Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

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

• To be clear, we are not discussing the redirect from Cultural Marxism to the conspiracy theory article. If you're unfamiliar with that debate, refer to this historical overview. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• The Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) page was recently created by Howard Alexander (the same editor who created the Marxist cultural analysis page) and has since been updated by JMF, Firefangledfeathers, and myself. Feel free to make further improvements. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  The Marxist cultural analysis page was patched together from this editor's sandbox [1] and still contains elements of it. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• WP:ONEOTHER makes a strong case against using the dab page, but there are exceptions to the guideline worth considering. Having a Wiktionary link on the dab page is a valuable enhancement that wouldn't be possible without it. Including the link allows us to acknowledge the right-wing meme usage of the term 'cultural Marxism' -- without compromising Wikipedia’s standards -- which helps reduce disruptive edits and repetitive discussions. The 34 pages of archived Talk discussions clearly demonstrate how much time this issue has consumed. A simple hatnote and a prominent Wiktionary link on the dab page would address concerns from a significant portion of the readership, making this a more user-friendly solution, while also saving valuable time for editors by reducing repetitive debates. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• The current hatnote reads: "Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For the Marxist approach to social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis. Does anyone else find this a bit cumbersome? A casual reader without a social science background might struggle to understand. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly it seems very clear and direct. Do you have a suggestion? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think it'd be fine to drop "social theory and" for brevity. Casual readers without a social science/philosophical/historical background are going to have a bad time at that article anyway. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's a good start. To make it even clearer, I'd suggest one of these:

  For the Marxist view of culture, see Marxist cultural analysis.

  For the Marxist theory of culture, see Marxist cultural analysis.

  87.116.177.103 (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I would support dropping the "social theory and", removing cultural studies may be a bit to far. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Who knows, maybe Marxist cultural analysis will be merged with Cultural studies one day, since they overlap to a large extent. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  If I thought I could pull it off I'd nominate Cultural studies for AFD because it is an extremely badly written article that probably violates WP:NOT. TarnishedPath^talk 01:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Pinging ActivelyDisinterested, Firefangledfeathers, and TarnishedPath in case you want to participate in the poll below. Thanks for your earlier input. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Survey

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 Wikipedia 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^talk 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

  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^talk 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^talk 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. Wikipedia: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^talk 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^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 4, followed by Option 3, then Option 2, because they are clearer for someone without a social science background. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, the current hatnote is clear enough. TarnishedPath^talk 23:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Pinging @ActivelyDisinterested, @Firefangledfeathers, @I am a Leaf, @MrOllie, @Orangemike, @ErikHaugen and @Closed Limelike Curves as editors involved in above discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 23:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1: no need to dumb it down further. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 The current version seems clear. "The Marxist theory of culture" isn't wrong but seems like a slightly misleading over-simplification. CAVincent (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  While I partially endorsed option 4 I agree it’s an over-simplification and think it would be much better stated as “Marxist theories of culture.”

  The discussion on the cultural analysis page shows that Marxist cultural analysis is not entirely homogenous and it is slightly misleading to suggest it as such with Option 4’s language. I am a Leaf (talk) 05:17, 19 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^talk 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 very 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^talk 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)

• Option 1, although I wouldn't oppose option 2. Any issue with Marxist cultural analysis should be discussed at that article's talk page, while issue with editors behaviour should be discussed at WP:ANI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. All other options are defective, since, as already mentioned here and elsewhere, there is no the Marxist [theory/approach/analysis to/of] culture (emphasis mine), only a heterogenous set of different and contradictory analysises and approaches. TucanHolmes (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Marxism can be anything now.

WP:COMPETENCE, WP:NOTHERE, WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)

@Newimpartial, thanks for the link. This seems to have been (over)exhaustively discussed and therefore I'll not involve myself in it. Sandstein 11:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote expansion

There was a lengthy (and not always calm) discussion on the AfD for 'Cultural Marxism (disambiguation)'. The original disambiguation page had just two topics but was ripe for expansion had it been retained. The conclusion of the discussion was that "A hatnote is more effective at getting readers to the other article if they end up in the wrong place.".

