The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and redirect. This AfD has been closed after consensus was judged independently by 3 uninvolved administrators. We have come to this conclusion; our full rationale can be found at the talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Marxism[edit]

Cultural Marxism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A panel of three uninvolved administrators has been organised to close this discussion. These are: Spartaz, Huon, and Samwalton9. RGloucester — ☎ 01:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite has been replaced by Huon due to concerns regarding involvement with the Gamergate Arbcom case. Sam Walton (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This will have been the third time this issue has been brought up for debate under different categories. Before Jimbo’s peace offering to the participants in the Gamergate controversy, the article had been deleted after a discussion ranging a month, far more than befits a fairly obscure term in right-wing circles. Let’s try to have one at least relatively based in the facts.

For previous discussions, see:

Talk:Cultural_Marxism/Archive_2#Merger_proposal and Talk:Cultural_Marxism#Merger_with_.22Frankfurt_School_Conspiracy_Theory.22_.E2.80.93_discussion_2

If it probably wasn't against policy, I’d have to make a bot to comment on all the SPAs and repeatedly disproved sources this discussion will be flooded with the moment it’s linked on Reddit, 8chan or Stormfront. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing an argument for deletion in this statement, for that matter reading your comment I can't tell if you are for or against deletion.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for turning this page into a disambiguation, but my prior involvement in the issue may colour my judgement. The argument for deletion is summarised succinctly here:

• "Well-sourced"? Where? Where are there any "sources" that posit the existence of a school of thought that spans the entire 20th century and contains people that never met each other, and never defined their theories as belonging to a school of "Cultural Marxism"? There are none. There never were, and there still are not any. A few books have been cited as using the phrase "cultural Marxism", but none of them support the existence of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism".

As an example, which I and others have refuted numerous times, people like to cite the Dworkin book called "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies" as supporting the existence of a school called "Cultural Marxism". However, the book does not do this, indicative of the fact those citing it have not read it. First of all, Dworkin, writing in 1997, says "My account is the first intellectual history to study British cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual discipline" (pg. 3). From the start of the book, Dworkin makes clear that the argument that there has been this long-running school of thought called "cultural Marxism" is totally false. He says that he invented the term in this context. His book's purpose is to establish it, long after the theorists were dead, and after the conspiracy theory had already come to light.

What's more, he specifically says that the Frankfurt School and Gramsci, two people that all these IPs and SPAs claim are part of a school of "Cultural Marxism", are explicitly not part of his "cultural Marxism". In fact, he says he proposes the term "cultural Marxism" as an alternative the more mainstream phrase "cultural studies" for an exclusively British movement that began in the 1960s, with the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham. This is a fringe usage. No one other than Dworkin has proposed this usage, and mainstream academia calls it "cultural studies", which we have an article on. He admits that it doesn't exist outside of his work, and that he is creating term for his own sake to reframe the traditional academic viewpoints on the Birmingham school. He explicitly excludes those who IPs and SPAs say are part of "cultural Marxism". Regardless, his view is not accepted in academia. You will not find any other books referencing this definition. It is exclusively his, and WP:FRINGE. This is just one example of the manipulation occurring here.

Another example is a 2004 essay by Douglas Kellner, called "Cultural Studies and Cultural Marxism", which these SPAs and IPs like to use. These two works are the main sources for the IP and SPA arguments. It was written long after the conspiracy theory had emerged. It is not a peer-reviewed journal article. It was never published anywhere. It is a personal essay of 15 pages long, that only exists on the internet because he has released it personally for free. None of the sources it cites propose the existence of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism". In fact, Kellner himself does not use "cultural Marxism" to posit the existence of a school of thought, but instead uses it in the purely descriptive sense of meaning "applications of Marxism to culture", which is not a definition that can be used as the basis for an encylopaedia article.

Citation of sources, and WP:V, do not mean that one can just throw a bunch of links in an article and say that it is "well-sourced". WP:V means that the sources must support the text, and that the sources must be reliable, and not WP:FRINGE. None of the sources in the article, especially these two favourites of the IP and SPA crowd, support the idea of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism". Zero. If people can't read the sources, that's their fault. WP:V is a policy, and to adhere to it, the sources must support the text. All of them have been debunked repeatedly by me, and other editors. RGloucester — ☎ 02:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

and, as far as I'm aware, has never been addressed satisfactorily by anything other than the repetition of already disproved claims. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerge to Frankfurt School conspiracy theory or Turn into Disambiguation or Delete, in order of preference. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "fails to advance an argument for deletion...making nominations of the same article with the same arguments..." Also the nominator's complaints about SPAs seem saucy when he himself has only made 216 edits and most of his activity in the last 6 months was in this dispute. Andrew D. (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - SK not applicable, as I support Deletion over the current status quo. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As this has not been closed speedily, I am updating my !vote. This is to keep the topic as it is notable, being the subject of multiple books including Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain, Jameson on Jameson: Conversations on Cultural Marxism and Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. These sources are reasonably substantial and respectable whereas there seem to be no comparable sources of this weight for the rival page title Frankfurt School conspiracy theory - a phrase which seems to have been invented on Wikipedia. As we have a notable topic and substantial sources, the details should be addressed by ordinary editing per our editing policy: WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Insofar as there has been any forking, then WP:REDUNDANTFORK tells us "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". The Cultural Marxism page was created in 2006 while the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory page was created in 2013. The latter is therefore the redundant fork. Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an attempt at an end-run around the (lack of) consensus at the merge proposal. Editors considering participating in the debate on this article should please read the talk page history carefully. —S Marshall T/C 19:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (as far as I can tell, there is no substantive content to merge). Ordinarily I'd object to this nomination on DEADHORSE grounds. But this isn't ordinarily, and the process to date has been so beset by irregularity that editors who are dissatisfied with the state of play have every reason to be. The bottom line here is that there is a complete lack of sourcing to establish "Cultural Marxism" as a topic distinct from "Frankfurt School". Given that, it doesn't really matter how many editors feel it should be treated as a district topic. We just can't have article on Wikipedia about things for which we have no specific sourcing. Formerip (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• See also User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 178 and User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 179
• Merge and Disambiguate - delete this POV fringe hijacking of a common usage to describe Marxist theory of culture and which is normally used in the precise context of criticising Structural Marxism as well as more generally, and which doesn't qualify for an article at this precise title despite being widely recognised and qualifying for a hatnote upon redirection. Merge this article elsewhere, and disambiguate between the real Cultural studies-Critical theory and the fringe conspiracy page or a separate article. Or if you can't do that, delete this article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  (returning 7 days later) or redirect as described by user Jobrot below, for the same reasons. Though really the target isn't that important (as long as it's not a conspiracy page). These are two niche terms - one academic, one a meme or redefinition of sorts, neither deserving an article at this title, both having existing content elsewhere. Let the academic search term have priority. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve with reliable sources representing varied perspectives on the subject in proportion to their mainstream acceptance, as per the standard NPOV process that we use for everything else. Covering contested subjects and representing conflicting viewpoints is part of our job as an encyclopedia. JimmyGuano (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We already have an article on every topic this term can encompass: Frankfurt School, Frankfurt School conspiracy theory and Cultural studies. Regarding your second sentence, see WP:DUE; I will presume you meant 'present', not 'represent'. We don't have an article on 'Jews and communism', which this article might as well be. অমিত talk 21:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite clear on the distinction you're trying to draw between "present" and "represent", however I certainly didn't mean "support", if that's the meaning you are trying to steer me away from? As far as I can tell from the sources the whole point about "Cultural Marxism" as a concept is that it is seen by those that posit its existence as a wider phenomenon enveloping all of those things you mention and more. That is precisely why it can't be replaced by any of them. You may well argue that this makes it a paranoid delusion and you may well be right (though similar usage by non-right wing sources though rare doesn't seem to be completely unheard of). Even if it is a paranoid delusion, though, it is a notable paranoid delusion, as it is discussed in reliable sources who are not themselves trying to promote it. JimmyGuano (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, Jimmy, what sources are you refering to when you say "as far as I can tell from the sources"? Can you give an example of a fact about "Cultural Marxism" that can be cited and is unambiguously something Wikipedia should mention, but for some reason could not be incorporated into the Frankfurt School article? If you can, I might think about changing my vote. But if you can't, I think you should think about changing yours. Formerip (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair challenge. For me the Frankfurt School article should focus on the actions, writings and documented thought of a defined group of German academics largely from the 1930s to the 1950s and their followers, including well-sourced criticism of their (actual) thought, as it largely does already. Critical theory and similar articles should focus similarly on the wider scholarly disciplines. The Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article should focus on the specific historical allegations about the behavior and motivations of those individuals in the US in the mid 20th century, as covered in sources such as this[1]. The Cultural Marxism article should focus on the perception - largely on the right, largely since the 1990s - of the existence of a variously-defined but supposedly widespread intellectual theme running probably from Gramsci through to the current day, including but by no means limited to the Frankfurt School. It should include coverage of issues at best tangentially related to whether a group of mid 20th century German philophers wanted to bring down American society, including the perception that "Cultural Marxism" underlies supposedly pervasive modern phenomena such as multiculturalism,[2], its role as a rallying cry for the homicidal far right [3], its relationship to the role of "common sense" in the ideology of UKIP,[4] the representation of homosexuality on American television,[5] the extent to which the Birmingham School represents continuity or change with respect to its intellectual predecessors,[6] and the fear of Muslim immigration in early 21st century Europe.[7].

