Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

"Post-modern neo-Marxism" is not a thing

Some editors are mentioning this name a lot, so let me state it at once and clearly:

"post-modern neo-Marxism" is not a thing. It's not an organic ideology that anybody subscribes to or would subscribe to. It's not a coherent ideology, it's not even a coherent concept, and everyone who is not subscribed to this theory at best thinks it's a joke, and at worst recognizes it as the obvious dog-whistling that it is.

It's a Frankenstein term whose constituent terms are contradictory (meaning it is in fact self-contradictory). It's a term Jordan Peterson et al. invented to describe anything they don't like in modern society (and especially modern academic/university discourse), a precursor to contemporary right-wing panics about "wokeness" or "critical race theory" (the right-wing distortion of "CRT", not the actual academic theory).

No serious political researcher has picked it up. No one, not even philosophers, take it seriously, and they are inclined to take a lot of things seriously. It's someone's pet theory they use to explain the world, and it's not even a good pet theory. The reason it is discussed here, in an article about a conspiracy theory, is that it amounts to a conspiracy theory. It's not a serious topic, and that's why, despite the fact that some editors constantly talk about it in circles, they can't provide reliable sources discussing it neutrally to back up their various claims.

Some editors might feel compelled to respond to this post, to point out that these terms are indeed very real, and that they do have "sources" to back it up. To those editors, I can only say: I'm sorry. Reality doesn't care about your fallacies or propaganda chambers.

Also, read the d*mn FAQ. TucanHolmes (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention "post-modern neo-Marxism"; and nobody seems to be trying to add the phrase. I can't figure out what you're trying to do or what you want to see happen? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Editors – often IP editors – are bringing it up repeatedly in discussions. A lot. Over and over again. At least since I started watching this page. Which is why I tried to state my point most generally.

(Usually brought up because people want to have mentions of Jordan Peterson removed from the article. That seems to be the most common context in which this happens.)

(That is also why I started this section with Some editors are bringing this name up a lot, so let me state it at once and clearly:) TucanHolmes (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You should add some of this to a FAQ Dronebogus (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The closest thing I could point at is something like Standpoint theory, it's got a bunch of literature and a bunch of people seem to subscribe to it. I would suggest that editors interested in "post modern neo-marxism" look at this piece rather than engaging with the rather niche literature surrounding this term. Perhaps we could link to it in the FAQ

If you look at the page you'll see that there is discussion of a "dominant culture" which in my opinion is likely dervied from Marxist ideas, and also has postmodern ideas about epistemic privilege. This plot shows the number of uses of "lived experience" in UK Parliament and shows a rapid uptick from the term basically not being used in 2015, it is now used multiple times a week weekly Talpedia 09:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the whole "lived experience" thing is a big part of "woke"/"critical theory"/whatever that you and I were both saying is sometimes (non-conspiratorially) labelled as "cultural marxism". But what is the upshot of your comment? Are you replying Tucan? Are you suggesting a change to the article? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It is... But its also a big part of liberalism, libertarianism, charismatic religion etc... Its not in any way a unique of defining feature. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure... I'm not certain that the influence is out of standpoint theory, or how much the concept has transmogrified from its original morning. But the uptick in 2015 is suggestive of a more recent source ideas. Anyway yeah, I should probably stop talking pending an actual FAQ suggestion. Talpedia 16:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm mostly replying to Tucan. I'm a little worried about "scope creep" beyond this article, so I'm adding some context of "hey this is quite close". I'm also suggesting that if we change the FAQ we might like to sign post people to standpoint theory. I would prefer that we just don't change the FAQ - but if other people are keen this is an argument against these change and a suggestion for contextualization. Talpedia 16:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added an additional source to the article, and a note listing the actual terms Peterson uses (somewhat interchangeably). Until now, the article has just mentioned his use of "postmodernism", which I found to be quite thin, since it obscures the connection to "Cultural Marxism. That is why I added a note. TucanHolmes (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want to propose something to be added to the FAQ, go right ahead. But at the moment, this appears to be an off-topic speech, rather than a proposal to improve the article. I was tempted to just close it per WP:FORUM, but there's some merit to proposing an addition to the FAQ. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right, it probably was off-topic. I have seen the pattern repeat over the years (and again in more recent discussions), which is why I felt like an intervention was warranted. I ended up adding a note to the article, and will consider proposing an addition to the FAQ if the pattern continues in future discussions. TucanHolmes (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Post-modern neo-marxism is not real according to a deconstruction of the individual terms. However, by those who use it, Post-modern neo-marxism is a description of the collection of beliefs held by those who expound post-structuralist philosophy and conventionally left-wing political theory and is real to the extent that it is describable and has critics. This is really the bare minimum to be discussed on Wikipdia, who cares if it's "not a coherent ideology," that's never been a prerequisite for inclusion on Wikipedia.

