Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

RfC Civitas Institute speech and republication

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RFC expired, consenus to keep quote (Votes: 11 keep - 1 remove), significant number of editors argued for a rewrite. Closed by Bacondrum (non-admin closure).
Should this page include the Civitas Institute speech and republication with the sourcing below? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Content (Civitas Institute speech and republication) Extended content In a speech to the Conservative Leadership Conference of the Civitas Institute in 1998, Paul Weyrich presented his conspiracy theory equating Cultural Marxism to political correctness. He later republished the speech in his syndicated culture war letter. Sources Survey (Civitas Institute speech and republication) Remove - Sources given do not even mention Cultural Marxism. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Oppose removal - to quote from the speech, as cited in the article Those who came up with Political Correctness, which we more accurately call "Cultural Marxism," did so in a deliberate fashion. He is most certainly talking about Cultural Marxism; this RfC is based on an obviously false premise. Newimpartial (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Include but rewrite - per Newimpartial directly above, he is not just equating Cultural Marxism to political correctness but rather presenting a conspiracy theory that political correctness is Cultural Marxism. The two are similar, I know, but I think it's important for it to be clear that he's not just drawing a comparison between the two. ezlev.talk 18:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep - The cited source literally equates "political correctness" to "cultural Marxism." This shouldn't have even been brought to RfC. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep - "Sources given do not even mention Cultural Marxism" that's just not true. As I said last time you raised this, Emir: this speech is mentioned in a lot of the cited material, Like Breivik's manifesto it seems to be one of the most widely discussed efforts to promote the CT. If there's an issue it's about selecting the best source/sources. Bacondrum 20:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep but rewrite - just on the first source alone, per NewImpartial the context is quite clear it is mentioned. However our current wording isn't great. As Ezlev points out he is not "equating" anything. He is saying it IS the thing. To be exact he is saying that "Political Correctness" is more accurately called Cultural Marxism, and that this is all those horrible alien things he dislikes so much. Koncorde (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Include but rewrite - per ezlev. William Avery (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep 0 I do not understand what the issue is with this. Why is there an RfC about it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep and rewrite as the quote above makes its relevance pretty clear. Loki (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Keep & Rewrite per Koncorde and others above. This goes beyond equating the two and even if the existence/prevalence of each may be conspiracy theories, it is not a conspiracy theory to equate them, which ambiguities in the present wording imply. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Keep this seems to be an ongoing problem with reading comprehension, and strangely, it's remarkably similar to a number of other content disputes we've seen on this page, but with "different" editors involved, i wonder why? Acousmana (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Keep & Rewrite per the points mentioned above.Sea Ane (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Threaded discussion (Civitas Institute speech and republication) The previous discussion took place at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 6#Civitas Institute speech and republication. Pinging discussion participants and archiver. @Davide King, Bacondrum, Newimpartial, and HandThatFeeds: --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Newimpartial There is no "false premise", this RfC is neutral and complies with WP:RFCNEUTRAL. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC) When the person forming the RfC places a vote with a rationale that has been demonstrated to be false, what term would you use besides false premise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) Simply that the vote is wrong, even thought the RfC is under a true premise. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC Weyrich quote