The two subjects are obviously related and are often connected but that doesn't mean that they're the same thing. Here [8] for example, is a respected commentator in Britain's highest circulation broadsheet national newspaper, openly mocking the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory as anti-Semitic paranoid madness, while simultaneously arguing that "Cultural Marxism" exists and is a legitimate object of criticism. It isn't our job to say whether he's right or wrong, but we should represent the fact that such arguments at least exist. JimmyGuano (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked for sources that could be cited unambiguously as sources suitable for Wikipedia that identify Cultural Marxism as warranting an article of its own (ie. separate from the academic meaning). The book you've cited is specifically about distorted (ambiguous) views of reality (as it's Amazon page describes it [9]), and the website you've cited is a blog[10] (albeit a blog from a daily telly journo). Just because a journalist writes something on their blog (particularly if as in this case, it's unevidenced), doesn't substantiate that blog entry as evidence any more than it would if it appeared on any other blog (to claim so is an Argument from authority). On top of this West's specific words are "The ideas of Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse, to name just two prominent Cultural Marxists, were very influential in creating the New Left of the 1960s and the radical campus politics of the 1970s." which solidifies these thinkers (and more specifically the frankfurt school) as the source for the legitimate (albeit rare) academic meaning for the term Cultural Marxism (and ergo, is only an argument for the destination of a merger, not for keeping a page dedicated to a rarefied academic use that refers to other things [things that have their own pages already]) as has been stated time and time again. What this blog entry DOES NOT DO - is provide evidence that the highly contextualized academic meaning of the term, can be extended as proof positive that Cultural Studies, Critical Theory, Multiculturalism, Gay Rights, Feminism, Political Correctness and Atheism are innately Marxist in their teachings and agenda. It's not good enough to just claim (or cite someone who claims) "Cultural Marxism influenced this and that" (or even worse, as is being done in this case: This and that ARE Cultural Marxism) - you have to also show evidence for the new meaning of the term, evidence for this connection, and as far as I can tell there is no such evidence. What you're being asked for is the source of your belief that the term is notable enough to warrant it's own page. The source of your belief to vote to keep the article intact rather than to merge it to a more appropriate location (as all the sources seem to suggest doing) such as happened with the Rothschild Conspiracy Theory (a much much much more famous Conspiracy Theory) when it was listed as a section of that page. The "extension" of the academic meaning - SHOWS NO EVIDENCE for it's CLAIMS. This is the problem. This is what makes the theory an unevidenced, and hence conspiratorial theory (not worth it's own page). So can you show sources or reason to justify your vote? Yes, it is an acknowledged rarefied academic term (bookended into a very specific time period) used to refer to the Frankfurt School (and hence that's the appropriate destination), and it is ALSO a conspiracy about the extension of Marxist influences (and their agenda) in society. The former of which should be merged because it's a rarefied and completely referential term (referential to existing pages). The other of which (the latter) should be merged because though widely believed (as with the Rothschild Conspiracy Theory) it is COMPLETELY unevidenced, unsubstantiated, and unverified. Where one stops the other starts - so there is no gap for arguing that the article should be kept. --Jobrot (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to prove anything other than that this is a subject with a significant secondary literature, the scope of which goes beyond a specific set of allegations about the Frankfurt School. Whether that secondary literature does or does prove anything is irrelevant - for the purposes of an AfD on Wikipedia it just has to exist. As you observe, quite a few of the works I cited are actively critical of the term. However a subject with a significant secondary literature is notable, and a notable subject should have a Wikipedia article. It's no more complicated than that. JimmyGuano (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you get around the fact that secondary "literature" or as policy has it secondary SOURCES are still subject to reliability criteria? Why do you think there's no article for The Rothschild Conspiracy Theory? There's plenty of "secondary literature" for that too - but none of it is reliable enough to base a Wikipedia article on... and unless you can prove otherwise, then this article is no different. But besides that (and more importantly), this article hasn't been nominated on the grounds of WP:NN (non notability)! It's been nominated on the grounds that it has irreconcilable WP:V, WP:FRINGE issues (see the above links to previous discussions or the current talk section on Current Editorial Issues for details). So again, you are given the space in between the academic term (which should obviously be merged elsewhere) and the conspiracy/pundit term. So the options are: Argue against it being merged with a page more in line with the (internally consistent albeit rarefied) academic usage (which uses PRIMARY sources) - or find some verifiable sources to substantiate the conspiracy (WP:V, WP:FRINGE) claims (ie explain what you mean by "the scope of the subject [cultural marxism]... ...goes beyond a specific set of allegations about the Frankfurt School", for as mentioned the deletion proposal is NOT based on any WP:NN issues. Notability doesn't equate to having an article all of it's own, the subject can be just as notable in a CONSPIRACY section on the Frankfurt School page (just as the Rothschild Conspiracy is on its relevant page) - unless you can state a reason otherwise - then I cannot understand WHY you've voted the way you have. Please take the time to explain it to me in good faith, and Thank you in advance for your patience in doing so. --Jobrot (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, I appreciate this is a highly-charged subject. WP:FRINGE is not itself a reason for deleting an article - notable fringe theories should have articles, non-notable ones shouldn't. As per WP:NFRINGE: "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. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability." I agree that the article as it currently stands has some severe verifiability issues, and these certainly need to be addressed. JimmyGuano (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also going to need longer-term protection if it stays where it is (due to the edit warring which looks to increase). It's going to require protection and attention that it may better receive if couched as a section of the less controversial pages from which the theory extends. I understand that WP:Fringe is not necessarily an argument for deletion on it's own (assuming enough non-pro-generative and suitable sources can be found [which would mean not using Lind nor Berivik as they seem to be the primary originators of the theory]), but that assumption against the argument for deletion made still doesn't explain why you're against a merger? I understand that the conspiracy claims start Cultural Marxism off in the Frankfurt School and extend from there (the extent of Marxist influence as explicitly Marxist being the fiction the conspiracy rides on) - so I'm just not sure why you believe that extension is worthy of anything else other than merging (grounding) with reality. --Jobrot (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merging a wider subject into an article that covers a narrower one looks like deletion by stealth. To take an analogy from a subject whose existential status is a bit less contentious - it would be like merging the World War I article into the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria - you'd effectively be removing (or at least hiding) any coverage of all of the subject apart from one specific aspect. The argument against merging the narrower topic into the wider one is not quite as strong, I grant you, but this isn't an AfD for the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article. JimmyGuano (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with your analogy if WW1 were a conspiracy theory with no evidence to back it up. But it's not. So this is not a case of merging a "wider" article into a "narrower" one. This is a case of merging a conspiracy theory into the an article representative of the terms that conspiracy theory is borrowing. So unless you can justify your claims with evidence then your comparison (and hence your vote) is bunk. --Jobrot (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, or merge that article back here. Either one is acceptable. Both articles are essentially on the same topic, and I don't feel that having two articles on essentially the same thing assists our readers at all. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitrary break I[edit]

• Delete or Merge with Cultural studies or Critical Theory. Merging this article with Frankfurt School conspiracy theory was already tried and was met with immediate backlash. I believe there would be more consensus if it was moved to one of the aforementioned articles instead. HessmixD (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article is currently not in good shape, partly as a result of recent content disputes, though there are better versions in its history that can be used in the process of improvement. It's under discussion on its talk page, with wider community involvement than before, thanks to intervention by Jimbo a few weeks ago. There are various suggestions for improvement or for possible renaming or merging elsewhere. It may ultimately be merged into a new article on Marxist cultural theory (or something similar)... or perhaps, though I wouldn't currently support this, into the existing article called Cultural materialism (cultural studies) or one of the other articles on related topics such as Critical theory or Cultural hegemony. But the options should be sorted out on its talk page by people who are now reading the relevant scholarly books, peer-reviewed articles, etc. An AfD discussion is not the best way to choose between options, but it would be good if the AfD brought some more community involvement to the talk page. Meanwhile, cultural Marxism as understood by intellectual historians, etc., is a real and important phenomenon that has attracted reputable academic research. Cultural Marxism is wider than just Antonio Gramsci (probably its main inspiration), the Frankfurt School, critical theory, or any of the other existing articles that cover related areas. Vesa Oittinen, a professor of intellectual history at the University of Helsinki, defines it succinctly as: "an attempt to apply basic ideas of historical materialism on the analyses of culture". That's a legitimate and important topic, and there are good sources. The main question IMHO is whether it should be dealt with under some other broad heading, such as "Marxist cultural theory", but again that needs to be worked out on the talk page by people who are reading the scholarly literature. Meanwhile the article should be improved, not deleted. Metamagician3000 (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear what's being discussed on the talkpage is a proposal to create an article titled something like "Marxist theory of culture" with entirely different content to this one. Don't get me wrong, that may be a great idea. But if you are proposing different content and a different title, how does that equate to "keep"? You might just as well vote keep on the basis that all that's wrong with the article article should be about Mount Kilimanjaro and titled "Mount Kilimanjaro". No need to delete it, just change the content and title instead! No, what you're talking about is clicking here and starting to type. This doesn't amount to any sort of valid keep rationale. Formerip (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many subjects "attracted reputable academic research" - that's the basis for the Ig Nobel Prize, but this particular subject isn't covered or defined in any sense other than as directly synonymous and interchangeable with the views of The Frankfurt School and Antonio Gramsci. So I think your vote is poorly explained. Can you expand on what you mean by cultural Marxism beyond those, the associated pages in order to establish it as a separate phenomena independent of them? --Jobrot (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much I can say beyond my earlier comment. There was a widely acknolwedged "cultural turn" in Western Marxism in the 1920s toward analysis and critique of cultural media and products - and it's continued, though more strongly in some times and places than others. This is what scholars mean by "cultural Marxism". It was taken up in a big way in the UK in the 1950s, but there is no scholarly dispute that it exists and that it goes well beyond the UK. Gramsci was a seminal figure for cultural Marxists, but it is not just Gramsci - and nor was it just the UK. It's also simply not true that Dworkin's book is fringe scholarship (akin to Holocaust denial) or that he coined the term, as I've seen claimed on this page. I've read the entirety of Dworkin's book; Dworkin is a reputable intellectual historian; and intellectual historians have been using this term since at least the 1980s with no great controversy. It's only become controversial more recently because some right-wing commentators have claimed that cultural Marxism has caused so many evils, etc., and they tell their own dubious version of the intellectual history (in some cases their claims may amount to a conspiracy theory, though Paul Gottfried denies putting it on that basis, and having read his relevant book I can confirm that he doesn't put it as a conspiracy but what he claims is an open practice). Again, I'm not opposed to renaming the article something like "Marxist cultural theory" if that helps, but I see absolutely no reason not to have an article on this phenomenon - it's wider than critical theory, the Frankfurt school, Raymond Williams and "cultural materialism", or whatever. It spun off cultural materialism in the UK, but it is wider than that (and that term has not stuck). I just don't see the problem with having an article on this, just because some right-wing commentators use the term pejoratively and have dubious theories about the relevant intellectual history. There is no reason why the article would have to accept their viewpoint (some of their specific viewpoints probably are fringe, but if so the article can handle this, as we always do). Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What "scholars"? Sources? I can't find any. "Gramsci" was a "seminal figure for cultural Marxists". Please find a scholar that identifies as "cultural Marxist". Who are these "cultural Marxists" that find Gramsci a "seminal figure"? Dworkin said that he was the first to conceive of the idea of an academic discipline called "cultural Marxism". There is no "phenomenon", unless sources can be found for it. I've not found any, and you've not presented any. Dworkin focuses exclusively on British theorists, i.e. cultural studies, and certainly that book cannot be used as a source for the idea of a "phenomenon" called "cultural Marxism" that exists as anything other than a fringe term for cultural studies that he created for his own purposes. Where are your sources? RGloucester — ☎ 05:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-