This "Frankenstein theory," is real enough to be described in the article. Likewise, anybody who self-identifies as a post-modernist, or who identifies with post-modernism is "not real." To say that your totalizing meta-narrative is the rejection of totalizing meta-narrative is performative contradiction. Despite it being performative contradiction, it exists and has critics, which is sufficient to be described on Wikipedia and would likely be relevant on this page. I am a Leaf (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Without reliable sources to back any of those statements, the policy-compliant answer to the question "What is to be done?" must be "nothing". Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed I am a Leaf (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent I am a Leaf (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Topic sentence is unencyclopedic and should be changed

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

---

The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

"Misrepresents" should be changed to "represents" for several reasons:

1. There is no correct representation, "misrepresentation" is both a nonfalsifiable assertion and a statement about the veracity of the conspiracy theory. "Representation" in this context would state the view of the conspiracy theory in a disinterested, encyclopedic manner. The use of "representation" also does not make a statement on the veracity of the conspiracy theory, and is more encyclopedic.

2. No sources linked to the topic sentence indicate anything about this theory being a "misrepresentation" of the Frankfurt School, the only usable source on the internet here indicates that it is critical of the Frankfurt School, not that it is a "misrepresentation" of it's beliefs.

3. The title of the article is "conspiracy theory," in the context of the title being "conspiracy theory," the assertion that this theory is a "misrepresentation" is completely tautologous. Of course it's a misrepresentation! It's a conspiracy theory for god's sake!

It's not that I disagree that Cultural Marxism is a misrepresentation of the Frankfurt School, it's that I disagree with putting assertive, emotionally charged language in the topic sentence of a Wikipedia article of something of significance in contemporary life. There are some who may be predisposed to those who believe in this conspiracy, who would stop at the topic sentence of this article and say "this was written by the other side, it is biased." It would be in both Wikipedia's and the public's interest for a more disinterested topic sentence. I simply believe one word should be changed. I am a Leaf (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that any misrepresentation is tautologically a representation. But in this case, as abundant citations throughout the article attest, the claims of Cultural Marxism falsely represent the actual influence of the Frankfurt School. So we should use the more precise word, "misrepresent", which is perfectly neutral.

I am, however, going to change one word myself; namely, "which" to "that" because it is better English.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a bogus factual claim, so 'misrepresents' is fine. There's nothing 'nonfalsifiable' about it. Since we don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE on Wikipedia, believers in this conspiracy theory are going to think that any fact-based article is biased. There's nothing we can do about that. MrOllie (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation indicates there is a correct representation and an incorrect representation. The word represent says nothing of veracity, misrepresentation does.

There is something we can do about conspiracy theory believers thinking a fact-based article is biased. Namely, we can remove the biased language in the topic sentence.

The change does nothing to the meaning of the topic sentence, or the article as a whole, it simply makes it more encyclopedic, which, if you've made it to this point of the talk page, you probably scrolled past a banner which says "Content must be written from a neutral point of view." We should try and adhere to that with this article.

In any event, if the statement "misrepresentation" is going to be used in the topic sentence, at least a source stating such should be in the topic sentence. I am a Leaf (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

"The word represent says nothing of veracity, misrepresentation does." isn't that an argument to use misrepresent (and a strong one at that)? The claimed representation is not veracious, it is in fact false. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the edits suggested here, the first sentence is deeply flawed, owing to the way it is less concerned with defining the topic than it is with applying prejudicial labels. Sennalen (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This is really what i'm getting at. The topic sentence for 'Moon landing conspiracy theories' would be a good model for an article about conspiracy theories, especially when "conspiracy theory" is used in the article's title.