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RFC expired, consenus to keep quote (Votes: 12 keep - 1 remove), significant number of editors argued for a rewrite. Closed by Bacondrum (non-admin closure).
Should this page include the below quote on Weyrich with the sourcing below? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Content (Weyrich quote) Extended content Paul Weyrich promoted the conspiracy theory as a deliberate effort to undermine "our traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian culture" and the conservative agenda in American society, arguing that "we have lost the culture war" and that "a legitimate strategy for us to follow is to look at ways to separate ourselves from the institutions that have been captured by the ideology of Political Correctness, or by other enemies of our traditional culture." Sources Survey (Weyrich quote) Remove - Seems like WP:SYNTHESIS, but can't be sure as quotes have not been provided. We should be cautious with WP:BLP's so best removed unless there is verification. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Oppose removal - the secondary sources are clear on this point. In spite of the Emir's preconceptions, we don't need to include quotations in the citations the article provides, for this to be true. Multiple editors have verified this with respect to the sources present in the article Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep per Newimpartial. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep some mention of Wayrich but possibly reword; see my extended quotes from the most relevant source below. He is clearly an important figure in the conspiracy theory's development, but there's room to discuss exactly how we should cover him. --Aquillion (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep - I can't see any issue at all here. Perhaps it could be re-written, but I don't see how it warrants an rfc. Bacondrum 20:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep but rewrite - We could be closer to the source, but it doesn't appear dramatically misrepresentative. However the opening few words do need to be changed "Paul Weyrich promoted the conspiracy theory[1] as a deliberate effort to undermine "our traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian culture" suggests that Weyrich himself was advocating for the conspiracy theory in order to do undermining. Instead what I think we should say is "The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was pushed by Paul Weyrich who described it as a deliberate effort to undermine "our traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian culture" or similar. Koncorde (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep - Again, I don't see what the problem is, and I'm beginning to thing that EoW is being WP:POINTy with these RfCs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Rewrite to something like "In a 1999 open letter, Paul Weyrich called Cultural Marxism a deliberate effort to undermine...". The need to shoehorn "conspiracy theory" in there makes the writing very awkward - awkward to the point of incoherence, as Koncorde points out. Even Koncorde's suggested rewrite is awkward. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep and rewrite per above. It's clear that Weyrich thought "political correctness" was the same as "cultural marxism" and in that light the information above is clearly relevant; however we should probably avoid saying anything about "our traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian" culture in Wikivoice and instead quote Weyrich saying that. Loki (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Keep & Rewrite mainly for clarity, as Koncorde says above, ambiguities in the present wording imply that Weyrich himself is promoting a theory which seeks to undermine "traditional Judeo-Christian culture" - rather than claiming that cultural Marxism attempts to do this. Pincrete (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Keep yet more pointy tendentious nonsense. Acousmana (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Keep & Rewrite There doesn't seem to be any problem, maybe it should be reworded.Sea Ane (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Keep and rewrite for clarit per above. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Threaded discussion (Weyrich quote) The previous discussion took place at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory/Archive 6#Weyrich quote. Pinging discussion participants and archiver. @Newimpartial, Aquillion, Bacondrum, and HandThatFeeds: --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Since it was mentioned, here's what seems to be the relevant quotes from the source cited there: Extended quote from "'Cultural-Marxism' and the British National Party: a transnational discourse". (pg. 205) Lind's work on 'Cultural Marxism' was given prominance and institutional backing by FCF, founded in 1977 by the late Paul Weyrich. Its website claims that in the 1980s the 'FCF pioneered a "cultural conservatism" project designed to rally conservatives in defense of traditional values'. A search for 'Cultural Marxism' on the FCF website currently returns zero articles, though this certainly wasn't always the case. In 1998 Weyrich criticized Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen for adhering 'slavishly to the line laid down by the Frankfurt School' (cited in Berkowitz 2003). Accordingly, 'Political Correctness is an ideology ... that ... demands we all accede to many lies: that men and women are interchangeable, that there are no differences among races or ethnic groups within races (when those groups are taken as wholes, as PC demands) [and] that homosexuality is normal' (ibid.). As Balhut (1999:21) states in his article conclusion: 'That the ideas of the Frankfurt School have infiltrated into all levels of our culture is the reason for our national decline'. ... (pg. 209) Breivik's lengthy 'manifesto' was also founded on this 'Cultural Marxist' conspiracy - however, the emphasis on the effects of the conspiracy shifted somewhat in his particular iteration. Race, 'politically correct' anti-racism and the supposed differences between Black, White, and Latino Americans did feature as prominent themes in the originating work of Minnicino, Lind, Wayrich, and Atkinson. However for these men, the most significant threat that 'Cultural Marxism' posed was in 'de-Christianizing' America through advocating sexual freedom, sexual equality and rebelliousness against the family. By my recollection discussion of this source in the past largely focused on the first quote, but the second one actually seems more important, since it summarizes the first by naming Wayrich as one of the originators of the conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC Usage of word "today"

