussed during the AfD that this may not be the pages permanent home - besides which; I don't really need your okay. I have a consensus, there is Erik above, there is the fact this has been floated before in the archives, with other people agreeing, there are the discussions that occurred back in September (linked to in previous reply).... Consensus is there. Policy is there. The sources are there. My side has its bases covered, and covered very well. Yours are not. Your argument is contradictory, lacking in consistency and evidence. The content is already on Wikipedia:
"The term "cultural Marxism" has an academic usage within cultural studies, where it refers to a form of anti-capitalist cultural critique which specifically targets those aspects of culture that are seen as profit-driven and mass-produced under capitalism.[56] As an area of the Frankfurt School's discourse, "cultural Marxism" has commonly considered the industrialization and mass production of culture by the culture industry as having an overall negative effect on society, an effect which can mislead an audience away from perceiving a more authentic sense of human values.[57][58] British theorists such as Richard Hoggart of the Birmingham School developed a working class sense of "British Cultural Marxism" which objected to the "massification" and "drift" away from local cultures, a process of commercialization Hoggart saw as being enabled by tabloid newspapers, advertising, and the American film industry.[59]"
- Moving it to a new page to make it more distinct to the fringe content (with the option of moving the fringe content in as a conspiracy theory section at a later date) makes perfect editorial sense. So yes indeed, the ball is in your court. See you at AN/I, along with the people from the September discussion, Erik above, and whoever else is interested in building (not limiting, prohibiting, censoring or soapboxing) an encyclopedia.
- As noted a thousand times Wikipedia has a multitude of articles on general topics, no "coherent school of thought" is being simulated. As I'm sure you know; we have an article on Patriarchy, but it is NOT a coherent school of thought. Likewise we have one on Fascism, but it is NOT a coherent school of thought. Frankly; I don't think you're a good intellectual historian, and I don't think you've put the time into your research, arguments, or evidence (let alone this page) to convince anyone at AN/I... so yeah, bring it on and be excluded, or back down, you decide. You're the only reason this hasn't happened yet, so let's get it over with. I don't know why you'd be bother by more people having a better more clear and accurate view of these schools of thought (these Cultural Marxisms) anyway. What, are you afraid of what Adorno wrote or something? Do you think E.P. Thompson shouldn't question the manufacture and mass production of history? Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of ignorance and downplaying these thinkers as "too difficult" for our fragile minds to cope with? Or do you just like the conspiracy theory so much that you want it to erase the thinkers it slanders? I mean come on. Be here for the right reasons already. Have some WP:FAITH --Jobrot (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- The content is only 'there' because you forced it into the article, and no one has been able to challenge your WP:SPA-like persistence in guarding this article. It is still unsourced WP:OR, as is every argument you've made here. No reliable sources say 'The term "cultural Marxism" has an academic usage within cultural studies, where it refers to a form of anti-capitalist cultural critique which specifically targets those aspects of culture that are seen as profit-driven and mass-produced under capitalism'. The citation there is to three texts that never use the word 'cultural marxism', a Kellner text discussed at length in the AfD that never uses the term 'cultural marxism', and the Ritzer book, which, as discussed at length in the AfD, uses the term in the broad descriptive sense to refer to anyone who used Marxist theory to analyse culture. None of these sources support the idea that there is a specific "anti-capitalist critique which specifically targets those aspects of culture that are seen as profit-driven and mass-produced under capitalism" called "cultural marxism". That simply isn't written in the sources, at all. It's WP:SYNTH and WP:OR you've conjured up, as you've been doing from the start. It's basically a WP:HOAX. Yes, marxists analyse culture. We already have articles on those theorists, and on their theories. Those articles follow reliable sources in describing the relevant topics. This, on the other hand, is an attempt at a WP:POVFORK of those articles...an attempt abuse the words used in sources to form a foundation for the conspiracy theory. This is a serious issue, and no, I won't yield. RGloucester — ☎ 03:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. The term doesn't have enough cachet or usage in that context to support its own article; it's only relevant in that the few references that do exist are seized on by proponents of the conspiracy theory. Coverage of the term distinct from the conspiracy theory is almost nonexistent. --Aquillion (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- What I find in the sources cited here is a conference paper which says very little ("Instead, the Thompsonian project envisaged a humanist Marxism (sometimes called ‘cultural Marxism’).") and one single scholar, in a book from 20 years ago. I don't have the AfD at hand, and I am not so familiar with the arguments, but if the conclusion was that at best it's another word for "cultural studies", then I'll accept that. I also agree with RGloucester that this is a serious issue since it's yet another red herring-style punching bag for the right. This opinion article is enlightening for those new to the topic, and this article by Jerome Jamin, who's already cited in the article, makes the point that the current section makes as well. In other words, I see no valid rationale for the creation of what was in the past a coatrack for POV content, one that made it all too easy to display an UNDUE multitude of commentary and opinion that reiterates the conspiracy theory. BTW I urge readers to read Gramsci (his life AND work, and not just the cherry-picked quotes and fabrications one finds on the internetz), and I think an objective reader knowledgeable of academia will conclude that his hopes were smashed. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose This is merely a request to undelete a flawed article. TFD (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Removal of SYNTH/OR text ("Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section)