I find your comments questionable to say the least. You claim there is no scholarly dispute that it exists and yet your two main sources (Dworkin and Keller) both say it NO LONGER EXISTS - they AT BEST stretch its INFLUENCES [note; not Cultural Marxism as the historically positioned euphemism for The Frankfurt School's impact on the development of Cultural Studies et al.] but AT BEST its INFLUENCES stretch to 1979 and 1980 respectively. So au contraire, there is no scholarly consensus that it still EXISTS! - and why would you throw holocaust denial into the discussion like that! You're the only one whose brought it up, and it DOES NOT help your case to do so. Now I can't confirm that Dworkin coined the term, but he certainly does SEEM to believe that he's the first to assemble the newly proposed meaning, stating in his own words no less: "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." [11], oh - and Paul (oh gott!) Gottfried (who counts "Political Correctness is intellectual AIDS" [12] Gays control my television![13] William S. Lind as a "friend of many years" [14] claiming that the conspiracy theory is not a conspiracy but is an open reality - simply DOES NOT MAKE IT SO! As a wikipedian that should be OBVIOUS to you! Of course believers of the conspiracy theory aren't going to see it as a conspiracy theory! EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE - and you know what - MORE EVIDENCE PLEASE. To say it's wider than Cultural Studies when it refers to a specific period in that discourse's development is just so - well to put it mildly;- incorrect to the point of sounding disingenuous. If you're going to make that claim - POINT TO SOME EVIDENCE! Show us examples of the terminology being used in that way - show what you mean when you're claiming "it's wider than cultural studies" (starting with defining an "it's" - as in, what is it?).

I just don't see the problem with having an article on this, just because some right-wing commentators use the term pejoratively and have dubious theories about the relevant intellectual history - the reason why it's a problem, is the same reason it would be a problem if we had a page on The Rothschild Family Conspiracy Theory, or on the Area 51 Conspiracy Theory (and yet we have a stand alone page for Big Foot). The problem is that this is meant to be AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FACT. NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES. Hence where ever we ARE afforded the opportunity, the onus is on us to couch conspiracy theories in FACT and the FACTUAL terms they stem from. This is why we have an article on Big Foot as bigfoot is cut from whole cloth as an entirely fictional/mythological character (there's no liable, no one to insult or contradict); where as Area 51 and The Rothschild Family CONSPIRACIES are restricted to being sections of the pages about THOSE REAL FACTUAL EXISTENT PEOPLE AND PLACES. That is the line! The line between FACTS/REALITY and Gossip about a Cabal of Marxists controlling Multiculturalism and political correctness. We deal in fact backed by evidence. Not heresay. Not the reporting of opinions as fact. NOT CONSPIRACY. BUT FACT. --Jobrot (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since atleast in the previous discussion on the article's talk page some editors proposed merging the two articles, which way they should be merged if they should be? The article 'Cultural Marxism' has existed since 1 June 2006, whereas Frankfurt School conspiracy theory was created by Fuzzy mongoose (talk · contribs) in May 2013 as a split from Cultural Marxism. At that time, no one suggested deleting Cultural Marxism. It is important to consider because merging all contents to either article could partly be a WP:COATRACK. --Pudeo' 03:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The quite limited and extremely historically bookended academic use of the term cultural Marxism invariably refers to the early philosophies of Gramsci and The Frankfurt School which influenced discourses like Cultural Studies and Critical Theory. The academic consensus is that these influences ended in the late 70s and early 80s (when Post-Modern thought took over).