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Bold closure: Removal accepted, RfC closed per WP:SNOW--JBchrch (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Should the use of the dated word "today" be removed from the lead to comply with MOS:CURRENT? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Survey (Usage of word "today") Support removal. This seems like a trivialization of the RfC process, however. Newimpartial (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Remove - As per MOS:CURRENT. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Remove but this is an absurd bit of process wonkery. There's zero reason to call an RfC for this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Can't be serious You could have simply been bold with this one, had you not included this edit with numerous other changes. This is silly, I think it is safe to say that you're testing everyone's patience here. Bacondrum 20:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Trout to Emir of Wikipedia for wasting people's time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Comment Dude just remove it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Remove per MOS:CURRENT. Terms indicating current time are more important and must be used more carefully in an online encyclopaedia than in a standard, printed one. -The Gnome (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Threaded discussion (Usage of word "today") Pinging editors who reverted edits based trying to enforce this. @Newimpartial and Bacondrum: --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Sorry it was actually Acousmana not Bacondrum. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC) @Newimpartial: You reverted me multiples times so I took it an RfC instead of edit warring. Have you now changed your mind on this? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC) I reverted the BOLD edits in which you tried to do all six things at once; I don't think I even noticed "today", TBH. Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Well then you should have done a WP:Partial revert, but I appreciate your honesty. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Partial reverts are great and all that, but picking through an edit thousands of characters long for the seven characters that are policy-compliant is a bit above my pay grade. Newimpartial (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC) I made my edits separately, so they could have been reverted on by one. If you looked at the diff you would have seen it as the first change. Also you reverted that multiple times claiming it was the WP:CONSENUS version so you had multiple chances to take a look at your edit, but at least we seem to be on the same page on this one. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC) For the record, I always start by looking at the diffs from the biggest change; if I find more than one bad diff in a sequence, I go back to the last (known) good version. I'm sure I am not the only editor who proceeds in this way - I don't keep peeling every single layer. Also note that when you reverted in turn you reinstated the whole BOLD mess, so at that point it is quite unreasonable to expect editors to pick through the entrails for nuggets. Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC) I'm starting to question your intent here Emir, I'd suggest you stop playing these games. Bacondrum 20:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC) I am not playing games. Just trying to make the vision of Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales a reality. I apologise though for claiming you reverted me, as it was actually Acousmana, I got the names mixed up. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC) It's kinda like Godwin's law, a Wikipedia version :D "as a Wikipedia talk page discussion grows longer, the probability of invoking the ideals of Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales approaches 1"...hope you'll take that as a joke, sorry that our interactions have been getting a bit curt. Bacondrum 09:08, 30 March 2021 (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.

Trout

WP:Trout for Emir of Wikipedia for flooding the page with multiple RfCs at once, resulting in multiple pings to users (including those of us who were just archiving Talk page discussions). Next time, just start a regular discussion and let people talk it out, instead of bludgeoning the page with process. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong multiple RfCs at once. WP:RFC There is no limit to the number of simultaneous RfCs that may be held on a single talk page. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed; but it continues Each {{rfc}} tag should also be added in a separate edit, with a delay between each edit to let the bot assign an id number to the first before attempting to start a second. If you are starting another RfC on a page which already has one or more ongoing RfCs, first ensure that all of the existing {{rfc}} tags already contain a |rfcid= parameter. If one of them lacks this parameter, wait for Legobot to add it before adding another {{rfc}} tag anywhere on the page. If there are two {{rfc}} tags on the same page that both lack the |rfcid= parameter, Legobot will assign the same value to both, with the result that only the lowest one of the page will be publicised; moreover, the incoming link will lead to the higher RfC question, which will cause confusion.

By ignoring this advice, the upshot is that the six RfCs on this page have all been assigned the same rfcid, and only one of them (the 'Usage of word "today"' one) is listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. This will take me until at least 01:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC) to sort out. Luckily, I'm not working tomorrow, but I still may not get it all sorted until 08:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, did not mean to make things an even bigger mess. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe the wording you've quoted, Emir, is meant to head off complaints if one user tries to start a new RfC while another is ongoing. Not so a single user can bludgeon the talk page with a fistful of trivial issues all at once. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not bludgeoning anything, just requesting comments to resolve discussions you archived. Apologies if I pinged you too many times for your liking but if you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion then feel free to leave. I was pinging to avoid accusations of not informing people of the RfCs, it was not a personal attack against you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That's just my point: there was no reason to call a formal RfC process for any of these. Simply starting new discussions to assess consensus would've been enough.