- I have removed the OR text, but I've been reverted by someone who suggests that it is 'sourced' to 'Adorno'...Adorno did not write anything about 'cultural marxism', nor does the Dialect of Enlightenment contain anything on the subject...this is exactly why the article, and now this section, have always been problematic. RGloucester — ☎ 21:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- And now the article has been frozen to the non-stable version. I don't have an axe to grind about whether Adorno or Martin Jay used the term "cultural Marxism" in the sense referred to here. That is a question to be answered by actual textual citations, not by bald assertions on either side.
- I do very much have an axe to grind when people edit against consensus, when people edit in violation of BRD, when people insist that their personal version rather than the stable version persist during discussion, and when people leave misleading edit summaries, which is why I reverted RGloucester on this Bold intervention, exactly as policy and precedent required me to do. Newimpartial (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing 'bold' about it. That content was deleted at the AfD for a reason. It was reintroduced without any form of consensus, and still, no references have been provided to support the text. If you can't even be bothered to actually read the sources you're claiming support this text, do you really think you have the right to revert its removal? Removal of unsourced, OR content that is compromising the integrity of the encylopaedia is routine and necessary. Anyone can verify that the sources do not support the text, as all of them are publicly available on the internet. RGloucester — ☎ 04:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- In fact, I do not have to read all of the sources in order to revert a bold edit against the stable version of the article while discussion takes place. Explicit consensus is *not* required to introduce content to articles, and once added and retained, it is part of the stable version to be maintained during BRD. Furthermore I am not convinced, RGloucester, by your presumption that you actually read all of these sources in this context. For example, did you notice that the Kellner piece cites Dennis Dworkin's Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain (1997) - if nothing else, that shows that at least one of the steps of the argument in the paragraph that you are wailing on as "OR" is actually sourced to a scholarly publication.
- Once again, I don't have an axe to grind about who is "right" here - my days as a Marxist theorist are well behind me - but I do have an issue when people present their own personal shibboleths as "Removal of outsourced" (but actually sourced) "OR content that is compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia" and that for these personal reasons, its removal is "routine and necessary" even against BRD and basic CIVIL conduct. Newimpartial (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Restoring content deleted by community consensus DOES require consensus. I never said that the sources cited were not reliable, not scholarly, or otherwise problematic. Did you read what I wrote before removing this stuff? I said that the citations did not support the present text, consisting of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. None of the cited sources, for instance, support the sentence "The term 'cultural Marxism' has an academic usage within cultural studies, where it refers to a form of anti-capitalist cultural critique which specifically targets those aspects of culture that are seen as profit-driven and mass-produced under capitalism". Only one of the sources cited to that sentence even uses the phrase 'cultural marxism' (Ritzer, which is actually a copy of a Kellner paper that was discussed in the AfD; that paper has now been removed from the UCLA website), but that source does not say anything about a specific 'anti-capitalist critique' or its supposed 'targets'. It simply speaks about Marxist analysis of culture, a generic use of words that was discussed at length in the AfD, and which does not constitute any specific notable subject (that is to say, which is not a proper noun). If you haven't read the AfD discussion, do so. Dworkin and Kellner were very well discussed at that time. The deletion result was recently confirmed at a deletion review discussion. Promoting restoration of this sort of OR content is not a good path to go down for you...I suggest, as before, reading the sources yourself. RGloucester — ☎ 05:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- In case you hadn't noticed, RGloucester, the admin determination in the recent Deletion review was There are some persuasive arguments put forward here in favor of undeletion, chiefly that new sources covering this topic as a conspiracy theory. In light of those, arguments that the redirdtt should remain because the article could promote a fringe POV must be given less weight, because the OP is explicitly about documenting this as a conspiracy theory. That said, there is enough support for the arguments that the material can be covered at Frankfurt school, and that the new sources are not particularly weighty, that we do not have the strong consensus required to overturn the original decision. This is a good close and a well-grounded decision NOT to reverse article deletion, but it also makes clear that the content of the Frankfurt School article is not "frozen" to exclude content that happened to be in the article deleted in 2014. Quite the contrary.