Right-wing pundits however build on this now rarefied academic use to claim that Feminism, Gay Rights, Multiculturalism, Atheism, and Political Correctness are all stalwart Marxist attempts to weaken western Christian society and replace it with Marxism. This is undeniably a conspiracy theory. So I believe good Wikipedia policy would be to do something akin to what's been done with the Rothschild conspiracy theory - incorporate the conspiracy theory as a section of one of the legitimate articles to which the academic term refers. I'd suggest the Frankfurt School is the most appropriate target destination for this merger as it contains both Gramsci and Lukàcs who are often referred to by name in the conspiracy (as is the Frankfurt School in general) and the pages on Cultural Studies and Critical Theory both directly link to the Frankfurt School. Allowing people to still find the material in question, and more importantly allowing Wikipedia to be used properly for it's intended purpose - as an Encyclopedia (some digging required). If the merger doesn't occur, Cultural Marxism will need semi-permanent protection due to the this theory garnering the support/attentions of both StormFront and GamerGate. --Jobrot (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge The academic use refers to Gramsci and The Frankfurt School. The unevidenced conspiratorial claims about modern cultural phenomena (Multiculturalism/Athesism/Political Correctness) suffer from extreme WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues - which are unsurmountable due to the nature of the claims as invalid. As stated above, the Rothschild family approach is most appropriate for such a niche (non-notable) conspiracy theory. --Jobrot (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to anything that's not "conspiracy theory" It is probably too much work for some editor to have to merge this mess. Let the SPAs try their luck with a more well-written article like cultural studies, which is acknowledged in its article to have a Marxist core. Just don't redirect it to a conspiracy theory page; this is an insult to readers. Shii (tock) 07:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fact that this article has received so many views prior to all these attempts to delete is reason enough to leave it. It's alright to define communism and any number of other concepts on Wikipedia, what's your real problem with this: you don't want to give legitimacy to the term? Many people use the term, lets define it and stop beating a dead horse. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - 'So many views' has to be one of the silliest keep rationales I've heard this year. অমিত talk 19:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Go on, define it as something separate from the academic meaning, ie. the early stages of Critical Theory Cultural Studies The Frankfurt School or the views of Antonio Gramsci (of which all of those pages already acknowledge their Marxist influences) - define it as something separate from THAT and yet have it STILL NOT BE just a minor level conspiracy theory that would be more suitably merged as a section of one of those pages (most probably the Frankfurt School). I don't believe you can, so I don't believe your vote to keep the article is reasonable. But feel free to prove me wrong by providing such a definition (seeing as you clearly believe there is a legitimate one, I assume in good faith that you have reason for your vote, all I'm asking is for you to show it). --Jobrot (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Cultural Marxists are politically correct people who believe in multiculturalism, feminism, gay rights, they're ultra liberal, hence the epithet "Marxist." Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope. Your definition is rather quickly made null and void by pointing out the multitude of CONSERVATIVE and/or RIGHT LEANING believers in feminism [15], gay rights[16], advocates for multiculturalism [17] and right-wing institutions that practice Political Correctness in their policy guidelines [18] who EXIST and yet, are not ultra liberal nor Marxist. These counter-examples to your definition are numerous and endless. So currently you've failed to justify your vote to keep the article (as your definition for the term has been demonstrably shown to be incoherent).--Jobrot (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Cultural Marxists are ultra liberal, didn't you read my entire definition? Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but definitions are ESSENTIALIST in nature (they mean something). You can't just grab two words or two categories and just simply say they're a third thing (if that were the case "green cars" would hold a different place in the dictionary than "red cars"). You have to be able to extract the essence of the combination in order to convert it into something definitive (it is after all a definition you're trying to come up with). Which is why I went to the bother of showing you counter examples, of conservatives who push for the same strains of thought and do so CULTURALLY utilizing cultural elements such as videos [19], articles [20] and having whole organizations [21][22] dedicated to pushing those same political and philosophical positions using our CULTURE. So I'm asking for the essence of the combination - why when conservatives push those ideas is it NOT Cultural Marxism? Yet when someone from the left pushes the same ideas using the exact same means, why is that any different? What MAKES that become Cultural Marxism? What is the essence of the combination (and hence the definition)? What is your definition beyond the mere combination of two categories? Show me that it is MEANINGFUL. Show me that it is MEANINGFULLY pointing somewhere and that it's NOT reducible to just being the latest tribalist political slur. --Jobrot (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Ha, ha, so I googled "John McCain" and "Cultural Marxism" and came up with a few links like this one: "McCain, the Republican cultural Marxist, who is only too anxious to sell the US out." (I'm from Arizona so it didn't surprise me.) It's more than a tribalist political slur. The term is very popular and deserves to be defined here. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps it's a very popular tribalist political slur? At any rate you'll need a reasonable definition if you are to convince people of your position on the matter. Good luck. --Jobrot (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec, reply to Raquel). But don't you see, that undermines your argument. If the label can be applied to just about anyone by their opponents, it means nothing. So we have an article about a label, with no real substance to it. I have heard Marxists - actual Marxists, who apply that word to themselves - do something similar. Some of them call everybody to the right of them a "fascist." The difference, as far as I know, is that Wikipedia does not have articles using that label in that way. Which is good, but the same should apply here. Neutron (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*There are many political neologisms this is another.Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that doesnt really mean anything here WP:OTHERCRAP-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Per Saucy--TMD Talk Page. 23:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I'd like it if people on the Keep side of things could give reasons please, as I don't understand their position on this matter. --Jobrot (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm honestly trying to think up what to put in the summary when this inevitably grows into the months and years. So far I've got 'we should make an entirely new article to substitute this but keep this one', 'it's worth covering as a term', 'I don't like you' and 'it's got tons of views'. I can understand the second, but so far it just seems like Frankfurt School conspiracy theory covers most of it - and honestly, it's just an oddly condensed slur. We don't have an article titled Things I Don't Quite Like, Such as Jews, Communists and Jewish Communists. অমিত talk 03:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Then we should delete the Frankfurt article instead. This article is much older. I would suspect that the Frankfurt article was an attempt to POV fork the issues surrounding Cultural Marxism, so that Cultural Marxism could be re-labeled a conspiracy theory by right-wing cranks.--TMD Talk Page. 01:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It's indeed a POV fork, but unlike Cultural Marxism it's an article written using "reliable sources," under Wikipedia's surprising but understandable decision that humanity's consensus reality is partially defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Shii (tock) 03:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the age of an article is a point for or against that article. Personally I'd be fine if both the page on Cultural Marxism, and the one on The Frankfurt School conspiracy theory were merged with the general page for The Frankfurt School. Which would seems logical to me. --Jobrot (talk) 04:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This term is so silly and awkward that it does not even deserve a redirect. People who really want to learn about "cultural Marxism" can read about it at Metapedia, which is the appropriate Mediawiki-based site for treatment of this subject. – Herzen (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A term being "silly" or "awkward" in your opinion is not ground for deletion, and please don't call everyone defending this a right-wing nutjob, even if it were a term for right-wing fanatics, that's not ground for thinking it should be gone from Wikipedia. Loganmac (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NEO; this is a neologism which has all relevant content related to it covered more than adequately elsewhere. --Aquillion (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article tries to argue that modern U.S. liberalism is controlled by Marxist ideology. There already is an article about that conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - The term "cultural Marxism" has significant historical cachet; for example, Here's an academic work from 1997 with the phrase right in its title.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The book to which you refer states in it's own pages that it is "the FIRST intellectual history to study 'BRITISH cultural Marxism' conceived as a coherent intellectual tradition" and hence is a poorly chosen source if you're trying to prove significant historical cachet. Issues with this source are also discussed at the top of the deletion discussion (as quoted from the talk page). Not only is it the first book of it's kind (noting it's own attempt to present something coherent, with the obvious implication being that this perception of a coherent movement is an uncommon stance to take), but it's also singularly limited to Post War Britain. Further more this self-confessed attempt at presenting something as coherent only ever uses the phrase British Cultural Marxism (never using the term Cultural Marxism as a stand alone concept of common language). More importantly it uses this string to refer to British cultural Studies and the term should hence be merged with the appropriately relevant page Cultural Studies or to initiate a new page British Cultural Studies. I say this because British Cultural Studies (to which the author refers) is the common name for the subject and has a far wider usage with a far greater weighting both in the public [23] and academic sphere [24] out numbering the alternate British Cultural Marxism by a complete order of magnitude. One authors use of a POV term, should not warrant a WP:CFORK. Ergo I do not understand your vote, given how the author is using the term. --Jobrot (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Given that the title of the 1997 work was Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain, I would hardly consider it surprising that its author dwelt upon British instance.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC) The same title also occurs in a 1991 book (in Chinese, no less), so now we're looking at a quarter-century of phrase use. Going back even farther, here's a 1981 title, for a third-century of phrase usage.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So what you're telling us is that we should keep a totally unrelated article referring to something else entirely because some people referred to it by the same name a handful of times in the last century? I somehow doubt your good faith here. অমিত talk 21:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's another book with Cultural Marxism in the title (namely; Jameson on Jameson: Conversations on Cultural Marxism), the problem being that it doesn't contain the words Cultural Marxism anywhere within its 296 pages. I mention this as I like to think Wikipedia is about more than just judging books by their covers. I like to think we go a bit deeper than that. Your linked synopsis does mention that in this case it's a book about Political Sociology, and I assume if there was a significant movement within that discourse (a discourse thus far not been mentioned on the proposed page for Cultural Marxism), it would best appear on the relevant Wikipedia page Political sociology. Instead on that page Marxism is mentioned only as a subset of class analysis (one of Political sociology's 3 major categories of analysis) - and of course class analysis isn't innately Marxist in nature (see the Caste system in India for instance). Further more the link cites a number of Critical Theorists (that's more like it) yet states that they are specifically NOT Marxists - which goes against the idea of Cultural Marxism as holding the (conspiratorial) opinion that to be a practitioner in either Cultural Studies, or Critical Theory, you must therefore be Marxist (with a devious Marxist plan). However, I can understand that you yourself, may not be arguing for having a page on the conspiracy theory causing all the edit warring - in which case, you're free to change your vote to a vote to Merge with the page for Political sociology in line with the reference material you have provided (the stuff that's not in Chinese)... and I must now ask why that isn't your vote? Surely if it's a legitimate and significant movement in that area of discourse those monitoring the Political sociology page will whole heartedly agree with your addition?

P.S Do you speak Chinese? --Jobrot (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese book is just a translation of Dworkin 1997 :I Shii (tock) 02:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep I don't see how anyone with an objective view can seriously consider this article for deletion. It may have some issues that need to be addressed, but the subject/term itself is legitimate without question. Google indisputably confirms this, with academic articles on the first page of results. I'm a centrist myself, but there is no question in my mind that this is an overt attempt at censorship, especially considering the shady recent merge attempt that Wales himself had to step in and put a stop to. LokiiT (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might want to actually read what you're citing, before you cite it. That's not an "academic article", but a personal essay written by Kellner and released by him. It is the equivalent of a blog post, not reviewed by anyone else or published anywhere. It is not RS. What's more, it does not define "cultural Marxism" as a subject, anyway. Please see what a quote of my writing at the top of this request says. No censorship is involved. Perhaps you ought read WP:V? RGloucester — ☎ 22:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do consider a well sourced essay written by a prominent academic figure to give academic legitimacy to the topic (and so does google). It is in no way shape or form equivalent to a blog post. Considering that you took only 10 minutes to reply, you're either an extreme speed-reader, or you should perhaps take your own advice and read it before dismissing it. LokiiT (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources he cites, nor his own work, supports the idea of "cultural Marxism". The essay is equivalent to a blog post, because it is not peer-reviewed, it was not published, it did not appear anywhere than on his own personal website. It is merely his own personal work, and no publication found it fit to publish. That makes it not a WP:RS. Please see WP:SELFSOURCED. Otherwise, every university student's term paper could be considered "RS". Again, the principle of WP:V means that citations must support the text. A few scattered uses of the phrase "cultural Marxism" in a Google Scholar search does not mean there is a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism", nor does the term's appearance in a personal essay that has not been fact-checked by anyone. You'll note that that search is full of false hits. Anyone can throw the words "cultural" and "Marxism" together in the same work. Merely because two separate words appears does not support your position. RGloucester — ☎ 22:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing a strawman. I never said that his article was peer reviewed. However, note that Douglas Kellner is a prominent expert in the topic and has numerous related published books. That makes him a little more of an authority than some unknown university student. Have you considered that your own understanding of Cultural Marxism is incomplete? LokiiT (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the Kellner essay, and it does not support the idea of a school of thought called "cultural Marxism", for one thing, and for another, who is calling him "prominent"? Regardless, it doesn't matter if he has "published books". This is not an RS. It is an essay. It is WP:SELFSOURCED. It has no fact-checking. No credibility. No nothing. It is a blog post, unless someone publishes it. Please find one of these "numerous related books", and then show me where it says that there is a school of thought called "cultural Marxism". RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge – For all of the reasons I've previously stated, namely that no reliable sources posit the existence of a school of thought called "cultural Marxism", and that the conspiracy theory already has an article. The term itself fails WP:NEO. RGloucester — ☎ 22:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it fails WP:NEO, there are many political neologisms recognized on WP. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy". In other words, peoples' exercises in finding random WP:SELFSOURCED essays that use this phrase are both futile and useless, as they don't demonstrate anything. RGloucester — ☎ 00:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep There are academic articles written discussing "Cultural Marxism" dating way back into the 1990's http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20007001?sid=21104938871221&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739536&uid=3739256&uid=2129&uid=2, tracking a social political trend back to the 1950's. I've already posted links and excerpts for review on the 'talk' page, as have others. The content is not all "blogs" and political labeling, as is asserted here and the talk page. Read the referenced articles, especially concerning Cultural Marxism in Britain post-WW2. Certainly strip the article of all political content, or fork the article into two, one for a partisan political slur and another for academic study, but this is definitely an article that Wikipedia should keep, one way or another. Voodooengineer (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are already have an article on cultural studies. RGloucester — ☎ 23:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, RGloucester, an article that references two sources using the term "Cultural Marxism" yet conspicuously neglecting to include the term "Cultural Marxism" within the text of the Wikipedia article. Just so we're clear about what's being omitted, here's more sources: http://www.jstor.org/discover/466452?sid=21104938899371&uid=3&uid=4580551827&uid=3739536&uid=3739256&uid=60&uid=4580551837&uid=70&uid=2&uid=2134&uid=2129 and http://www.jstor.org/discover/466449?sid=21104938899371&uid=4580551837&uid=2&uid=3&uid=3739256&uid=4580551827&uid=3739536&uid=60&uid=70&uid=2134&uid=2129 and http://www.jstor.org/discover/464942?sid=21104938899371&uid=4580551837&uid=70&uid=2129&uid=3739536&uid=2&uid=3&uid=3739256&uid=60&uid=2134&uid=4580551827.