"Moon landing conspiracy theories claim that some or all elements of the Apollo program and the associated Moon landings were hoaxes staged by NASA, possibly with the aid of other organizations."

Consider, however, if this sentence was

"Moon landing conspiracy theories falsely claim that some or all elements of the Apollo program and the associated Moon landings were hoaxes staged by NASA, possibly with the aid of other organizations."

In terms of meaning, these sentences represent the same exact thing. Falsity can be inferred by the use of "conspiracy theory." However, the sentence without "falsely" represents this meaning with a more neutral tone. This neutrality should be the goal of this article on the Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory. I am a Leaf (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

For another model, to which the Cultural Marxism is explicitly linked in the article, please see Jewish Bolshevism.

Also, since the only two people who have problems with the lead both have histories of POV-pushing and disruptive editing on similar articles, I'm at least temporarily checking out of this conversation.

In no way, however, should this be mistaken as an indication of consensus. I remain strongly opposed to the sort of tinkering with the lead along the lines you are proposing.

If anyone has a knock-down argument that they have for some reason been holding back, please just tag me.

Peace out, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

1. It is outrageous to claim I have "histories of POV-pushing and disruptive editing" as a way to discredit my edits and suggestions.

2. My suggestion has no relation to the connection between cultural marxism, or the description of this conspiracy theory as "antisemitic," I merely want to change 3 letters of one word. This proposed change does not change the meaning of the lead sentence at all, it would merely change one redundant word to one which is neutral and no longer redundant. I am a Leaf (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats not neutrality its WP:FALSEBALANCE, please do not confuse them in the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not an issue of false balance whatsoever, this is an issue of biased writing. Using "represent" does not legitimize the conspiracy theory (the issue in False Balance), using "represent" just eliminates a redundancy. I am a Leaf (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

That is contradictory. Is the issue biased writing or is it just about eliminating a redundancy? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Both. "Represent" and "misrepresent" would convey the same thing in this sentence because the sentence is describing a "conspiracy theory," which, by its name, is already a misrepresentation of consensus. That is one redundancy.

"Mis" in "misrepresent" is also where the bias comes in, because it makes a factual assertion which is not sourced in the lead sentence.

False balance is not an issue of merely of biased writing, it is an issue in delegitimizing an overwhelmingly consensus view. Using "represent" instead of "misrepresent" would not delegitimize the consensus that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory because the plain meaning of conspiracy theory indicates the consensus already. This change (of three letters) would not create an issue of false balance. It would simply be more neutral. I am a Leaf (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

How would it be more neutral? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Mate please read any of my above comments (you have replied to several of them), it has been the subject of practically all of them. However, I will explain again.

"Represents" is more neutral because represents is used descriptively. It does not assert anything about the truth of the representation being made.

"Misrepresents" is less neutral (more partial) because it makes a statement which is no longer descriptive, but one which is "positive" or "normative." "Misrepresents," as used in this article, evaluates the conspiracy theory before even telling you what the conspiracy theory believes.

If you need a clearer example of why this article's lead shows bias, imagine the article for Christianity with the lead sentence:

"Christianity is a religion which misrepresents the universe as having one god."

Now imagine if the article said:

"Christianity is a religion which represents the universe as having one god."

Both of these are true, depending on what your religious beliefs are, but the sentence which uses "misrepresents" clearly indicates a position is being taken on the claim (bias). While the sentence which uses "represents" says the same thing while being more descriptive than normative. I am a Leaf (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

But thats not what neutral/neutrality means on wiki, its a term of art... See WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If you'd really like me to go through this with you

WP:NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Also, "Prefer nonjudgmental language."

Also, "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject"

I do not understand what your objection is anymore. You clearly do not want to change the lead, but until it is clear why you prefer the current version to one which uses nonjudgemental language, and otherwise satisfies WP:NPOV, I will continue to advocate for this minor change. I am a Leaf (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Saying something is a misrepresentation is a truth claim, it's not an attempt at emotionally disparaging anyone, or morally judging anyone. We're not saying the Conspiracy Theory is idiotic, or immoral. We're just reporting the academic findings as being representations of The Frankfurt School, and Conspiracy Theory findings (which are demonstrably false) as being misrepresentations of The Frankfurt School. 203.214.52.43 (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The academic findings and the consensus that this theory is demonstrably false is already represented by the designation of this theory as a "conspiracy theory." I am a Leaf (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Then is the designation of this theory as a conspiracy theory also an issue vis-a-vis nonjudgmental language for you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