- There is nothing 'bold' about it. That content was deleted at the AfD for a reason. It was reintroduced without any form of consensus, and still, no references have been provided to support the text. If you can't even be bothered to actually read the sources you're claiming support this text, do you really think you have the right to revert its removal? Removal of unsourced, OR content that is compromising the integrity of the encylopaedia is routine and necessary. Anyone can verify that the sources do not support the text, as all of them are publicly available on the internet. RGloucester — ☎ 04:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I get that you feel that the section you deleted is "OR", but from reading the sources cited I simply do not agree that this is necessarily the case; I also believe there are opportunities to improve the sourcing of claims. And the notability question from 2014, which you point to explicitly in excluding the content, should not be raised as an objection to sourced claims that can be made now or in the future. The recent Deletion review notes explicitly that this article is where the emerging state of the sources should be addressed. Once again, I did not revert your deletions because I feel your position is "wrong"; I reverted them because bold deletions (which includes all deletions from stable versions that do not represent BLP or COPYVIO violations) are to be discussed with the stable version in place - that's the "R" in BRD - and because, whatever you personally feel about the relationship between the claims and the sources, you can't simply give the edit summary "unsourced" when you remove material that includes sources. That is UNCIVIL, as is the constant "If you can't be bothered to read" badgering here. Newimpartial (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the DR noted that the conspiracy theory may well be notable independently of this article. I agree. What was not addressed is the claimed 'academic usage', which is actually what the deleted article was about then, and which is the reason it was deleted. If the article was about the conspiracy theory, it may well not have been deleted. BRD is not a policy, and in any case, I specifically discussed that content before removing it above. It is YOUR job to demonstrate that the deleted content is anything other than unsourced OR. I know you can't do this, because anyone that reads the sources who isn't trying to push some sort of advocacy will come to the same conclusion. You've already proven where you stand by reverting me with the edit summary "RS (such as Adorno)", when Adorno never once discussed 'cultural marxism' in his life or in his works. "Unsourced" means no sources that support the text. That passage is unsourced. The burden is on YOU to read the sources and provide a quotation that supports the removed content, otherwise, you are simply promoting hoax content. RGloucester — ☎ 15:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, RGloucester, Adorno is pretty clearly the source for a form of anti-capitalist cultural critique which specifically targets those aspects of culture that are seen as profit-driven and mass-produced under capitalism, a description that scarcely constitutes original research. The use of "Cultural Marxism" as a label for this is amply demonstrated in Dworkin's Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain (Duke University Press, 1997), which is itself cited in the Kellner article cited in the note you removed. The vast majority of the content you removed is, in fact, directly supported by the sources you removed, and if your qualm is with the use of the term "Cultural Marxism" the Dworkin book and its reviews are undoubtedly sufficient RS to support the term in the sense in which it is discussed in this passage. Your reference to my entirely reasonable position as "Hoax content" is inflammatory rhetoric out of keeping with the creation and maintenance of an encyclopedia. Please stop it. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- What an absolute absurdity. Adorno never discussed the phrase 'cultural marxism', and so cannot constitute support for a sentence that 'Cultural Marxism is X'. If you are suggesting that you can can cite Adorno, and combine that with some other source to produce a definition of 'cultural marxism', you are gravely mistaken: that's the definition of WP:SYNTH. The Dworkin book was not even cited for this sentence, and foolishly, it's clear you've not even read that book, which I have, as in Dworkin's use of the term, which was again dealt with in the AfD, the Frankfurt School (which includes Adorno) was expressly EXCLUDED (see pages 4–5). Dworkin uses the phrase "British cultural marxism" only, and in doing so makes clear that it is his own invention, an alternative term for cultural studies ("My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline"), which we already have an article on. In any case, this is all rehashing the AfD. You suggest that a SYNTHESIS of Adorno and Dworkin supports that sentence? And yet, according to Dworkin, Adorno is not even connected to 'cultural marxism'...what does that say about your motives here? Please read the AfD closure. RGloucester — ☎ 18:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I have just read, again, the closure of the AfD, and it does not at all back up your claim that the AfD has ruled on this content and these sources. It does no such thing. It is - quite rightly - concerned with determining whether the extant sources support the notability of Cultural Marxism as a topic and rightly conclude that they do not. They by no means "rule" that sourced content related to the former article has no place in the encyclopedia - to the contrary.