The term is out there; I've now found it dating back to at least the 1980's. Cut the article to ribbons, fine, I can support that, but the notion that deletion is justified just doesn't pass any test of cursory research. Strip it down to bare bones, call it a stub, and monitor its editing, but Cultural Marxism is a thing with decades of academic discussion.

Finally, playing devil's advocate, it may be plausible to merge into cultural studies, but that merge would require, for clarity, a redirect from Cultural Marxism and explanations within the cultural studies article explaining that the two terms are synonymous.

Also, calling a term dating to the 1980's a neologism doesn't seem applicable. Voodooengineer (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. One source above is a duplicate. Apologies. Voodooengineer (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has been made clear that anyone can put together the word "cultural" with "Marxism" in a descriptive sense to refer to cultural applications of Marxism. To be clear, we already have articles on these things. "Cultural Marxism" is a fringe term that is not the common way to refer to these things. None of these usages posit the existence of a school of thought called "cultural Marxism". To be clear, only one of the sources you've provided uses the phrase "cultural Marxism". That's "Theses on Cultural Marxism", by John Brenkman. If you actually pay for the article, or if you have an academic subscription, and see what's inside, you'll note that it does not use the word "Cultural Marxism" other than in the title, as a way to draw the reader in. Once again, no definition exists outside of the purely descriptive sense, and that cannot be the basis for an article, nor does it mean that there is a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism". Anyone can put together the words "culture" and "Marxism", just as was done with Jews and Communism, but that doesn't mean that we can have an article on the subject. You might want to read WP:AND. Even though this title doesn't contain "and", it does the same thing. It is a coatrack with no basis in WP:RS. I'd also direct you to WP:NEO above. RGloucester — ☎ 23:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break II[edit]

• Delete - or keep, if one wants Wikipedia to exist at the level of stuff like this - urbandicionaryculturalmarxism Sayerslle (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does the Oxford English Dictionary say about i Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the OED is payment required and I'm not subscribing to search this term but I should think it says what oxforddictionaries.com says when you search this term - 'no exact match' -[25] Sayerslle (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Has an important historical, academic and cultural presence, and several academic works mention it, either to discredit it, or to confirm it. As such it seems foolish to delete this article. Wikipedia strives to show a complete picture, and as such this article, which indeed have issues, shouldn't be deleted but modified. --Nod'Vos 17:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nod'Vos (talk • contribs)

The academic articles I've seen don't "discredit it" (after all, no one in academia uses Cultural Marxism in the conspiratorial sense) they instead use it for the very specific, very temporarily located influences of The Frankfurt School on the development of Cultural Studies. If you can find an academic article that discredits or contravenes that academic usage, feel free to show us (although the academic consensus seems pretty strong on this one). But currently they are the two usages (the academic usage, which already has a place on wikipedia as sections within the articles to which it refers [ie. merger]) and the conspiracy usage, which has NO PLACE on wikipedia. Non-notable conspiracy theories (of which this one is a recent fad) should be couched within the factual terms from which they extend, as to keep wikipedia based in FACT and keep it from becoming an encyclopedia of conspiracies and kooks. --Jobrot (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge - Nothing in the article seems notable enough for this to warrant a page of its own.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it's good enough to be mentioned in the peer-reviewed Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/, it's good enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. If a merge take place anyway, the conspiracy theory should be merged into the article about the concept, not the other way around.PirkeiAvot (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lord, save us all. I'll note that the link this fellow has provided links to an article on critical theory that does not once mention "Cultural Marxism". RGloucester — ☎ 20:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I move that PirkeiAvot's vote not be counted as they clearly have the wrong topic, and wikipedia already has a page on Critical theory --60.241.86.130 (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to quote the context in which the term 'Cultural Marxism' is explicitly mentioned? অমিত talk 02:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Its a common term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotmanMaslo (talk • contribs)
• Strong Keep Wikipedia not having an article on a common term like this would be pathetic. And it would be best if this wasn't a matter of the term being used by far right nut jobs or not like people are suggesting going to Metapedia, even if it were, a term being offensive to you it's not ground for deletion. I'm as leftist as it gets but I can be unbiased. Please, be neutral. Also I hope Rgloucester doesn't judge all Keeps as not valid like last time.

"Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" by Richard Weiner, 1981 [26]

"Conversations on Cultural Marxism" by Fredric Jameson, 2007 [27]

"Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain" by Dennis Dworkin, Professor of History at the University of Nevada [28]

"Cultural Marxism" by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome [29]

"Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies" by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner [30]

"Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society" on the Critical sociology Transforming sociology series of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Soc:iology [31]

It's infamous for being used by Anders Behring Breivik, and of course, there are other authors bashing the term, but even saying, to their opinion that it's non-sense, it isn't ground for deletion, it wouldn't be the first term that is open for debate. [32] [33]

It' also a term that has appeared on multiple news outlets [34] [35] [36] [37] So we can assume the term is used by scholars, politicians and media, on multiple books TITLED with the term, and other books and papers discussing the term. Loganmac (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common where, exactly? RGloucester — ☎ 21:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those sources is either describing Cultural studies in the UK, or the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory. So no, we cannot "assume the term is used by scholars, politicians and media, on multiple books TITLED with the term" or in other words, not legitimize a conspiracy theory that has been promoted by fringe organizations such as Stormfront, Metapedia, Neo-Nazis and other White Power groups. 76.248.201.50 (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my GOD!!!!!! How many times must I refute the same damn sources? NO ONE READS WHAT THEY CITED. First of all, to make it very clear to you, gathering miscellaneous "sources" that use the words "cultural" and "Marxism" together does not necessitate an article, per WP:NEO. You must find articles the provide a definition of the term, or analyse its existence as a term. Again, read WP:NEO. Regardless, as I've said thousands of times, the Dworkin book does not use "cultural Marxism" as a term to mean anything other than "cultural studies", which we have an article on. He says himself that this is his own invented usage, and not common anywhere. The "Salon" piece is a WP:SOAP commentator piece, and not an RS, the same with The Daily Telegraph piece. Regardless, both of those refer to the conspiracy, not to anything else. We have an article on that. The Kellner piece is a personal essay that is not RS, and anyway, doesn't posit the idea of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism". The Miller piece provides this summary "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought". Again, this is not something we can have an article on, per WP:AND. Anything a Marxist has every said about culture does not make an article. That's the same as Jews and Communism. We have existing articles on all the various strains of thought that involved Marxism and culture. That's a coatrack recipe, right there. It is a purely descriptive usage that is rare, and that cannot be the basis for an article. RGloucester — ☎ 23:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please Rgloucester maintain decorum, you were told this before, I don't know why you have such a personal problem with this article. And it's not the best idea for you to participate in a debate over criticism of Marxism when you've admitted in the past being a Marxist. Please be civil. Loganmac (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about you don't misuse sources? How about you read what people write, and the sources you cite? The reason you don't is because you haven't got any sources, and you're only here to make an ideological point. I never "admitted" to being a Marxist. Being a Marxist is not a crime. I shan't be civil with the lowest-of-the-low type of person who doesn't even read the policies before him, or the sources he cites. Now, until you are ready to address the complete attempts at deception on your part, I suggest you refrain from commenting. RGloucester — ☎ 01:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, I'm not here to make an ideological point. I never said being a Marxist is a crime, I just simply referred to your user page that states "This user identifies as a Marxist." WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillars of this project, if you say you won't be civil with people simply because they disagree with you it's pretty paradogical it is you who is telling me to leave.

I'm not assuming good faith with someone who engages in intellectual dishonesty by misusing sources, and violating Wikipedia policies. Please, until you can participate honestly in this discussion, don't comment. RGloucester — ☎ 01:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These titles have already been covered on the talk page (hence the frustrations) but I'll cover them again here:

"Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" by Richard Weiner, 1981

[38] Described as A thorough examination and analysis of the tensions between political sociology and the culturally oriented Marxism that emerged in the 60s and 70s - Note, not the same thing as 'Cultural Marxism'; an organized political movement that's taken over (or aims to take over) our culture. In fact Richard Weiner doesn't even seem to think that all Critical theorists are innately dirty stinking commies as the description of the book makes clear that many Critical Theorists; "fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement". A title alone can't be referenced, and my money is on this instance not being an exception to the standard meaning (ie. The Frankfurt School).

"Conversations on Cultural Marxism" by Fredric Jameson, 2007 [39]

Oh come on! The words 'Cultural Marxism' don't even appear within the text of this book! [40]

"Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain" by Dennis Dworkin [41]

Dworkin's himself proclaims this to be "the first intellectual history to study BRITISH cultural Marxism conceived as a coherent intellectual tradition" and notes that his doing so is contentious (this is evidence against your case).

"Cultural Marxism" by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome [42]

"Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been [deemed to be] influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society [how dare they!]. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been [deemed to be] informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies."

"Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies" by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner [43]

An essay Douglas Kellner uploaded himself to his own faculty directory (read: self-published, non-peer reviewed) in which he regularly references himself, and only contains 9 instances of the term Cultural Marxism (none of them being definitive or meaning anything other than the origins of Cultural Studies/The Frankfurt School), and he does so interchangeably with 'Cultural Studies' (literally switching from one to the other in adjacent sentences). In addition he uses the term Cultural Studies 90 times in the essay (making Cultural Studies a full 10 times more common in this work that users keep citing as legitimating the Cultural Marxism).

"Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society" on the Critical sociology Transforming sociology series of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociiology [44]

Come on, what is this? a computer compiled subject reader? Look at the cover [45] it states "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA Articles" and the looking up links by googling the ISBN cites different authors depending on which pages you visit!

