Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

Redirect is no longer to an appropriate location.

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

I can't see any such consensus on that talk page, and given that it's such a controversial topic a consensus of just two editors doesn't seem appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I would also point out that the conspiracy theory and those who believe it have no idea what cultural analysis or the Frankfurt school really is. The conspiracy theory is about made up nonsense, so point towards Marxist cultural analysis is the most appropriate target. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This IP comment seems to me to make at least two problematic assumptions: (1) that the scope of the Marxist cultural analysis article is wider than the relevant scholarship supports, such that it is too vague to be a useful disambiguation from this page; and (2) that the disambiguation for this page "ought to be" to the Frankfurt School, as though the CM conspiracy theorists are "really talking about" the Frankfurt School when they invoke the Cultural Marxism trope.

I believe neither of those assumptions survives a confrontation with the relevant scholarship, which means a proposal based on one or both of these assumptions doesn't really merit consideration. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There are no references to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory that DON'T refer to The Frankfurt School, Antonio Gramsci, and other forms of Gramscian cultural analysis (this is mentioned in the AfD).

Show me one reference to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory that references Trotsky as a founder of it. You can't Newimpartial, you just can't. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This IP comment does not carry any relevance that I can see: the inclusion of Trotsky - or not - does not define this article one way or another. Newimpartial (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism disambiguation page

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

This is a multi-page WP:CROSS-POST [1][2][3]. I suggest moving the discussion to Talk:Cultural_Marxism_(disambiguation). 87.116.177.103 (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

When that dust settles, is there any support for renaming this article to Cultural Marxism (conspiracy theory)? (which already exists as a redirect to this article). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that there will be; there certainly hadn't been significant support for similar ideas the last five or six times they were proposed. Newimpartial (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I still support this disambiguation page.

While i'm here, some argued in this talk page that there was never a Cultural Marxism page, and I found it.

There was a Cultural Marxism page, but it was (as this page is) contentious, and became renamed 'the Frankfurt School', and then, after much debate by revisionists, to the current "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy theory" page.

I think worth a read for those who have been watching this page:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140519194937/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism I am a Leaf (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

One possible approach is to rename "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" to "Cultural Marxism" and "Marxist cultural analysis" to "Cultural Marxism (academic use)." Another option is to rename "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" to "Cultural Marxism (conspiracy theory)," rename "Marxist cultural analysis" to "Cultural Marxism (academic use)," and have "Cultural Marxism" redirect to "Cultural Marxism (disambiguation)." None of these options has been explored, as far as I understand. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

They've been explored (and rejected) before, several times. A move proposal along those grounds has essentially no chance of gaining consensus. MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think good idea. Been a while since the legitimacy/existence of any nonconspiratial use of the term cultural marxism has been argued, but I believe the disambiguation page leaves less room for argument about the topic.

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

'Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies' - https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf I am a Leaf (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe the last time this was discussed was October 30 (currently visible on this page). So it hasn't really "been a while" since this issue was discussed (and a related proposal was rejected). Newimpartial (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Never used the language "been a while" I am a Leaf (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the paragraph with that text was part of your comment - if not, a signature is missing. Newimpartial (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

No signature was missing. Indents just got messed up subsequently. diff. MrOllie (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

2024-11 sources

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

Salon is not a particularly reliable source per Wikipedia:Perennial sources, if I’m not mistaken Dronebogus (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome Dronebogus. Relevant link: WP:SALON.COM. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

According to the interview, Bruce Wilson co-founded the blog Talk To Action. According to Wikipedia, Talk to Action was co-founded by Frederick Clarkson, so i ping User:Daask. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism DAB

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

Discussion

• 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 [4] 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 vety much that this IP's concerns are the concerns of other editors - but who knows, at this point? Newimpartial (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Newimpartial, when they state Orthodox Marxists do they mean Marxism–Leninism? Not that I'm going to get involved, but if so that strikes me as No true scottsman. TarnishedPath^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)