- As far as Dworkin's book is concerned, of course he does not include Horkheiner and Adorno under his analytic rubric of "British Cultural Marxism" - how could he? But he also notes the line of concern by which the Frankfurt School influences his "Cultural Marxism", just as he notes the influence of Gramsci. So while the current passage is not ideal from the standpoint of language and sourcing - it is not at all what I might write, for example - your claim that we should not be having this discussion at all because it was settled in 2014 is false.
- (1) The question settled in 2014 was about article deletion, not the content question concerning the use of the term "Cultural Marxism" as you seem to believe.
- (2) You really can't keep deleting content as "unsourced" because you don't agree with the relevance of the sources, any more than you can attack other editors for "hoax content" because YOUDONTLIKE their policy-based edits.
- (3) BRD is of course not a policy, but it is a best practice and cultural norm, and you becoming upset about the possible unravelling of a decision you thought was settled in 2014 is not a policy basis for abandoning the practice of BRD, which (rather than any particular conviction about the content) was the basis of my recent edits to the article. Newimpartial (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Again, you haven't read Dworkin or the deletion discussion. I was not specifically referring to 'British cultural marxism'. I gave you page numbers. He clearly states that his 'cultural marxism' and the Frankfurt School are two separate things. If you want, I can scan it and upload it for you. However, I've about had enough of you. Sadly, this is what Wikipedia always degenerates into. The people who want to abuse the encylopaedia win, because they can keep spewing nonsense, and no one will challenge them. What's the point. RGloucester — ☎ 19:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a searchable pdf of the relevant Dworkin pages for you. You will see on page 5 "significant differences existed between the Frankfurt School and the cultural marxist approach to politics". Do you want to tell me how this source supports the text you were defending? More relevant though, is the content on pages 3 and 7:
- What an absolute absurdity. Adorno never discussed the phrase 'cultural marxism', and so cannot constitute support for a sentence that 'Cultural Marxism is X'. If you are suggesting that you can can cite Adorno, and combine that with some other source to produce a definition of 'cultural marxism', you are gravely mistaken: that's the definition of WP:SYNTH. The Dworkin book was not even cited for this sentence, and foolishly, it's clear you've not even read that book, which I have, as in Dworkin's use of the term, which was again dealt with in the AfD, the Frankfurt School (which includes Adorno) was expressly EXCLUDED (see pages 4–5). Dworkin uses the phrase "British cultural marxism" only, and in doing so makes clear that it is his own invention, an alternative term for cultural studies ("My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline"), which we already have an article on. In any case, this is all rehashing the AfD. You suggest that a SYNTHESIS of Adorno and Dworkin supports that sentence? And yet, according to Dworkin, Adorno is not even connected to 'cultural marxism'...what does that say about your motives here? Please read the AfD closure. RGloucester — ☎ 18:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, RGloucester, Adorno is pretty clearly the source for a form of anti-capitalist cultural critique which specifically targets those aspects of culture that are seen as profit-driven and mass-produced under capitalism, a description that scarcely constitutes original research. The use of "Cultural Marxism" as a label for this is amply demonstrated in Dworkin's Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain (Duke University Press, 1997), which is itself cited in the Kellner article cited in the note you removed. The vast majority of the content you removed is, in fact, directly supported by the sources you removed, and if your qualm is with the use of the term "Cultural Marxism" the Dworkin book and its reviews are undoubtedly sufficient RS to support the term in the sense in which it is discussed in this passage. Your reference to my entirely reasonable position as "Hoax content" is inflammatory rhetoric out of keeping with the creation and maintenance of an encyclopedia. Please stop it. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the DR noted that the conspiracy theory may well be notable independently of this article. I agree. What was not addressed is the claimed 'academic usage', which is actually what the deleted article was about then, and which is the reason it was deleted. If the article was about the conspiracy theory, it may well not have been deleted. BRD is not a policy, and in any case, I specifically discussed that content before removing it above. It is YOUR job to demonstrate that the deleted content is anything other than unsourced OR. I know you can't do this, because anyone that reads the sources who isn't trying to push some sort of advocacy will come to the same conclusion. You've already proven where you stand by reverting me with the edit summary "RS (such as Adorno)", when Adorno