Oh, and the "if you don't like it, leave" comment ain't gonna fly. I have commented on the RfCs, and since you dragged me here, I'm going to also take you to task for this unnecessary waste of time. As the kids say, "take the L." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• This all looks dodgy to me, a trout indeed. Bacondrum 20:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• I will say as someone who saw a notice on a talk page, to arrive here to 4 or 5 RFC and not knowing which ones were current etc leads to a lot of reading. Koncorde (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support trout - A waste of editors' time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support trout - I have to agree to some degree, Emir, the rfc on “today” was clearly pointy, I mean it’s obvious. Your other recent (frivolous) rfc on Tarrio as a businessman is also clearly not to be taken seriously. From the brief interactions we had before, I thought you were nitpicky and genuinely interested in removing OR and unreliable sources which I think this article actually needs; but then there are also these weird things sprinkled in, which clearly are going nowhere and just keep me guessing at your intentions (like arguing for removal instead of just taking a stab at rewording things). Anyways, I for one like rfcs, because you get to argue about specifics. --Mvbaron (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  I did not start that RfC on Tarrio, but thank you for sharing your comments with me. I hope we can develop more interactions with each other, as you seem like a good editor from my side of those interactions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  ha thanks, yeah these rfcs actually made me interested in doing some more research releated to CM again. so thanks I guess. (and yeah well you technically didn't start the rfc over on Tarrio, but you started the whole shenanigans to be honest) :) Mvbaron (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  Glad to hear it has you interested in doing research. Look forward to seeing your contributions or ideas on the article. I'll give you that one about "shenanigans". :) Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Trout I am very grateful for this discussion and this discourse. As for the RfCs, I care about the topic also, but Wikipedia has practical goals for guiding discussions to a conclusion in a timely way. Having multiple RfCs at once with so little orientation is overwhelming for new people entering the conversation and wanting to participate. I vote trout because of the high barrier to entry into this. Please pause some conversations for open RfC, and in the meantime try to advance or develop them with continued insider discussion. After closing one RfC then open another. It is just too much. Thanks for everyone's participation; Wikipedia's community pool simply has a limited capacity for participation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – creating a bunch of RfCs at the same time is a bit janky and probably too much, but if literally all of your edits get rolled back, it's not bludgeoning the process to discuss every single one of those individual edits that have been reverted, what the hell else are you meant to do? I have to say, attempting to imply Emir's a neo-nazi by singling out one amongst the many pages they've posted a notification of the RfCs to seems to me to be far more of an issue than creating an RfC for some things that may have been better suited to an informal discussion. It's not "playing games" and should not be "suspicious" that someone wants to discuss the edits people are reverting simply because of the annoying way they went about initiating that discussion, a mountain is being made out of a molehill here. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am by no means insinuating that Emir is a neo-Nazi, they are nothing of the sort. It just looked like fishing for sympathetic editors. These issues have been discussed at length. The way this is being done seems a bit shifty, that's all. I'm definitely not calling anyone a neo-Nazi here, sorry if it came across that way. Bacondrum 08:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Trout it seems a certain editor is gaming. I would encourage other editors here to watch very closely how things have unfolded, not just in the lead up to this RFC bomb, but across multiple content disputes that have taken place in recent months. Acousmana (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Definitely Not. Save the trouts for a clearly malicious RfC proposal. There are lots of hungry people around the world. No sense wasting good food like fresh trouts! -The Gnome (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Acousmana, @Bacondrum, @Beyond My Ken, @Bluerasberry, @Emir of Wikipedia, @HandThatFeeds, @Koncorde, @Mvbaron, @Redrose64, @The Gnome @Volteer1: Please see WT:RFC, where there are open discussions about whether we need to limit the number of RFCs that are underway for any single editor/page/subject at the same time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/gaming wikipedia

I think a serious issue is appearing here regarding Emir of Wikipedia's editing at this page. Why are we suddenly getting hit with 6 odd rfc's, canvassing at neo-Nazi website articles https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stormfront_(website)&curid=18994159&diff=1014929066&oldid=1011409369 drive by tagging etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&type=revision&diff=1014901190&oldid=1014887446 random unwarranted edit war notifications https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bacondrum&diff=prev&oldid=1014937399 What's going on? It all looks very suspect to me. Bacondrum 21:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The RfCs were raised to get consensus on certain matters. I was notifying articles that are mentioned in this page and the WikiProjects on the top of this talkpage. This could clearly be seen in my contributions. The fact that you single out that page is what seems suspect to me. There was no drive by tagging, there has been discussion on this articles talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Just another round of abuse towards editors who dare to point out the problems with this article. Teishin (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

no that's not it. The article does have problems, yes, but these rfcs don't adress the bigger problems (they are all gonna be SNOW closed probably). However, I think at least a focus on rewriting the section on history/"Kulturbolshewismus" has come out of it. Mvbaron (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you want to remind us of the last round(s)? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Several articles have been published about Wikipedia's bad handling of this topic. One of them by a Wikipedia admin. You can search for them. There's probably more since last time I looked. Teishin (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing links to any such atticles; the only ones I've been to date presented the views of commentators (perhaps unwittingly) promoting the tenets of the conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