Stop giving out sausage and calling it ham. Your references clearly point toward the term 'Cultural Marxism' being a rarefied academic terminology for the early stages of development around Cultural Studies (ie. The Frankfurt School). To claim anything beyond that, or that it alone merits a wikipedia article - THAT is a bit too far and doesn't line up with your sources! There are OBVIOUS places for this academically uncommon term to be put on pre-existing wikipedia pages (if people are so inclined)... and the only other usage is as a fad conspiracy theory. Until some evidence is provided - the communists haven't taken over!--60.241.86.130 (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-

You can present your arguments without being UNCIVIL, please stop associating me with thinking "communists are taking over", this is exactly what's wrong with arguers for deletion, no I'm not a neo-nazi simply for thinking this is a term used by people. For god's sake in my country everyone idolizes Che Guevara, I got a freaking poster somewhere in my home. I celebrated the end of the Cuban embargo. Some people can leave their personal opinions off Wikipedia. Loganmac (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I attack ONLY your arguments, and never ever mean to attack YOU (the person behind the computer) I trust the people of Wikipedia (yourself included) to be able to distinguish the logician from the argument. I've never performed any ad hominem (I do not wish to discuss your political affiliations or beliefs if you have any) and if you can substantiate your claims or provide a further argument against anything I've said - I'd be more than happy to hear it. I say this in good faith, and with respect to both yourself, and the process of debate/discussion. Yours sincerely

P.S I must point out my comments below preceded these above comments by several hours, and were made before Loganmac aired their grievance concerning their feelings of insult (although if any insult was taken, please tell me/point it out, and I shall correct myself or elucidate on my intended meanings further [I assure you I've not aimed to insult any one]). --60.241.86.130 (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Had to post again as I looked into some of the news coverage you cited as well, particularly this (clearly reporting a conspiracy theorists viewpoint): [46]

"In the post, Gen. Lee calls Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton "vermin." "Muslims are demanding and receiving far more special treatment than other minorities," he adds. "Broadly speaking there is very little difference between the ultimate goal of Cultural Marxism and Islam."

And this (Clearly mocking a conspiracy theorists book):

"Indeed, the book is an endless parade of classic far-right conspiracy theories and vicious, factually groundless fear mongering. From the idea that “cultural Marxism”is a force hellbent on ruining the world, to attacks on Obama as a “socialist”president, Savage covers the gamut of far-right conspiracy theories in fine fashion."

Did you not even read your own links to make sure they were coherent with your argument re: this page? Just to make it clear, this term is BOTH a) a rarefied academic term with limited use that commonly refers to (at times being used interchangeably with) The Frankfurt school to mean early Marxist influences on the development of Cultural Studies as a discourse (which it's since progressed from) in which case it should be merged with that as the meaning on the intended pages as that is the (albeit rarefied) academic usage - BUT IT ALSO REFERS TO - b) a POPULAR conspiracy theory used by the right as a pejorative for the left in regards to claiming Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Feminism, Gay Rights and Atheism are not legitimate movements of their own accord, but are instead communist conspiracies to shatter the social order as we know it and install Marxism (ie. the William S. Lind usage) which obviously doesn't deserve a Wikipedia page of its own. Your OWN reference material substantiates THESE as the meanings for 'Cultural Marxism'. So unless you can find reliable evidence for the conspiracy, or evidence of a different academic use, then this discussion is over, and the current article has no place or future on Wikipedia. --60.241.86.130 (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a common term and omission would be odd. The article existing shouldn't even be a point of contention, only the contents. Thorrand (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some issue I'm not aware of that makes that an issue? If there are other articles for me to edit as well I will, and have before on my IP. Thorrand (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's up with your IP, but the policy page for usage of that tag is here; WP:SPA, and states: "These tags are not an official Wikipedia policy, and may be heeded or not based upon your judgment and discretion" and that "New users acting in good faith often edit topics in which they have a general interest. Such accounts warrant particularly gentle scrutiny before accusing them of any breach of official policies and content guidelines" given that you've only made 4 edits [47] (none of which seem particularly offensive) - I don't really see how this tag could have been applied fairly or in good faith. So I'm going to remove it. --Jobrot (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the article, yes there is an issue, because the academic usage of the term (which tends to trumps other sources) uses it to refer mainly (if not completely) to the Frankfurt School's effects on the early stages of the development of Cultural Studies. So the term's meaning is covered and better housed elsewhere (as a subsection of the topics to which it refers) and it is Wikipedia's common name policy WP:CommonName that "Editors should also consider the criteria outlined above. Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."

Also this is an encyclopedia based on facts and evidence - so where ever we ARE afforded the opportunity, the onus is on us to couch conspiracy theories in FACT and the FACTUAL terms they stem from. So the article's existence (not just its current dubious, confused and conflated contents) is absolutely in question. --Jobrot (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This article is about one of the major socio-political & intellectual currents of our day. Its deletion would be preposterous, irrespective of any individual problems the article may have; it can always be improved (and doubtless should be). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite sources that describe "Cultural Marxism" as a "major current" of anything? RGloucester — ☎ 01:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - and revert to an earlier version. Although it's clear that the current version of the article has some issues, the recent Slate article that mentioned this controversy links to an earlier version that is much better written and well sourced. It wouldn't be accurate to fold it into Frankfurt school, since the term also includes Birmingham School. This article has existed for years without issue until it was changed to frame the topic as some sort of conspiracy theory, and it will be perfectly fine if it is restored to that earlier state. --PiMaster3 ^talk 00:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it would be just sad for the image of Wikipedia that an article linking to "the attempt to remove Cultural Marxism from Wikipedia" will be met with the actual deletion for an outside reader. It should be also reverted. Noone had a problem with this for almost 10 years until recently and it just makes us look extremely fishy Loganmac (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not a "better state", as it was completely unsourced, and none of citations supported the text. This is easy to verify. Just click on the links, and read through. The first citation is to a book called Western Marxism by Merquior. That book does not contain the words "Cultural Marxism". Nowhere in the book does that phrase exist. This is easy to verify. That book is about Western Marxism, which we have an article on. RGloucester — ☎ 01:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to that particular book (which may use the term within the text itself), but you have three citations in that page that use the term Cultural Marxism in the title. One of them is available online, written by Douglas Kellner, who is a professor of critical theory at UCLA. He uses the term multiple times throughout the text, and not in a pejorative manner. --PiMaster3 ^talk 01:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, perhaps you could read this discussion, where the Kellner bit has been addressed numerous times. That essay is not RS. It is a personal essay, never published in any publication, never peer-reviewed, never edited by anyone else. It is WP:SELFSOURCED, available only because he released it himself, equivalent to a blog post, and hence not WP:RS. Regardless, he does not use the term in any way other than a descriptive sense to refer to things we already have articles on, so even if it was RS, it would not justify the existence of this article. And no, the Merquior book does not use the term "Cultural Marxism", anywhere. I've read the full text, which is available online through academic databases. It is also available at any good research library. RGloucester — ☎ 01:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with your assessment of Kellner's article (per LokiiT's argument above), even if you ignore that article for the moment, that still leaves us with the 1991 journal article "British Cultural Marxism" published in the International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society and the 1997 book Cultural Marxism in Post War Britain: History, the New Left and the Origins of Cultural Studies. --PiMaster3 ^talk 02:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't disagree. There is nothing to disagree about. Blog posts are not admissible, and neither are the essays of university students. Want to know the reason why? They've never been reviewed by anyone else, to see if they are worth publishing. Unless a third party decides to publish it, it is just WP:SOAP with nothing to back it up. Regardless, as I said, the essay itself uses the phrase in a purely descriptive sense that does not support the idea of the existence of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism". It simply uses it to mean anything vaguely Marxist that has to do with culture, and that cannot be the basis for an article per WP:AND. There is nothing to argue about. It is a useless essay. It is not an "article". Being an "article" requires it to be published somewhere. I've already explained about the Dworkin book above. Dworkin himself says that he invented the term for his own purposes, and was using it to refer to what is called Cultural studies in the mainstream. We have an article on cultural studies. The "British Cultural Marxism" article uses the term to refer to a uniquely British movement, which in the more mainstream is called Cultural studies. We have an article on that, like with Dworkin. This does not include the Frankfurt School, or anyone that is not British. RGloucester — ☎ 02:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources presented by Loganmac above and per the argument put forth by Pimaster. -- Calidum 01:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't present any sources. He presented none that supported his god-damned argument, and plenty that are not RS. READ THE DAMN SOURCES. IT IS PLAIN TO SEE. PiMaster has no argument either, as he favours a version of this article that was COMPLETELY UNSOURCED. RGloucester — ☎ 01:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The very fact that it is pissing a few people off by its mere existing speaks to its relevance. Of course it can be improved, as can anything. If those who oppose it spent half the time editing the article that they are spending denouncing every "keep" vote they read, It would be the best article on Wikipedia. ScrapIronIV (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. I hope the triumvate of closers consider the validity of policy-based arguments above those that scream loudest. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect or Merge selectively (probably to Frankfurt School) - The subject of this AfD is a pejorative term, not a field of study, philosophical discipline, or the application of Marxist methodologies or ideologies to culture, but I see several !votes operating under the assumption that we're talking about the latter. We already have separate articles for the application of Marxist methodologies or ideologies to culture (Frankfurt School, critical theory, Cultural materialism (anthropology), Cultural materialism (cultural studies), etc.). The term was hijacked to be used as a pejorative, and it's that use alone that we're talking about. I think there's room for a section at the main article(s) on how "cultural Marxism" has been appropriated (and I think Frankfurt School conspiracy theory should be sent down the same road -- perhaps later spinning off to something like Criticism of critical theory), but I haven't seen enough coverage of this term as a pejorative (as opposed to use of this term as a pejorative or coverage of this term in its original non-pejorative meaning, whether or not it accompanies positive or negative opinions) to justify a stand-alone article even under a different name, at this point. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being pejorative isn't ground for deletion, we have tons of articles that are used just to insult people, see Feminazi. We all know we wouldn't redirect nigger to Black people, since the Nigger article is to explain why is it used prejoratively, etc, same as Feminazi doesn't redirect to Feminism, or Kike to Jews. The term Cultural Marxism is used; for what, it should be dealt with on the talk page. If its definition is often blurry, say it so on the article, and let's detail every sense of the term. But I see a lot of people saying "well this is far-right so it doesn't belong", which is crazy, if a a term made up by The KKK had books published by authors, it would also be on Wikipedia, the term would probably be bashed everywhere, but that's not grounds to remove it because it's offensive or was made by "bad people." Previous discussions were closed per No consensus and I'm not seeing anything different, and this was like a week ago. Per the nominator's wording "Before Jimbo’s peace offering to the participants in the Gamergate controversy, the article had been deleted after a discussion ranging a month, far more than befits a fairly obscure term in right-wing circles" he's letting his personal belief blur his vision, in that he uses "right-wing" as if it was something bad, and seems to be against "GamersGate", or angry at Jimbo for throwing them a bone or something. Loganmac (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nobody said being pejorative is grounds for deletion. It being a term without a subject is grounds for deletion -- unless the particular usage of the term is the subject, in which case it requires substantial coverage of the term (not use of the term, which is completely and totally irrelevant to AfD, but coverage of the term as a pejorative independent of the kind of "cultural marxism" already covered in other Wikipedia articles). Most of those you reference have very long histories and are subject to extensive linguistic, cultural, political, etc. analysis and discussion in a number of fields. That's simply not the case here, at least as far as I can tell. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not a dictionary for every term in the world. RGloucester — ☎ 03:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loganmac, it should be noted that while Cultural Marxism is often used as a pejorative term, it is not exclusively used as a pejorative term like the other articles that you mention.