never once discussed 'cultural marxism' in his life or in his works. "Unsourced" means no sources that support the text. That passage is unsourced. The burden is on YOU to read the sources and provide a quotation that supports the removed content, otherwise, you are simply promoting hoax content. RGloucester — ☎ 15:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I get that you feel that the section you deleted is "OR", but from reading the sources cited I simply do not agree that this is necessarily the case; I also believe there are opportunities to improve the sourcing of claims. And the notability question from 2014, which you point to explicitly in excluding the content, should not be raised as an objection to sourced claims that can be made now or in the future. The recent Deletion review notes explicitly that this article is where the emerging state of the sources should be addressed. Once again, I did not revert your deletions because I feel your position is "wrong"; I reverted them because bold deletions (which includes all deletions from stable versions that do not represent BLP or COPYVIO violations) are to be discussed with the stable version in place - that's the "R" in BRD - and because, whatever you personally feel about the relationship between the claims and the sources, you can't simply give the edit summary "unsourced" when you remove material that includes sources. That is UNCIVIL, as is the constant "If you can't be bothered to read" badgering here. Newimpartial (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual tradition, not limited to one discipline or one figure within it.
My account of British cultural Marxism in this book is a critical history of ideas. On the one hand, I have tried to carefully reconstruct the historical development of this tradition. Because it has been so closely related to politics, I have necessarily viewed theoretical developments and major texts as inseparable from this context. This approach has often meant describing the major protagonists in relationship to radical political movements and debates. On the other hand, I am interested in this tradition's contributions to cultural and historical theory, to Left-wing intellectual debates, and to efforts at understanding contemporary society, and I have thus attempted to evaluate their achievement critically. Sometimes I have done this by re-creating theoretical debates that have arisen in response to major works at the time they appeared; at other points I have put forward my own critiques and evaluations. Here, I have often engaged in detailed textual analyses of many of the principal texts, sometimes analyzing at length those which by this point will be familiar to many readers. I have followed this course for two reasons: because it seems essential to achieving the goal of viewing this tradition as a whole, and because I hope that my account will be read by a wider audience than those already thoroughly acquainted with the major texts of the tradition that is being recreated.
As was discussed in the AfD, Dworkin is doing something specific to himself. That is to say, he proposed an alternative history of cultural studies, which he termed 'British cultural marxism'. He acknowledges that he was the first person to ever do this, and that he 'recreated' the debates in a framework that he created. However, no one else has ever followed his lead; mainstream sources continued to consider cultural studies as cultural studies, and not anything else. Go to the library...this book will be in the cultural studies section, surrounded by books that say 'cultural studies', not 'cultural marxism'. It is one source that posits its own WP:FRINGE way of thinking, independent of anything else, and which has not been picked up by broader scholarship on cultural studies. And, in any case, we already have an article on cultural studies, and there certainly is not justification for a POV fork of that article. Which is why, as before, this source was not considered valid for constituting an independent 'cultural marxism' entity or topic. In any case, nothing in this book, certainly, could support the text that existed. It never defined 'cultural marxism', only 'British cultural marxism', and never associated the Frankfurt School with 'cultural marxism', instead, in its own FRINGE schematic, considered the two groups separate. In any case, we can clearly rule out this book as a useful source for the text that you want to keep. I can keep uploading scanned versions of the text, if you like, if you need 'proof' that I actually read this stuff. RGloucester — ☎ 21:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- RGloucester, I never doubted that you read the text in question, and I appreciate the effort that went into uploading the .pdf. All that does, though, is encourage me to write something that would be both sourced and accurate, except that I couldn't concretely propose anything because the article is now protected. Suffice it to say that I believe there is a non-synth, sourced point to be made that would connect the Frankfurt School (and the British Cultural Studies school) to the later emergence of "Cultural Marxism" and the conspiracy theory. This point is different from, though related to, the one made in the disputed passage and intersects only tangentially with the topic of the 2014 RfC.