[1] is an article by a Wikipedia admin. Teishin (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

While that is interesting, we now have the Marxist cultural analysis article, which acknowledges that a few scholars refer to certain humanists as "cultural Marxists" without endorsing the conspiracy theory or conceding its claims. The conversation piece is therefore now out of date. Newimpartial (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hardly out of date with regard to Wikipedia's handling of things. That continues. Teishin (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how that would be true. We even have disambiguation between Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Marxist cultural analysis. What more could you want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 22:14, March 29, 2021 (UTC)

That there should not be disambiguation between Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Marxist cultural analysis nor should there be Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Teishin (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Surely the result of three or four AfD, RM and RfC discussions are unlikely all to have gone the wrong way? Newimpartial (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Surely the Council of Nicea could not have gone the wrong way.... Teishin (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Council of Nicea?? Oh Jesus no, that's next level pretentious! 🤣 worst. analogy. ever. 🤣🤣🤣 Someone get the trout. Bacondrum 08:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum#s Thank you for recognizing my accomplishment here. I hope to surpass that in the future. Meanwhile, please note that I'm an ethical vegetarian, as such I object your planned terrible treatment of that trout. Teishin (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

😂 we can make it a wet noodle. Bacondrum 21:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Teishin, sounds like you just don't like the fact that reliable sources brand it a conspiracy theory. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not case. Teishin (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Bacondrum: Why not to ask Emir of Wikipedia to introduce every RfC gradually and discuss them first here? (per WP:DISPUTE#Discuss_with_the_other_party, WP:RFC, and WP:TPG). I propose to close this discussion as off-topic if nobody minds.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

2021-05 CM CT in China

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.

---

Hello,

A reddit user told me that the Chinese Communist Party endorse the Cultural Marxism conspiracy-theory, for example https://www.dswxyjy.org.cn/n1/2019/0617/c427160-31162408.html in the Wikidata:Q55708534's website. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe the Cultural Marxism theory they are referring to is actually Marxist cultural analysis which used to be called "Cultural Marxism", however the term's meaning has changed in the recent years and now it is used to refer to the conspiracy theory. I skimmed through it using a translator and did not find anything that would suggest that they endorse the conspiracy-theory instead of the original meaning of Cultural Marxism. I could be wrong however, considering it was a machine-translation. If there is anyone with knowledge of mandarin please do let us know. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

translate.google.com translate the 2 first § into

Cultural Marxism generally refers to contemporary Western critical theory, that is, Western Marxism. It mainly focuses on gender, race, cultural identity and other issues in Western society, and is dedicated to analyzing the media, art, drama, film and other cultural forms in society. Cultural Marxism emerged in the 1920s. The most famous of these are the Frankfurt School in Germany and the Birmingham School in the United Kingdom. Thinkers include Georg Lukács, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, TW Adorno, Edward Thompson, Raymond Williams to Terry Eagleton, Stuart Hall and others, these theorists use Marxism to analyze contemporary capitalist society The cultural form in the country and its effect and influence on the audience and social life. In the post-modernist stage, a new generation of Marxist theorists are devoted to analyzing cultural changes under the conditions of Ford and post-Ford capitalism, the influence of pop music and art on traditional culture, and political discourse in the public sphere. The representative is Jim Sun, Habermas and others.

Cultural Marxism originated after the First World War. Marx once predicted that after a major European war, the working class across Europe would rise up to resist, overthrow capitalism and create communism. But when the war came in 1914, the proletarian revolution did not happen. When it finally happened in Russia in 1917, workers in other European countries did not support it. What's the problem? Both Gramsci and Lukács believe that Western culture and Christianity have concealed the working class's understanding of their own class interests. Only by destroying these two can communism be realized in the West. In "Notes from Prison", Gramsci believes that the new proletariat should be composed of criminals, women, and radical minorities. The new battlefield is the cultural field, including schools, churches, civil organizations, literature, media, entertainment, science, and History, etc., all of these must be completely transformed, and the social and cultural order must be reversed with the establishment of proletarian power.