No, because the designation of something as a conspiracy theory says more about the consensus around the theory than it says something about the facts which the theory misrepesents. Conspiracy theory is an accurate description, but to describe the conspiracy theory (at least in the topic sentence) in terms of what the theory misrepresents, rather than what it alleges, is what I have an issue with. I am a Leaf (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This is why I believe the flat earth theory conspiracy theory page and the moon landing conspiracy theory pages are better models for the topic sentence. They describe the theories in terms of what those theories allege, and after they do that, the articles describe the overwhelming consensus that these theories are factually bogus. I am a Leaf (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Your attempts to change the moon landing conspiracy theory page appear to have been rejected by the community, surely you are aware of this? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That is also false, the current language is the language I argued for. MrOllie's changes (which would have included the redundant "falsely" in the topic sentence) were rejected by the community. I am a Leaf (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, the current language has changed since the last time I saw the page, but you still don't appear to have consensus for your edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how any of this relates to the changes i've proposed on this article. I am a Leaf (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

But what it alleges is a misrepresentation, those two are one and the same. It doesn't just allege them it falsely alleges them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresents is neither judgmental nor does it disparage its subject. Where is the judgement and where is the disparagement? Note that you've spent a lot of time arguing that its redundant... Well if its redundant than it doesn't say anything different in terms of judgmental or disparagement than the other option does... So the two option we have no are either you're wrong it isn't redundant or you're wrong it isn't judgmental/disparaging. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresents is judgmental. It takes a stance which is already indicated by the fact that this theory is designated a conspiracy theory by the title of the article. I am a Leaf (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If the stance is already indicated how is it any less judgmental for removing Misrepresents? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because "represents" does not engage with the argument, it describes the argument, whereas "misrepresents" engages with the argument. Engaging in the argument is explicitly discouraged in the first sentence of WP:IMPARTIAL. I am a Leaf (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If your reading of WP:IMPARTIAL were correct Flat earth theory would be a very different article. MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"Archaic and scientifically disproven" are verifiable, factual statements cited to in the lead paragraph. The Flat earth theory page has a good topic sentence!

"Misrepresents" is a value judgement, it engages with the dispute and tries to falsify it without a source or without an explanation of why it is false (unlike the Flat earth theory article, which neutrally states "scientifically disproven") and this conspiracy theory article makes a statement which is not cited in the main sentence, this is different from the Flat earth theory article.

At this point you are just throwing out spurious arguments against my request to change three letters because you feel like it shouldn't change, not because the change would be problematic. This is frustrating, but I understand, Wikipedia is run by people after all. There have been many intelligent, good-faith responses on this talk page, you have not been responsible for any of them. I am a Leaf (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That you happen to disagree does not mean an argument is 'spurious'. Your claim that 'misrepresents' is a value judgement rather than a factual statement is backed only by your repeated, unevidenced assertions, and commenters here think it is simply incorrect You're starting from a faulty premise, so it is unsurprising that your arguments aren't convincing anyone to come around to your point of view. Making personal attacks about intelligence and assuming bad faith is not going to help with that. MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not "repeated, unevidenced assertions" I have cited to WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:NPOV.

Misrepresents "engages with the argument" (explicitly prohibited by WP:IMPARTIAL sentence 1);

Misrepresents does not "prefer nonjudgmental language" as demanded by WP:NPOV and WP:VOICE;

I argue that Misrepresents is a value judgement rather than a factual statement 1. because philosophical/historical positions cannot be proved or disproved, and 2. because the sources linked do not even indicate the assertion that the topic sentence makes (the assertion that the conspiracy theory is a misrepresentation of the Frankfurt School's beliefs)

I have asked for a minor stylistic change and I really must thank all the detractors of this view, as it's given me an opportunity to read the style guide more thoroughly.

See WP:FRINGENOT "WP:FRINGE is a content guideline which prohibits unwarranted promotion of theories which are not supported by mainstream scholarship and science in the theory's field. Issues unrelated to scholarship and science, then, cannot be fringe despite being minor viewpoints or widely opposed. In those cases, WP:UNDUE in the appropriate policy."