- Look, I was there in the 1990s, going to lectures and seminars by E.P. Thompson and Frederic Jamieson. I know perfectly well that the Birmingham School did not refer to themselves as "Cultural Marxists". But the argument we've been having is mostly about Wikiquette, not Marxism, and insofar as it is about Marxism you have been consistently misinterpreting both my beliefs and intentions, presumably based on the lingering effects of interactions you had with completely different editors in 2014. You don't win a process argument by arguing that you are right on content; that is simply not how WP works. Newimpartial (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- No, there is no such point to be made, at least not with the sources we have now. The point of the AfD, and I will repeat this, was to make clear that in as much as the Dworkin text exists, it exists in its own space, as a personal (FRINGE) retelling ('recreating') of the mainstream history of cultural studies. If any content is to be derived from Dworkin, it belongs at the 'cultural studies' article, not here. All that I am asking of you is this: do not insert content into this article that is not supported by sources. In other words, if you want to insert content that claims that there is a specific 'anti-capitalist critique' called 'cultural marxism', you need a reliable secondary source that says that specifically. You cannot synthesise the content of Adorno, or any other thinker's work, with something like Dworkin to produce a definition. If you read the AfD closure, you will note the reference to the lack of sources that discuss 'cultural marxism' as a 'concept'...that's what I'm talking about here. If you or someone else wants to claim the existence of this concept outside of the FRINGE, you need to provide a source that deals with that concept itself, and defines it. However, I am confident that such information either does not exist, cannot be found, or is non-notable fringe material. There was at one point a generic use of the phrase 'cultural marxism', consisting simply of 'culture' and 'marxism', meaning, use of Marxist theory to analyse culture, but that usage never implied a coherent or notable school of thought, or, in English terms, a proper name entity. It was simply a generic phrase in niche academic jargon meaning...'applying marxism to culture'. That usage is not notable in the way people have tried to push it here. The only reason it is proposed here as a coherent entity, school of thought, critique, &c., is so as to provide groundwork for the conspiracy theory. That's what the deleted article did. Instead of talking about the conspiracy, which was well-documented in RS even at that time, it posited the existence of a coherent entity, weaving together seemingly unrelated thinkers and sources to produce a narrative basis for the theory...it hid in plain sight, though, because if one wasn't familiar with the subject, or if one did not verify the sources, it could've seemed like a benign truth. That's what I am trying to avoid, here. So, again, let's be clear: any addition to this article now MUST be based on reliable secondary sources that discuss cultural marxism as a concept, per WP:NEO, which is the relevant basis for further development here. RGloucester — ☎ 22:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- You are still using content evidence to try to "win" a process argument, which is just not helpful. But I will use your "proper noun" terminology for a second. There is clearly no "Cultural Marxism" (proper noun) until the conspiracy theory, in any significant sense. But there is "cultural Marxism" (not proper noun) / Marxist theories of culture, in many RS, and I'm sure I could find multiple authorities tracing the one to the distortion and weaponization of the other. This is the argument that the article ought to be making, IMO, and one that the balance of sources would support. It seems to me that the easiest way *towards* that content is through the deleted text, but that isn't even what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing is that you don't delete sourced content - except BLP offences and COPYVIO - during the D phase of BRD. Period. SYNTH is not acceptable in the encyclopedia, but it is not an urgent violation in the sense of BLP and COPYVIO, and your failure to recognize this distinction and adopt widespread behavioural norms (viz. your repeated CIVIL violations) is what I've been objecting to all along. Newimpartial (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Have you heard of WP:IAR, or perhaps, if that is too WP:BOLD for you, WP:BURO? There is no need for an argument about process, which is a waste of time. So-called 'process' should not and cannot be used to protect content that is in blatant violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and compromising the integrity of the encylopaedia. Nothing contained in that content articulated what you've just said you think it should. It was original research inserted by Jobrot, who has a history of this sort of behaviour. There's no justification for giving primacy to the person (or content) that is blatantly violating Wikipedia policies, and I cannot agree that I took an incorrect approach here, even from a 'procedural' perspective. On content, I agree that there has been