This sound very conspiray-like to me (especially « destroying [...] Western culture and Christianity »). Of course, 1 article published by a chinese think tank does not demonstrate that the whole Chinese Communist Party endorse the Cultural Marxism conspiracy-theory, and 1 or several reliable source(s) are needed before adding the information in the Wikipedia article. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The destroying western culture and Christianity part sounds like it was meant to be attributed to Gramsci and Lukács, perhaps lost in the machine translation? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

« The destroying western culture and Christianity part sounds like it was meant to be attributed to Gramsci and Lukács » => Indeed. And as far as I know, the only persons in the world who claim that Gramsci and Lukács wanted to destroy western culture are conspiracy-theorists. See also §14 & §15

In the United States, the typical manifestation of cultural Marxism is "Political Correctness" or "Multiculturalism". For many Americans, "political correctness" is a vague term that refers to a series of scattered and unrelated views of "freedom" and "novelty" but lacking a unified character. Although these views sometimes appear extreme, highly sensitive and even confused, if you carefully observe the history of "political correctness", it will reveal a different face. Therefore, although it is sometimes referred to as "cultural liberalism" (cultural liberalism), it is more Appropriate, but a more accurate expression should be "cultural Marxism." In fact, "political correctness" is not a collection of accidental views. It is a carefully arranged attack on Western civilization. Its main goals are Christian faith and moral values; the other is narrow-minded white men, especially white men. Considered to be the source of most violence and exploitation in the world.

To critics of "political correctness", this derogatory term describes the ideas, vocabulary, policies, and behaviors of liberal cultural elites who control the contemporary American education system, media, and popular culture, because "political correctness" supports , Tag certain thoughts, words and behaviors. "Political incorrect" is an effective way to delete dissident views or prohibit things they think are problematic, such as outdated or too traditional; discriminatory views point to specific minorities that need special protection , Such as blacks, women, homosexuals, non-Christians, etc.; backward views are usually political, social or religious. As Williams Linde said, for the first time in our history, Americans must be afraid of what they say, what they write, and what they think. They must be afraid of using the wrong vocabulary, regarded as offensive or insensitive vocabulary, or racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., unless it fails, "political correctness" will fundamentally destroy Western cultural traditions.

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone have enough Chinese-language competence to determine whether the text linked above was or was not originally machine-translated into Chinese? Newimpartial (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• So, we are discussing Reddit posts now? This is a forum discussion and should be deleted as per WP:NOTFORUM. Bacondrum 23:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned, an article published by the Central Policy Research Office does not necessarily mean it is the official policy of the Chinese Communist Party. Furthermore, if it is we would need a reliable secondary source that says that. Remember, that since Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, the best approach is to identify and use the most obvious reliable sources. When we go to reddit and obscure articles published in foreign languages, we get to sources of dubious reliability and little or no weight. While many editors are tempted to do that after the best sources don't say what they want, but it just leads to lengthy argument. TFD (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• We are Google translating Reddit bullshit now. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 This is ridiculous, jesus wept. Bacondrum 11:22, 10 May 2021 (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.

Lyndon LaRouche should not be described as a right-wing activist

Lyndon LaRouche is currently described matter-of-factly as a "righ-wing political activist". This seems like pushing a single point of view. By any objective standard, he seems to have been a left-wing activist. He was a member of the Democratic party for the last 40 years of his life; he self-identified as a leftist; was an outspoken opponent of neoliberalism and free trade; held left-of-the-Democratic-mainstream views on most economic issues. As such, I tried to change the description of him from "right-wing activist" to "left-wing activist". @CPCEnjoyer: undid my edit with, commenting "his self identification does not matter". I think this was a mistake. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC); edited 22:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comments - 1. Please sign your posts (using four tildes) just like everyone else does. 2. Wikipedia does not rely on "objective standards" - otherwise known as original research - we use reliable, independent sources. Do you have any reliable sourcing for Larouche being a "left-wing activist", or only his own (unreliable) self-description? Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I know nothing whatever about this man, but (unless there are 2 people with the same name) there is a Wikipedia article about him. Lyndon Larouche Amongst other things, it says: Despite LaRouche's self-identification with the left and some left-wing policies, his critics have said that he had "fascistic tendencies", took positions on the far right, and created disinformation. It also says he’s dead. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing, I am new to this and still learning. Everything I mentioned can be found in the wiki entries on Lyndon LaRouche and Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. He had a consistent track record of espousing radical left-wing views on most issues. He was also an antisemitic, a racist and a conspiracy theorist, but a left-wing antisemitic/racist/conspiracy theorist, not a righ-wing one. From your perespective: what are the arguments in favour of describing him as "right-wing"? Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