The sources provided showed several uses of the phrase 'Cultural Marxism', going back the 19th century - long before modern conspiracy theories. One major theme was writers who described Critical theory as 'cultural Marxism' (most famously Jordan Peterson, but with plenty of others). It may be from that usage that less analytical minds created the idea of a conspiracy.

I argued on that page that without disambiguation, Wikipedia would be saying that all the past uses of the term are to the later conspiracy theory: that is wrong and indeed libellous to those who have used it in other senses.

The broad choice then is: (a) A longer hatnote; (b) A disambiguation page; or (c) Mislead readers and libel some litigious commentators. The conclusion on the AfD was in favour of hatnotes. Howard Alexander (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. There's also that discussion above under Post-AfD Hatnote Poll which seems to indicate a consensus for the hatnote " "Cultural Marxism" redirects here. For the Marxist approach to social theory and cultural studies, see Marxist cultural analysis." That people have put the words "Marxism" and "(C)ultural" adjacent to each other without meaning the conspiracy theory is not a compelling argument that it is a term needing disambiguation. I hope that you aren't trying to reopen a seemingly closed discussion in hope of another result. (Also, what's this about "libel(ing) some litigious commentators"?) CAVincent (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The hatnote was discussed above, the consensus was for the disambiguation page should be deleted. Nothing here hasn't already been discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The hatnote discussion was before the discussion on the AfD. I am trying to implement the conclusions reached there. Where a commentator / philosopher / speaker has used the phrase 'Cultural Marxism' to refer to another concept, specifically critical theory, how would you suggest dealing with that?

Hatnotes are useful where terms are used in different ways. The term 'Corporatism' has a long-established meaning in political philosophy and the Wikipedia article reflects that. However some people use it for an unrelated concept, and so the hatnote on the article redirects the reader who was looking for the latter. The same is needed with this disputed term. Howard Alexander (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Both discussions were proceeding at the same time. And the AFD in no way presented any consensus for you to change the hatnote, folks there were supporting the existing hatnote. MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

This is why I thought I must have missed something. The discussion at AfD wasn't conclusive, and the discussion here was happening at the same time not before. I certainly don't believe the arguments presented are a reason to change the hatnote. The mischaracterisation of real subjects is the subject of this article, and other than a few passing mentions in real sources those using 'Cultural Marxism' are part of that mischaracterisation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of why I had previously unfollowed this article.

Nothing at all about hatnotes here adds up to a plausible liable case under U.S. law. Or please cite precedent to the contrary.

I will not see responses unless you tag me. Patrick (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

There are approximately five sources that had used the term cultural Marxism before the conspiracy theory used the term. None of them are significant to the topic and are only mentioned by conspiracy theorists trying to prove that there is some basis for their views.

The name of the conspiracy theory was an update of cultural Bolshevism and was not based on earlier usage of the term cultural Marxism.

I object to changing the hatnote because it's basically endorsing the views of people such as Jordan Peterson who claim cultural Marxism is a real thing. TFD (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, Dr Peterson does have several million viewers, so his usage of the term is significant. We are not here to endorse or suppress views, nor choose which are right or wrong. His usage, and others who have followed on from there, is (as I understand it and is oversimplified form) that the idea of Marxism posits class conflict as the motivator of history; those who follow that idea may have accepted that economic Marxism has failed, and so have adapted the ideas in a cultural form - proposing a narrative of struggle between classes, races, sexes etc. That does not require a conspiracy, any more than classical Marxism does. Essentially what is being described is a genuine social philosophy: to its proponents it has come to be known as 'critical theory' and its opponents can give it other names, of which Dr Peterson uses 'cultural Marxism'. Whether he is correct to choose that term is not for me nor you nor Wikipedia to say.

Having determined that this meaning is in fact applied by commentators, then it is misleading to say 'It only ever means a conspiracy theory', as that is clearly incorrect. It also smears a great many people who have used the term in other senses.