Rhododendrites, that seems like it might be a viable option. One concern I have about doing that was that the term also includes the Birmingham School, but that is effectively just an offshoot of the Frankfurt School. Somewhere in the Frankfurt School article it can say "sometimes referred to as Cultural Marxism" or "sometimes pejoratively referred to as Cultural Marxism". My main concern was RGloucester's attempts to frame any usage of the term as promoting a conspiracy theory, which in and of itself is a conspiracy theory. Folding the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article into Criticism of critical theory is a good suggestion and once that article is created there should be another AFD debate on the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article. --PiMaster3 ^talk 03:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism" that includes the "Birmingham School" or the "Frankfurt School"? I haven't seen any. Dworkin says that his version of the term does not include the Frankfurt School, and that it only includes British 50s-60s stuff. He says that he's invented it, and that it is his proposed alternative to the term Cultural studies. That's WP:FRINGE, and not supported by anyone else in academia. He admits as much at the start of the book. Again, the usage of "cultural" with "Marxism" may exist, but that's a purely descriptive usage that cannot be the basis for an article. per WP:AND. It is not a "coherent entity", merely a descriptive phrase, used very rarely, if at all, and not accepted by mainstream academia. RGloucester — ☎ 03:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should just redirect to the Frankfurt School article. But redirecting it to the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article just isn't accurate. It may not be a widely used term in academic circles, but it is a widely used term in other media (and not just fringe conspiracy sites) often mentioned alongside critical theory. --PiMaster3 ^talk 04:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for its use in "other media"? Remember, per WP:NEO, you cannot just provide sources that use the term. You need to provide ones that discuss its use. RGloucester — ☎ 04:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Thinker, [http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41737/ WorldNetDaily], and CNS News all have articles discussing the concept as the main focus of the article. --PiMaster3 ^talk 04:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

at least 2 of those three are most decidedly NOT reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are, because they are all commentary pieces, which cannot be used as sources per WP:SOAP. Find a reliable source. Commentary or opinion pieces are not acceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 04:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources to back up the claim that it is only used in reference to a conspiracy theory? I wasn't necessarily advocating citing the sources sources I listed in an article; they were just to establish that it should redirect Frankfurt School rather than Frankfurt School conspiracy theory. The entire Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article is a WP:POVFORK and much of its content should be folded into a more neutrally titled article like Criticism of critical theory like Rhododendrites suggested. --PiMaster3 ^talk 13:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The unreliable WP:SOAP sources you were just citing as validating the term: "American Thinker, [http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41737/ WorldNetDaily], and CNS News all have articles discussing the concept as the main focus of the article" - all use the term in the conspiratorial sense:

"revolutionaries reorganized themselves into a multitude of single issue groups. Thus we now have for example, radical feminists, black extremists, anti-war ‘peace' activists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, and ‘gay' rights groups... ...all together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism" -American Thinker [emphasis added]

"Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture... our Western, Judeo-Christian roots, was swept aside by an ideology. We know that ideology best as “political correctness” or “multi-culturalism.” It really is cultural Marxism." -WorldNetDaily [emphasis added]

"It [Cultural Marxism] has succeeded in effecting a transvaluation of ALL values in society" -CNS News [emphasis added]

yet now you've turned around and are demanding that usage be proven? --Jobrot (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• merge as a pejorative, there is precious little to be said about it, and it can be covered in the other articles. as a non-pejorative, it doesnt exist and so the option would be delete. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. It is a term that is widely used by the political right. It may be an idiotic perjorative term, but we keep articles on idiotic perjoratives and call them out as such. I honestly can't comprehend why people want to delete it. The deletion arguments basically boil down to "I don't like it." Don't like the phrase? Fine. The best antidote for bad speech is good speech. Rewrite the article, and make the people who use the term sound as ignorant as you please. Cite all the academic works that show how the phrase is really ignorant, if you wish. But we absolutely need to keep an article on a concept that is so popular with the Christian right. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"we keep articles on idiotic perjoratives " only if they meet WP:GNG and are appropriately sourced per WP:NEO and there is no evidence that that can be done for this particular pejorative in a manner where a stand alone article is the most appropriate application. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the problem of Wikipedia:Content forking. We have various articles on various subjects, such as Critical theory, Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 05:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the sudden string of keeps and "strong keeps"? Thread jacked! The ideologues have shown up to spread their conspiracy theory! COMMUNISTS RUN THE MODERN MEDIA (video games included)!!!! http://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/2qjalc/cultural_marxism_is_nominated_for_deletion_again/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.86.130 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing some editor of brigading? If so, please point them out, and report them if it need be. If you don't have any evidence, please remove your accusation and also stick to the formatting and composure Loganmac (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We just do what we always do - ignore the canvassed SPAs that dont have any coherent policy based position.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Loganmac, whilst I can see that there is a user with a very similar name to yours on the above linked reddit, and that your wikipedia account and their reddit account both express a keen interest in GamerGate related articles (the reddit account even going as far as to make posts accusing wikipedia of bias and specific editors of sock puppetry) - it's not exactly brigading just yet (not there anyways). --60.241.86.130 (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OUTING, the only one being disruptive here is you. Loganmac (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never outed you, merely pointed out the similarity in your user name and interests/contributions and the reddit user's name and interests (and contributions to reddit). These are statements of fact, I draw no conclusions. Facts are what wikipedia is made of. There is no harassment here, and our interactions have been limited to today and to this page (and will hopefully remain that way) --60.241.86.130 (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This should be a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deleting a WP:NEO is a perfectly acceptable practice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that did apply here (it doesn't) it would still be a question for a merge discussion to address.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The term is in common use within many different fields, the concept is current, the article is in a good state, and having a separate article would stop others being bloated, overlong, or unfocused (all three of which are issues Wikipedia has policies on avoiding). With some love and tender care, I think this article could be in a very good state if allowed to be kept. doktorb _words^deeds 09:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What fields are those? An article that is largely unsourced is in a "good state"? 16:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Strong Keep This AfD is the second for the same article in mere weeks, when it had been around for years before, and no new reason has been introduced for deletion. I don't see why User:Amitabho gets to decide whether the discussion is "based in the facts" or not. Also, if we're name-dropping the Gamergate thing, User:Black Kite is a named party to the current Arbcom case, so I don't think that admin can be fairly considered "uninvolved". 69.159.80.46 (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I don't think it's the best idea to "choose" the admins beforehand, and Black Kite has been participating on the GamerGate workshop {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=639462293] [48] so his decision as an admin might get blurred Loganmac (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm confused - what on earth has this article got to do with Gamergate? (Not that I consider myself involved in that dispute, as I said in evidence at ArbCom). Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that a significant number of gamergate supporters believe the gaming media is rigged by Cultural Marxists in order to push for feminism (as to fragment the social order and install Marxism during the unrest). Hence they're attempting to direct their fan base here in order to defend the legitimacy of the conspiracy theory (as they believe it's in their favor to force/legitimize the concept/article):

http://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/2qjalc/cultural_marxism_is_nominated_for_deletion_again/

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2occ7m/wikipedias_cultural_marxism_article_now_redirects

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2ohsed/cultural_marxism_page_restored_by_none_other_than

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2ofpxu/why_cultural_marxism_isnt_a_thing_xpost_ranarcho/

http://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/2qjalc/cultural_marxism_is_nominated_for_deletion_again/

http://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/2ojo4a/jimmy_wales_steps_up_and_restores_the_cultural

Otherwise the sheeple will never wake up and the Jewish commie feminazi gay marriage endorsing Islamics will take over (although I think GG are mostly focused on the feminism element). --60.241.86.130 (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Well, on a personal level I don't think that's a problem (after all we're simply deciding the policy-based consensus on notability or otherwise of the subject) but given the previous issues on the subject, the last thing we want is for any close to leave any idea of bias, so I'll recuse from closing this. I'll post on AN now. Black Kite (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 3[edit]