some 'generic noun' usage of phrase in RS. However, per WP:NEO, that usage is not notable, as there are no sources that discuss it as a concept. In any case, if you can find a source that says that 'Marxist theories of culture' were distorted and weaponised, that such can be added to article. Where I disagree is with the principle that the prior text is in any way useful for this purpose, because again, the sources cited there did not support the claims being made, which were quite a bit broader than you suggest. If you present sources, or a proposal, I'd happily work on it. However, it should be written from scratch and be in direct alignment with whatever sources are cited to support it. RGloucester — ☎ 03:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- You are still using content evidence to try to "win" a process argument, which is just not helpful. But I will use your "proper noun" terminology for a second. There is clearly no "Cultural Marxism" (proper noun) until the conspiracy theory, in any significant sense. But there is "cultural Marxism" (not proper noun) / Marxist theories of culture, in many RS, and I'm sure I could find multiple authorities tracing the one to the distortion and weaponization of the other. This is the argument that the article ought to be making, IMO, and one that the balance of sources would support. It seems to me that the easiest way *towards* that content is through the deleted text, but that isn't even what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing is that you don't delete sourced content - except BLP offences and COPYVIO - during the D phase of BRD. Period. SYNTH is not acceptable in the encyclopedia, but it is not an urgent violation in the sense of BLP and COPYVIO, and your failure to recognize this distinction and adopt widespread behavioural norms (viz. your repeated CIVIL violations) is what I've been objecting to all along. Newimpartial (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- No, there is no such point to be made, at least not with the sources we have now. The point of the AfD, and I will repeat this, was to make clear that in as much as the Dworkin text exists, it exists in its own space, as a personal (FRINGE) retelling ('recreating') of the mainstream history of cultural studies. If any content is to be derived from Dworkin, it belongs at the 'cultural studies' article, not here. All that I am asking of you is this: do not insert content into this article that is not supported by sources. In other words, if you want to insert content that claims that there is a specific 'anti-capitalist critique' called 'cultural marxism', you need a reliable secondary source that says that specifically. You cannot synthesise the content of Adorno, or any other thinker's work, with something like Dworkin to produce a definition. If you read the AfD closure, you will note the reference to the lack of sources that discuss 'cultural marxism' as a 'concept'...that's what I'm talking about here. If you or someone else wants to claim the existence of this concept outside of the FRINGE, you need to provide a source that deals with that concept itself, and defines it. However, I am confident that such information either does not exist, cannot be found, or is non-notable fringe material. There was at one point a generic use of the phrase 'cultural marxism', consisting simply of 'culture' and 'marxism', meaning, use of Marxist theory to analyse culture, but that usage never implied a coherent or notable school of thought, or, in English terms, a proper name entity. It was simply a generic phrase in niche academic jargon meaning...'applying marxism to culture'. That usage is not notable in the way people have tried to push it here. The only reason it is proposed here as a coherent entity, school of thought, critique, &c., is so as to provide groundwork for the conspiracy theory. That's what the deleted article did. Instead of talking about the conspiracy, which was well-documented in RS even at that time, it posited the existence of a coherent entity, weaving together seemingly unrelated thinkers and sources to produce a narrative basis for the theory...it hid in plain sight, though, because if one wasn't familiar with the subject, or if one did not verify the sources, it could've seemed like a benign truth. That's what I am trying to avoid, here. So, again, let's be clear: any addition to this article now MUST be based on reliable secondary sources that discuss cultural marxism as a concept, per WP:NEO, which is the relevant basis for further development here. RGloucester — ☎ 22:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'd like to post both the AfD, and the AfD closing statement here. Newpartial is simply repeating debunked arguments from the deletion discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 19:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm just trying to perform those changes now, but clearly some people haven't read the plan of action. --220.245.208.179 (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Removal of section
- For reference, see diff. IP user has been edit warring to blank the entire section on Cultural Marxism. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked, article semi-protected. Black Kite (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)