If the conspiracy theory sense is, according to the decrees of Wikipedia, the principal meaning, very well - but we are then duty-bound to provide a landing place for when it is used in other senses. Howard Alexander (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Peterson's sense of the term and the conspiracy theory sense is the same thing. We don't need another landing place because this article is already the correct one. MrOllie (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

"duty-bound"? You're trying really hard, but not doing very well. CAVincent (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for these assertions? TucanHolmes (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

"[They] may have accepted that economic Marxism has failed, and so have adapted the ideas in a cultural form - proposing a narrative of struggle between classes, races, sexes etc." That by definition is a conspiracy because it requires people working together. It's also false, ergo, it's a conspiracy theory. What seals the deal is the idea that the conspirators were so influential that they could have forced wokeness on unsuspecting citizens, TFD (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to elaborate the hatnote with a distinction between Peterson's dogwhistle usage of the "Cultural Marxism" trope and the conspiracy theory, because the reliable sources treat them as the same topic - namely, as a conspiracy theory. There isn’t any other article, besides the one for the CT, where readers interested in the trope employed by culture warriors should (or even could) be directed. Newimpartial (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The quote given is what I was thinking about. Timing is crucial though: if Peterson's use of the term popularised it, then he was not 'dog-whistling', but creating a term that others ran off with, with their own, often unreasoned, interpretations.

Describing a growing political tendency is not proposing a conspiracy: that is not how ideas spread. If someone says 'There are conservatives who want people to think X', that is not a conspiracy theory. People reading articles in 'The Spectator' or 'The Guardian' are not a cabal skulking in secret rooms!

There are conspiracy theorists about - believing in secretive cabals saves thinking - but identifying a political idea is not to allege a conspiracy. Howard Alexander (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Peterson clearly did not create the term, we have a whole section of the article that explains this, including specific discussion of Peterson. And he is obviously alleging a conspiracy, we have a source (cited in the article) that quotes him calling anti-racist educators a 'fifth column'. It doesn't get any more clear than that. MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

No one is promoting the political idea that Peterson writes about. Specifically he says that cultural Marxists created identity politics in order to obtain power. In fact, the people he blames as starting this did not promote identity politics, which btw predates Marxism. TFD (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

If I say 'There is a shady organisation, with cells across the country, which uses dishonesty to try to change public opinion and seeks to take over the national government', is that a conspiracy theory, or a factual description of any political party?

The quote from Jordan Peterson is describing the field of study known as critical theory, and that is genuine.

If you take such a very wide definition of 'conspiracy theory', then you must remove the statement that this one is anti-Semitic. Certainly some have added an anti-Semitic element - it is the oldest delusion in the book and gets tacked onto every conspiracy narrative going. However, if you are going to say that Jordan Paterson or Suella Braverman, or anyone else using the term is using it in the sense of a conspiracy theory, it's not that one. Neither has a grain of anti-Semitism about them. It would be libellous to include them. Howard Alexander (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Please review the many prior discussions of antisemitism (and sources evaluating the CMCT as a antisemitic) on this Talk page. The TLDR is that people - including people of Jewish heritage or identity - can deploy antisemitic tropes and dog-whistles. Them doing so doesn't change the underlying nature of the CT according to relaible sources.

Also, please refrain from making legal threats. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

No one has accused me, and I do not know either of the people I have referred to, nor am I particularly partisan regarding them. I am reminding you of the Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Libel. Does that not apply to us all?

There may be an anti-Semitic theory, but it is not what has been bundled in with this definition. Danny Stone (Chief Executive of Antisemitism Policy Trust) in the Jewish Chronicle in 2023: 'Is the term 'Cultural Marxism' really antisemitic? - The Jewish Chronicle'. He concludes that it is used in that way, but also with innocuous meaning, and sometimes by Marxists themselves. It shows the ambiguity, that needs disambiguation.

We can either then have a disambiguation page, or a hatnote, or deny demonstrable, citable usage. Howard Alexander (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any independent, reliable sources for this innocuous and citable usage? No reliable, non-RSOPINION, non-self-published sources for this have been found in any of the prior, related discussions on this page - and Stone is obviously not suitable for this purpose, either.

As far as WP:LIBEL is concerned, it isn't a piece of WP:UPPERCASE that can be used to remove well-sourced material with which you disagree. If you think this article makes specific claims about living or recently deceased persons that are potentially defamatory, please point them out. I have seen none. Newimpartial (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

If you say or imply that "[t]here is a shady organisation, with cells across the country, which uses dishonesty to try to change public opinion and seeks to take over the national government," it is a conspiracy theory. If it isn't, what is?