• Comment My understanding of the facts so far is that the academic consensus (as has been panned out on the talk page by those actually looking into the references) - is that the limited amount of academics who do use the term "Cultural Marxism" use it to refer specifically to the Gramsci/Frankfurt origins of Critical Theory and Cultural Studies, and in no way make the claim that Critical theory or Cultural Studies is innately Marxist, nor that there's a concerted effort in the western media to push Marxism, or to fragment "western Christian" society so that Marxism can be pushed. So the issue with the article's existence (and whether this means deleting it, or merging it) is that the small sliver of truth to which the article refers should obviously be (and is) covered in other places on Wikipedia (leaving only the addition of the newly popularized term to be added/merged to take some place in those pages). Beyond that is conspiracy theories about people and schools of thought that already have adequate and well referenced pages. So unless someone can point at an academic consensus that supports there being a media conspiracy (ie. Cultural Marxism being an extended school of thought with Cultural Marxists having taken over much of modern media for their own agenda) - then merging this "article" or rather the addition of the conspiracy terminology to other pages; seems to be the logical path forwards based on the facts and academic consensus (as opposed to the claims and pejorative gossip). As I've said through out this "debate", this is no different from the Rothschild family conspiracy theory (complete with similar levels of anti-semitism) - until the claims can be proven, the theory shouldn't be substantiated by having it's own (trouble proned) wikipedia article. WP:CFORK WP:V WP:OR WP:FRINGE --Jobrot (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Bold Delete and perform the inevitable fate this article will face once the canvassing and off-site collaboration from WP:SPAs has settled down. Many commenters here and editors of the article are misunderstanding the process of fitting into WP:GNG and more specifically WP:NOPAGE/. As for the article itself, many sources listed here fall under the eyes of WP:ONUS beneath WP:V. Merely because a term exists a few times in articles from B-tier sources does not imply any means of verifying some kind of notability. Merely because it is in the title (but not contents of) of essays or academic papers (see WP:SPS and WP:REDFLAG for fringe material) does not imply notability and have no place here, similar to the old climate change wars and other controversial topics. Hell, a graph from Google Trends Australia has been in the article near the top since 8 December[49] as an incredibly desperate attempt to provide WP:N. Worse, it was added under a stealth edit summary to hide its inclusion. It's so well-guarded and generally low-priority in trying to clear up that the essay-style wording of its entire paragraph has been left there to rot.

Since the previous attempt at a re-direct was personally reverted by User:Jimmy Wales some 3 weeks ago the overall quality has only gotten worse. In the prior AfD I suggested a merge but it's become progressively move evident that we as an encyclopedia, despite the extremely fervent effort of many passionate volunteers, are unable polish this WP:NEO and derogatory, partisan phrase enough to justify its own existence. If only a panel of uninvolved editors could actually work on the article without interference as they will be reviewing this discussion we might have a shot at a "clean" AfD. I implore the closing admins to weigh this as a "big picture" debate and look beyond the wealth of !votes relying on recentism to justify a WP:CFORK enjoying its WP:15MOF behind a WP:WG and beyond the abilities of all editors who have attempted improvements.

I've been deliberately staying away from this and related articles but we have to draw the line somewhere. The incredibly divisive nature faced in the same handful or articles the past few months cannot be allowed to remain indefinitely under the guise of "no consensus" from heavy participation and risk of retaliation against admins. Were I an admin I'd gladly do it myself to take the heat off others. That was some grandstanding, I apologize, so I'm striking it. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 14:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC) EDIT: ♪ Tstorm(talk) 14:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find the keep reasons to be stronger than the delete ones. — Ched :  ?  16:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or, as a second choice, Redirect. Fails WP:NEO: Neologisms … for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. It has been shown that sources purporting to reference this topic either do not, in fact, do so or are not WP:RS. As stated earlier, "We just can't have article on Wikipedia about things for which we have no specific sourcing.” JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you support a redirect? Shii (tock) 18:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I would. I updated my comments accordingly. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the users arguing for deletion seems to be politically motivated, maybe merge with Cultural Bolshevism Stiapel (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)— Stiapel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do you have an actual policy based reason or just your aspersions against other editors? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Frankfurt School conspiracy theory to Cultural Marxism and modify content (both articles are horrible). It appears "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" has 0 Google Scholar hits and 1 Google Books hit (the only hit, Catastrophism: The Apocalyptic Politics of Collapse and Rebirth, is being used as a source despite the fact it's a book by a radio journalist). The term "Cultural Marxism" on the other hand has plenty of usage in Google Scholar (1760 hits, regardless whether it's with a lower-case "C" or not - and indeed not all usage refers to what we're discussing about at all - but that just means a redirect is inappropriate). So why would "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" somehow be a better title when it has very little actual usage outside of a 2003 SPLC intelligence report? Sourcing is difficult on both articles, and both articles currently are inappropriate per WP:SYNTH. If a merge is done, Frankfurt School conspiracy theory should be merged back into Cultural Marxism because the latter has far more usage. People have rightly criticized Cultural Marxism article's poor condition, but at the same time they have ignored the fact that the other article is just as poor. Or should both be deleted, then? --Pudeo' 23:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I was able to access Chip Berlet's Collectivists, Communists, LaborBosses, and Treason: The Tea Parties as Right-Wing Populist Counter-Subversion Panic and it does not mention "Frankfurt School" at all except in one source name which is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article. So, the only sources which use the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory are the 2003 SPLC report and "Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fring" by Martin Jay. I don't think that's much stronger than what Cultural Marxism now has. So redirecting this to that one isn't really an improvement. I'm leaning into deleting both Cultural Marxism and Frankfurt School conspiracy theory. --Pudeo' 23:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Pudeo. RGloucester — ☎ 23:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deleting both articles, but would also be fine with a merger into the Frankfurt school as - regardless of their being no reliable sources for the claims being made - the [WP:SOAP] conspiratorial "sources" do mention The Frankfurt School often enough (although obviously I'd never suggest a stand alone article for such claims).

My personal feeling is that conspiracy theory pages based on real people, places or things (Area 51 and the Rothschild Family are good examples) should be merged as sections of the legitimate articles they conceptually extend from. I believe Cultural Marxism extending beyond the Frankfurt School is just that (a conspiracy theory) and I'm yet to see any evidence that suggests otherwise. --Jobrot (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

did you search for "Frankfurt School" AND "Conspiracy Theory"? because "They developed a conspiracy theory which involves the FS ..." or "The FS later became subject of a conspiracy theory" etc would be equally valid phrasings even if the specific term "FSCT" wasnt used. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The work; Collectivists, Communists, LaborBosses, and Treason: The Tea Parties as Right-Wing Populist Counter-Subversion Panic (available here [50]) doesn't mention the word "Frankfurt" at all (as far as I can tell), but it's only being used in Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article as a limited example of the "fertile ground" used to develop the conspiracy. --Jobrot (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TRPoD, my message only had results from "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" with quotation marks around it. Here are the results for AND "conspiracy theory". Not easy to find relevant pieces because many of them seem to just mention conspiracy theories about something else. Frankly I'm surprised there really aren't academic texts about it because Breivik's attack in 2011 resulted in a lot of new research about the far-right. We might be in a sort of an Internet echo chamber where little culture wars like the Gamergate controversy make things like "Cultural Marxism" or its proponents seem very relevant when they might not be in the real world. The problem with the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory article is that it combines primary sources like William S. Lind, the two sources which actually mention the FSCT and then third kind of sources which just mention "Cultural Marxism" without mentioning the Frankfurt school. It results in a synthesis. --Pudeo' 02:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect - Other articles cover the same subject matter, and they do it better. As the article's edit history shows, this article is a magnet for those trying to promote the idea that "Cultural Marxism" is to blame for whatever they think is wrong with society. Neutron (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and have no more merge/deletion discussions for 3 months. There was a discussion whether to merge the article with "Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory" that was closed on 22 December 2014. To open a new deletion discussion on the same day was evading the spirit of community consensus.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree, it seems like the results are reaching no consensus again and it's of no surprise seeing as that was the result a week ago, it seems nitpicky and dishonest to keep trying to delete the page with such a recent decision. Loganmac (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Between your prior involvement on 8chan, the gamergate wiki, your attempt at harassing Anita's twitch chat and your consistent inability to present a counter-argument other than 'u mad bro?', I highly, highly doubt your good faith in the matter and I'm beginning to suspect that you've been WP:CANVASSED. অমিত talk 18:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-

evading the spirit of community consensus - ya can't really make that accusation when the closers declared that there was no consensus formed in that previous discussion (probably why we're still here chatting about it). But SINCE then, the discussion has evolved, and it has been noted BY MANY on this page, that there IS an academic consensus (one of if not THE highest form of evidence given on wikipedia) that reveals the term Cultural Marxism refers (academically speaking) to The Frankfurt School's early impact on the development of Cultural Studies. And that to prove otherwise (ie. go against the academic usage), either requires more evidence towards some other meaning of the term (one that wouldn't so obviously fit into either The Frankfurt School page, or the Cultural Studies page [both of which acknowledge their Marxist influences already] - OR find some evidence backing the conspiracy. There is no in between. Several threads on this AfD are currently sitting at that stage of the debate, in the same position. So it seems there is QUITE THE consensus drawn from these parallel lines of debates - and that the challenge to the ongoing existence of the article is FIRMLY ON THE TABLE: to merge/delete (given that what's presented on [Cultural Marxism] offers little new to the existing articles to which the ACADEMIC CONSENSUS usage of the term refers), or have NEW EVIDENCE presented (feel free to find academic references of counter-usage [ones that haven't already been demolished please]). Seeing as THAT challenge is currently NOT being met in those (the above) threads; I'd say that's a pretty strong logical consensus against the Keep argument. Those saying KEEP, have no gap in wikipedia where the article fits as a stand alone page ANY MORE! The academic consensus is on the table my friend - and it is YET TO BE REFUTED. If it's not, the merger/deletion is the only apparent and logical path for this discussion. Unless you can show otherwise! The delete/merge argument case has been made and backed by academic consensus! And the onus of evidence is now on the KEEP side, to present equal or greater refutations to the academic usage if they can! --Jobrot (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.