See also WP:UNDUE ". For instance, articles on historical views such as flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position and then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief."

See also MOS:NOTE "Simply present sourced facts neutrally and allow readers to draw their own conclusions"

I do have a solution though, I think first paragraph should simply be flipped. I would rewrite it as such:

The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a conspiracy theory that posits that there is an ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with culturally liberal values.[sources 1-4]. The theory is widely criticized as a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness.

This would be far more acceptable, more in line with the Wiki's style guide, and I would no longer object to the use of the word misrepresentation in the first paragraph if this change were made. I am a Leaf (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Inserting WP:WEASEL words is not 'more in line with the Wiki's style guide'. MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about weasel words? I only added the words "widely criticized", which, according to nearly everybody here, is in fact the case. I am a Leaf (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

See WP:WEASEL "The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source."

Is this not what the topic paragraph already states? I am a Leaf (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

No. The paragraph as is makes plain statements of fact. Your proposed changes turn that into a statement of opinion by critics, which is not at all equivalent. MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is a socio-historical one, not a scientific one. You seem to be making a WP:FRINGE argument, but as I have said above, this is WP:FRINGENOT. The phrase "conspiracy theory" already makes a statement of facts (namely, that the theory is already factually bogus).

The topic I proposed is organized as

(name) > (modern beliefs) > (criticisms),

you would prefer

(name) > (criticisms) > (modern beliefs)

This is a stylistic argument. I do not dispute the fact that the conspiracy theory misrepresents the Frankfurt School, but the topic sentence should reflect what the subject of the article is, rather than beginning with its criticisms and what the subject is not.

For more on WP:FRINGENOT, here is an exerpt: "the matter of our FRINGE guideline deals directly with what can be proven or demonstrated using the scientific method by academics, scholars, and scientists. Political opinions about recent history, future predictions, social opinion, and popular culture cannot be fringe because the basis of the opinion is not scientific or academic." I am a Leaf (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:FRINGENOT is a WP:ESSAY which has not been endorsed by the community. It has no standing or weight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If WP:FRINGENOT were policy it would certainly make pages like New World Order (conspiracy theory) and Great Replacement huge problems for Wikipedia to deal with. 203.214.52.43 (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It would make them more difficult to write, that's fair, but the difficulty of writing in an impartial and neutral POV for socio-historical topics is no reason to simply abandon those goals. This is something that can be addressed on an article to article basis.

Academia has squarely rejected the ideas set forth in this article, and I do not argue that people should be disallowed from describing the widespread rejection of conspiracy theories, I disagree with doing so in the topic sentence, and in describing the conspiracy theory in terms of what it is misclaiming rather than what it is claiming.

Notice how other, more scientific, more definitively false conspiracy theories have topic sentences which describe claims directly in terms of what those claims allege. Is this due to those authors' fears of being interpreted as biased? I think not. The authors of those pages genuinely believes the facts speak for themselves. Likely, those authors do not fear people will read the content of the article and adopt the minority view. That does not seem to be the case with this article, as you have indicated.

If something really has academic consensus around it, there is no reason to have fear that it will be construed otherwise. For those who disagree and adopt the conspiratorial view, academic consensus would not change their mind anyways, we are not writing wikipedia for those people.

In terms of convincing people of the truth of your claims, attempts at neutrality is far more compelling than the deliberate avoidance of neutrality because it would be a "huge problem to deal with."

Judges sometimes write like this article's topic sentence and and it is highly annoying. (e.g., "First, we will begin by describing what the liberty interest protected by the 14th Amendment is not. . .").

But as I have said, the consensus seems clear by the high priests of this page and others, so there is not much of a reason to continue arguing my point. Reasonable minds differ, and recognizing that is an important part of being a member an open society like this. Take care. I am a Leaf (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

we are not writing wikipedia for those people. We write Wikipedia for everyone, and we do so to express the content found in reliable sources. It's as simple as that. Your saying that there are high priests for this page, or that we're only writing for some people, or even that we should just adopt how other pages describe other topics - I think reveals a misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia.