My two cents: LaRouche was highly idiosyncratic, calling him far right is not exactly wrong but it suggests something more ... conventional than the truth. I notice that his biography does not put him on a "wing" in the introduction, and neither does this article the first time it mentions him. That seems like a reasonable approach to me. --JBL (talk)

He was left-wing but switched to the far right in the 1970s, including racism and anti-Semitism. There's nothing in your link that would appear to be left wing. His views were anti-Communist, pro-SDI, pro-nuclear energy, anti-Obamacare, global warming denial, ozone hole denial, pro-DDT, pro-War on Drugs, etc. He was opposed to constitutional monarchy, but that's not untypical of the American Right. TFD (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

^^ Agree 100% with The Four Deuces here. Bacondrum 22:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the assertion that LaRouche "switched to the far right" is misleadning. His swich was from Marxism to non-revolutionary but still left-of-the-Democratic-mainstream leftism - while gradualy adopting more and more racist/antisemitic/conspiratorial views (the 911 "inside job" theory, climate denial, etc.) - which are intrinsically despicable, not intrinsically 'rightwing' attitudes. He opposed Obamacare because he favoured single-payer health care - i.e. he was "anti-Obamacare" because he stood to the left of it. He supported a war on drug trafficking and financiers who laundered drug money, not a war on drug users. He did turn against the Soviet Union (like most sensible leftist), but I'm not sure if he ever turned "anti-Communist" (though he did have a conflict with the Communist Party, which ostensibly plotted to assaciante him at one point). Regarding your comment that "There's nothing in your link that would appear to be left wing": he promoted new dealism, unionism, nationalization/ public control of industry and finance; debt moratoriums (e.g., for third world debt); replacing the Federal Reserve with a national bank; public health care and strongly opposed deregulation, bailouts and global capitalism - all of which are far leftist by US standards. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Who cares about US standards, I don't know if anyone here is even American? I'm certainly not. NOTFORUM all this general discussion and opinion is disruptive. No one cares what you think of LaRouche or US standards. Bacondrum 00:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

"No one cares what you think of LaRouche or US standards" Fair enough, I guess I should have written something like "by most reasonable (i.e. non-marxist) standards these are far left views". This does not detract form the point I was making, however, namely that he was a left-wing racist conspiracy theorist, and should not be describes as a 'right-wing' one. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, we have to go with what sources say. We are not here to reinvent the wheel. TFD (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Erlend Kvitrud: While I'm not American, I am a dyed in the wool Marxist, so you're not exactly ingratiating yourself with other editors here. It's merely your opinion that LaRouche was a leftist. Bacondrum 01:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Erlend, if you want this view reflected in the article, then you need to provide reliable, independent sources for it. Literally nobody cares what you think is reasonable. Newimpartial (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: All the leftist views held by LaRouche that I mentioned above can be found in the wiki entries on Lyndon LaRouche and Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, all supported by reliable sources. If you, on the other hand, want the article to reflect your view that LaRouche held right-wing views, you should "provide reliable, independent sources" about these views (and no, racism is not a 'right-wing view', racists can be found across the political spectrum). Otherwise, we should do as @The Four Deuces: suggests and "go with what sources say" that his political views were - i.e., mostly leftist. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I’ll join in the chorus of myriad editors saying the same thing to you: find reliable independent sources describing him this way in the relevant time period. Don’t expect other editors to do your work for you. If you can’t cough up the sources and make a case, there’s literally no point in discussing this. What’s more, other editors familiar with his work have already disagreed with your broad assessment. Without a compelling proposal backed by RS, this is just titling at windmills. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Erlend Kvitrud This is all just your opinion. If you've come here to push your opinions or attack leftists then you are in the wrong place. We are here to build an encyclopedia, we are not here promote or even discuss our opinions. Bacondrum 03:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Erlend Kvitrud, by going with what the sources say, I meant whether they describe him as right wing, not sitting around the dorm with our Libertarian friends and conducting our own research. We can play that game with anyone. Trump was a Democrat, supported universal health care and abortion rights, talked to Kim Jong un, spoke against war, handed out stimulus checks, tried to bring jobs back to working Americans. He even praised Gerry Adams, Jesse Jackson and the Clintons. But the big picture is that he was a Republican president who mostly did what the party told him. TFD (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• The source for that bit straightforwardly describes him as fringe right wing figure Lyndon LaRouche. To dispute that on this article you would need another source saying otherwise for the timeframe mentioned; saying "but he was left-wing in the early 1970's!" is trivia in this context (since we're talking about publications from two decades later, when he was firmly established as a voice on the far right) and isn't relevant unless you have sources connecting it to the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• I observed LaRouche and his movement quite closely for well over four decades. He was indisputably an idiosyncratic Marxist-Leninist in the Trotskyist SWP and then in his own personal SDS faction until the early 1970s when he engaged in a rapid shift to the far right, and became a full blown right wing conspiracy theorist. This is not just my personal assessment. It is a summary of what many reliable sources cited in all the relevant LaRouche articles say about his shift. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I've always known of them as far-right extremists, ones that produce really stupid and nasty propaganda. Bacondrum 04:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems like most of you, as well as the sources you cite, use the term "far-right" as a synonyme for racist. I think this is a mistake, since racism can also be found among the political left, but since your minds seem to be made up, I give up on this one. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That may be so. But as has been pointed out a few times to you already, personal opinions don't come into play. Wikipedia relays what reliable sources say. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Erlend Kvitrud Mate, this is not a forum. You are right to give up disrupting this talk page. Bacondrum 00:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Erlend Kvitrud, not all of the far-right are racists. But the vast majority of racists are far-right, and in order to be far-right you have to be at least OK with racism. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"in order to be far-right you have to be at least OK with racism." Leaving aside the questionability of what was just posted, "far right" be any one from Justin Amash and Thomas Sowell, Jeff Sessions, and Clarence Thomas, to David Duke and Richard Spencer that would be like saying that to be a member of the Far-left you have to be ok with homophobia because of Engels, Stalin, and Maduro, it is POV and not important to the discussion. With that all said I think labeling LaRouche as far-right is fine. His views are idiosyncratic, but can reasonable be considered as being part of the a certain strand of far-right politics. Personally I think activist should be removed and replaced by conspiracy theorist. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing the definition with the description. Although Scotsmen speak English, I can't say that a person in Scotland is not a Scotsman because they speak Scots Gaelic and know no English. Furthermore, I don't say that the fact English people also speak English means that I cannot say Scotsmen speak English. The definition of far right is political groups that are perceived to be to the right of mainstream politics. While we can speculate what about them leaves people with that perception, we can't reclassify groups on the basis of our findings. Nor can we assume that far right ideologies are rational and internally consistent or even that they have a common set of beliefs. That's why we use the term far right as opposed to a more specific name such as fascist.