Also, cultural Marxism is Dog whistle (politics). It describes a Jewish conspiracy without explicitly naming them. TFD (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That might be your interpretation, but it is only your reading of what you hear. If you hear someone whistling Marching Through Georgia, are they dogwhistling an anti-Catholic meme because it the tune is used for the Glaswegian song Billy Boys? Someone may interpret it that way, but it is not the only interpretation. It is best to assume good faith, even off-wiki.

Sensitivity to words meant in a way you would not use them is not an objective approach. You assume that the hypothetical statement 'There is a shady organisation, with cells across the country, which uses dishonesty to try to change public opinion and seeks to take over the national government.' is necessarily a conspiracy theory, but I chose it carefully: it is an exact description of what a political party does: they gather likeminded people, form local organisations with committees that meet in private and try to get elected, so that their people will form the national government. That shows the danger of jumping too early at a phrase and running off with your first thought. It saves thinking, and prevents reasoning.

No, just asserting that the very idea of cultural Marxism must be anti-Semitic is just as tenuous. I hope you read Danny Stone's article. (I don't know him, but I appreciate his work, and he has put a good deal of thought into that article.) I have also cited Brian Doherty (a libertarian) in his 2018 article, noting it the term to have been used as a synonym for Critical Theory. That is the alternative interpretation I was adding to the hatnote.

There will be those who anti-Semitic delusions into anything: that does not mean that everyone using the same language intends the same, and in this case it appears that the wild conspiracy theorists are just taking a phrase meant in a different way (quite frankly by people more intelligent than themselves) are running off using it to justify their own ideas. Howard Alexander (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

All I see in this comment is original interpretation, supported only by an op-ed intervention by someone without relevant expertise. The comment may be long, but it isn't relevant to determining content in this article. Such content must be based in the highest-quality sources we have, and according to them the CMCT is antisemitic in its origins and in its connotations. Newimpartial (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Beyond the fact it's an op-ed from someone without the relevant experise, it's use is very much missing the point of the op-ed. A couple of choice quotes from Doherty Summing up what the Frankfurt School's clotted and confusing thinkers actually wrote or believed is beyond the capacity of a short essay (or even a long one). Luckily, it is also beside the point for understanding the conspiracy theory of cultural Marxism. and of the Frankfurt School and critical theory One can spill gallons of ink on what followed from the Frankfurt School in academia. But for our purposes it hardly matters, because theories of cultural Marxism barely depend on anything those writers actually explored in their own work. Doherty is confirming the usage that is described in this article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

It is an interesting article: not ana academic article but a polemic, so I would not want to cite it as a main source. Nevertheless it analyses the conspiracy idea well.

(One would have to be careful with any source, academic or polemic, as there are few neutral positions and it will take a fifty years or so for an adequately distant overview to appear.)

Doherty's analysis affirms (and reviles) the conspiracy theory. The analysis though shows numerous different uses of the term. What comes out is use of 'cultural Marxism' as a derogatory term for critical theory; turning Marx's concept of class war into a concept of sectional war. Whether that is valid or not is irrelevant: it is how the term has been and is used.

Doherty's polemic shows people are using the term to suggest a conspiracy, but that they are not always suggesting conspiracy - it suggests a political idea that spreads, as ideas do.

What does not come out of the analysis is any suggestion that the term is always anti-Semitic. (Indeed, almost all of the ideas-men accused of creating it were Gentiles.) There are certainly versions which are anti-Semiotic, and it is important to cover this. My point has always been that there is diversity of meaning. Howard Alexander (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

We're going round in circles. I'll leave this to see if anyone new points, but so far it doesn't appear that anyone is convinced by your interpretations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not expressing my opinion, but the consensus of opinion in reliable sources. Obviously advocates of the conspiracy theory reject it, but policy requires that we provide due weight to mainstream opinion. While Brian Doherty is a journalist, not a social scientist who is an expert in the field, his article provides a good summary of the mainstream position, although he doesn't explain why the theory is anti-Semitic. TFD (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Option C seems to be more or less baseless. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)