We're here to summarize and report the content and findings of reliable sources, in order to explain and explore a topic area. We're not here to target some groups, or convince anyone of anything. We simply explain topics using high quality sources, and readily understandable language. If you adopt that mindset, you too can become a "high priest" of any page you wish to. It's just that simple. 84.247.101.29 (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be arguing that one contains a value judgement and the other doesn't but that they're also functionally the same. How can that be the case? If its redundant than both sentences must contain the same value judgement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Before this article used misrepresents in the lead sentence[1], it used claims there and misrepresents much later in the lead section. I for one have no clear preference one way or the other, but the lead must not be "neutral" about whether the conspiracy theory is based on reality, or not, because the reliable sources on the topic uniformly state that it isn't. Newimpartial (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me, I added it to Moon landing conspiracy theories. MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Pls. review MOS:LEADCITE. Wikipedia's Frankfurt School article could use some TLC, but it would be an easy place to start. A more complete history can be found in Martin Jay's The Dialectical Imagination, should anyone be interested.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The Frankfurt School is not responsible for modern progressive movements - ergo claiming it is, is a misrepresentation of what The Frankfurt School is responsible for. I mean, Marcuse out and out says he had very little to do with the 1960s student radicals in this interview here, and it's a quite well known fact that Adorno called the police on student protesters performing a sit-in at his campus. [2]. Ergo it seems accurate to say the claim is a misrepresentation.

What's more; conspiracy theories generally mix accurate representations with misrepresentations/falsehoods. The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory for instance often gets the names of the theorists correct, often gets their locations and job positions correct... so it's fine for Wikipedia to point out a specific misrepresentation in the lead because it's the main thrust of the misrepresentations the various versions of the conspiracy theory make. It's a somewhat uniting misrepresentation that defines the conspiracy theory. The function of which is to reduce the various progressive struggles of the past half century into being "Frankfurt School Marxism"... which obviously misrepresents large areas of progressive politics and history (areas such as The Black Civil Rights movement, Stonewall and The Gay Rights movements, and modern Feminism). So I think the current language is fine: "The term "Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness." 203.214.52.43 (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What's more this is not a double negative, or a tautology, as we're not speaking from within the conspiracy theory (we're speaking from Wikivoice)... and as stated above, conspiracy theories generally mix truth and falsehood, so it's fine to mark off one of the major arguments of the conspiracy theory as being a misrepresentation. 203.214.52.43 (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The idea Marcuse had "very little to do" with student radicals is risible. He led sit ins. They marched with his name on flags. He was a confidante of Rudi Dutschke. The incident with Adorno caused a personal schism between the two of them. You cannot mount an effective crusade against misinformation, if you don't know what is correct to start with. Sennalen (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Marcuse and Dutschke having some interaction in Germany focused on opposing the Vietnam war, and later via a letter or two is not the same thing as Marcuse organizing and being responsible for the 1960s Student Radicals... and no, he wasn't Dutschke's confidant. They had very limited interactions (Marcuse only had one last book in him at that time, and of course Dutschke was shot in the head)... what's more Marcuse is just one member of the Frankfurt School, and when the conspiracy theory speaks of "progressives" it tends to be referring to modern American progressives. 203.214.52.43 (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"It's fine for Wikipedia to point out a specific misrepresentation in the lead because it's the main thrust of the misrepresentations the various versions of the conspiracy theory make. It's a somewhat uniting misrepresentation that defines the conspiracy theory"

I agree with you and this is precisely why "misrepresent" is redundant. The article is about a conspiracy theory. Of course the conspiracy theory misrepresents, misrepresentation of facts is a unifying aspect of conspiracy theories.

If "misrepresents" and "represents" would have the same meaning if used the lead sentence, but one of those words was more likely to suggest bias, rather than impartiality, wouldn't it be better to use the word which best reflects impartiality?

Certainly it would be a better sentence if meaning is unchanged despite greater impartiality, right? This is an encyclopedia after all.

If you think it would be better to reflect impartiality, the proper word in the topic sentence is "represents."

I do not think "misrepresents" is wholly wrong as used here, I simply think this article could be better and was curious for input. Thank you for your contribution. I am a Leaf (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you're under the mistaken impression that Wikipedia aims to be impartial. It doesn't. It aims to be neutral. These are not the same thing. For instance, the statement; Anthropocentric Climate change exists. Is neutral, but it's not impartial.