Bear in mind the origins of the terms left and right. In European legislatures, political groups arrange their seating based on how close or far away they feel to other parties. Typically, they will arrange themselves from left to right: communist, social democrat, green, liberal, Christian democrat, conservative and far right. The reason for this seating is so that parties sit closest to other parties with which they are most likely to cooperate. Green parties for example are more likely to cooperate with social democratic parties than they are with conservatives. They don't run through a checklist. While ideologies change over time, the relative seating and positioning in the left-right spectrum has remained fairly constant.

In one of the best known examples, the far right Nazi Party formed a coalition with the Conservatives. Christian Democrats and liberals joined with them to give Hitler absolute power. While both Social Democrats and Communists voted against the motion, Communists were the first to be arrested. So we see that the farther left a party was, the less likely friendly the far right party would see it and vice versa. Similarly, Larouche was most sympathetic to right-wing groups and least sympathetic to the far left.

TFD (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I am going to be honest I don't understand what you just posted. I specifically said that LaRouche can be considered far-right, I just said that activist should be replaced with conspiracy theorists. I simply objected to the post saying "in order to be far-right you have to be at least OK with racism." since it was clearly POV and not needed for the discussion, and as pointed out that is a board range of people. That said far right should be used hear cause it is a board enough group and yes many on the far right prompt this. Finally I don't want to get off topic, but the historical claim is missing a few things, such as the thuggery of the SA used on the liberals and Christian Democrats. Also given the number of Beefsteak Nazi of the many Black Hundreds who joined the Bolsheviks so the claim that far-right and far left are so far apart is debatable. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I will explain my point again. What separates the left and the right by definition is that they oppose each other. That you can find points of similarity is irrelevant to whether or not they are opposing sides. And despite SA thuggery against Christian Democrats and liberals, their main political targets were Social Democrats and Communists. The spectrum is based on perceived position not by some checklist we develop. TFD (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with what I posted. We can go back an forth on this, but what did I say that made you post what you posted and why? 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest you both just drop this tangent, it's not pertinent to improving the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)