Wikipedia does have a bias, its bias is towards reliable academic sources. Wikipedia is biased towards the facts. It is bias towards the truth of what can be said. It attempts to convey an academic, truth based bias, in a neutral fashion. It won't ever say "Climate change denial is wrong, and hence the people who deny climate change are very bad people." - but it will say "The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels."... neutral, but not impartial.

So your argument that "represents" is impartial, is not valid here. Which is why people above are bringing up "false balance"... Wikipedia doesn't aim to show that all representations of The Frankfurt School are equal, and so should all be counted as "representations". No, Wikipedia is here to say; The academic and reliable sources are the accurate representations, and statements which are discussed by academic sources as being false or misleading, are misrepresentations of The Frankfurt School. We're just here to echo the academic consensus. The idea that The Frankfurt School was a group of German Socialists is thus a representation. The idea that they were a group of German Socialists who are responsible for the modern progressive agenda which aims to destroy America, is a misrepresentation. This is so, because it's what's found in, and coheres with the reliable sources.

Wikipedians have gone through those sources in a fairly arduous copy writing process to find the relevant areas of academic texts, to say what's said. We cite sources, and either quote the authors, or rephrase what they've said, because that's what we're here to do. We're not here to treat all viewpoints as equal. 203.214.52.43 (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Well said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. 203.214.52.43 (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL would like a word. Sennalen (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This is patently false, Wikipedia aims to be impartial and neutral. See WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:NPOV I am a Leaf (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Impartial tone, yes. But in this case it is WP:1AM Andre🚐 19:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for teaching me about WP:1AM Andre. I have heard "The worst mistake a person can make is not admitting the mistake was made." Perhaps my pedantry was mistaken. I am a Leaf (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What you should recognize is that there have been several rounds of folks coming to the article trying to legitimize or somehow cast doubt on this being a conspiracy theory, and lend credence to the idea that that Frankfurt school are actually insidious Marxists secretly subverting society, or alternately, that it's just generally that left activists have a secret plan to subvert society, which could also be considered to be "cultural Marxism." I get what you're saying, though. You're saying that the article should introduce the delusional universe of the conspiracy and then inhabit it for a while as a rhetorical or argument device. Which is a thing that some articles do and it reads in a certain sort of way. I submit though, that doing so on the flat earth or moon landing article is different because the average reader knows that those are completely bullshit conspiracy theories (i.e., you can easily disprove flat earth in your living room or experience the effects of the horizon/a curved earth trivially in everyday life, and most people see the footage and space rocks etc and accept them at face value) and the "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" is an active canard pushed by radical right wing fundamentalists who want to dismantle the administrative state, defund the EPA, and other insane stuff because they think it's all a communist conspiracy and they're coming for our bodily fluids. Andre🚐 20:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"You're saying that the article should introduce the delusional universe of the conspiracy and then inhabit it for a while as a rhetorical or argument device."

Yes, I think at least for the lead sentence, although, I agree with your genuine concern that there are those who want to cast doubt on the conspiracy theory. To that, my personal preference is to really engage with people on their own terms.

On a related note, I attended a Jesuit university. Priests were also professors of theology, theology was a general education requirement. I found the most admirable priests were the ones who engaged with agnostics/athiests/antitheists with the rhetoric that those arguers presented. I am not even a Christian, I just found the capacity to engage with arguments in such a way admirable. I admit, this is probably not the best way to eliminate doubt surrounding a conspiracy theory, especially one which isn't exactly falsifiable by science. All I can really say is that this I propose a personal stylistic preference because of my admiration for those who engage with critics by those critics' terms, and to dismantle that criticism by the criticism's own terms. That is what impartiality is to me. Even if it doesn't perfectly comport with WP:IMPARTIAL.

However when dealing with unreasonable people, I admit, sometimes you must be a bit more absolutist in your stance on truth. You (and others) have raised interesting points, and you have addressed me unpretentiously. So I thank you, and will defer to the consensus on this one. I am a Leaf (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that third party services like Alexa and Siri often use wikipedia as the source of information (for example to answer the question "Alexa what is the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory") but will only read the first sentence or first few sentences making it really key that we focus on being descriptive not on a larger page narrative because they're likely not going to read the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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