User talk:Kaffeburk

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Kaffeburk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines[edit]

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, additions to talk pages should be about improving the article within the guidelines, not voicing one's opinion on the subject matter.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Please define the conspiracy."[edit]

The definition used is Michael Barkun's for "Systemic conspiracy theories" and the discussion has already been had multiple times (on the talk page, and in the AfD, and no I don't intend to have it again here). The academic usage of "Cultural Marxism" is too rarefied, vague and uncommon (it never found a definitive academic usage) - not only that, but what is present is at best limited to "The early influences of The Frankfurt School on Cultural Studies" (ie. 1950 - 1970). Beyond that limit (in Cultural Studies at least) comes The Birmingham School (aka British Cultural Studies), and post-modernism. This is why the term re-directs to The Frankfurt School page and the term is limited to Cultural Studies (the academic discourse). Unfortunately since the 1990s Culture Wars the right side of politics has taken that rather limited academic term found within Cultural Studies, and aggrandized it into an overarching explanation of why the world is the way it is. They have stretched the term from being academic into being a conspiracy. If you don't believe me, search google for "goal of Cultural Marxism" [1] (quote marks included) you'll find the sentence concludes with anything from "is to destroy Christianity" to "is to cause a white genocide" - or read the work of William S. Lind who with the Free Congress Foundation, popularized and twisted the meaning. [2] The damage has been done - it started way back in the 90s, when it was converted into an explanation for everything (and proving a global conspiracy involving "the media, academia, and government" would require extraordinary evidence on your part, and is not likely to be possible). The ill defined, rare seed of an academic term, has since been aggrandized into a very common global conspiracy/explanation of "everything wrong" and painted as intentional "to destroy" X - as exampled above - (where X is whatever's "right"). I suggest if you wish to talk about the modern authoritarianism sometimes found amongst progressives - you use a less damaged term to do so. It is not a question of proving YOUR claims about "Cultural Marxism" it's a matter of proving the popular conspiracy's claims. As for they academic works you brought up, they were dispelled many times during the AfD on the subject, which I suggest you read through for further arguments on the matter. --Jobrot (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are critical to the term "cultural marxism" and in your eyes it's not a proven theory. Fine, but that does not make it an conspiracy theory. It was by the way already from the 1930's that the school started focus mainly on cultural studies. You keep bringing "the goal of cultural marxism" up. Its the exact same goal as for other marxism, at least from a conservative standpoint. Its World domination. Why where both China and Soviet trying to spread the revolution? If traditional marxism was trying to bring the western world's economic system down to replace it with its own, then cultural marxism will try to do the same thing with culture and replace it with its own culture, just like Gramsci wrote and later Dutschke refined.

The core in cultural marxism, and also in the Frankfurt School is Antonio Gramsci's concept that the true power over society was neither in the economic nor in the political system but in the cultural dominate elite. If you can control the culture, sooner or later both the economic and political system will capitulate. That is also happening today, specially in Sweden where the public contempt for the ruling elite, specially the media is on a record high level. Kaffeburk (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrative discussion[edit]

Don't take this too personally, it's not. But I've mentioned you at the Administrators notice board as you continue to ignore Wikipedia policy, and policy based arguments. This is particularly in regards to WP:FORUM. If you want to be taken seriously here, I suggest you learn the importance of policies on here, and frame your arguments around them. The discussion can be found here; [[3]] Thank you --Jobrot (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Frankfurt School are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly "discussion related to improving the article". Its user:Jobrot who misrepresent me, thus creating a straw man of my input. At a quick glaze he might get a way with it, but look closer and you will see he labels perfectly valid arguments as "notforum" for pure tactical reasons. Kaffeburk (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of your arguments are about the actual article. As I've explained to you a couple of times before (and as is also detailed in WP:FORUM which you should have read by now) - talk pages are for EDITORIAL DISCUSSIONS about changes to the encyclopedic articles they're associated with. They are not some philosophical proving ground for whatever over-arching political point you require be expressed. Ideally, everything on wikipedia would have some level of WP:RS academic citation after it - and not merely be backed by your (or any other persons) opinion, regardless of how logical or well founded you believe that opinion to be. We are here to report authoritative views, not construct them. Also, please learn how to indent in response to someone as per the talkpage guidelines WP:THREAD. --Jobrot (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaffeburk, you are treating editing this article and Wikipedia as if it were a battleground when you talk about "tactical reasons" (remember to assume good faith for all editors). It does appear you have a point to prove and Wikipedia is not a place to "right great wrongs". It might be that the argument you want to put forth would be more suitable for a personal blog about politics. I just know that further actions with your current argumentative approach could be seen as disruptive and earn you a block. Please listen to the advice that is being given to you without seeing other editors as the enemy or your political opponents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to talk about the page, the content. I'm trying to have an editorial discussion, please lets focus on the article, not on me. If I see that opinions in an article is presented as facts, please tell me the proper way to address that issue without getting accused for right great wrongs and for a battleground. When I question the neutrality of sources like Martin Jay i get accused of all sorts of things. Why? Is an editor not allowed to question the neutrality of sources? Kaffeburk (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lind and Buchanan as "academic" sources[edit]

For a work or an author to be considered academic, or that of an academic, it has to appear in a peer reviewed source. To my knowledge neither Lind or Buchanan are academic sources nor do they do much writing for peer reviewed academic journals. They are political pundits/commentators. Whilst both have completed some level of education, this does not make them "academics". This is detailed in Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy WP:RS. More specifically to this topic; Lind and Buchanan are both prone to political hyperbole about "Cultural Marxism", with Lind going as far as to start essays with provocative statements like "Political Correctness is intellectual AIDs" - which obviously wouldn't be appropriate for an academic level of writing. --Jobrot (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing per consensus in this ANI discussion. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 22:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kaffeburk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want the block removed because its unfounded. The only "crime" i'm guilty of is to expose violations of existing Wikipedia rules. One example of violations of existing Wikipedia rules:

"Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space.(wiki)"

The statement that culture marxism is a "conspiracy theory" is very challenged, so it does indeed require an inline citation (not a general reference). When it comes to "the true meaning of an author" the science of source criticism is clear, a primary source is required to define the conspiracy. A secondary source also is needed to falsify the the primary source, or the material have to be removed. The problem is of course that neither a primary source that defines the conspiracy or a secondary source that falisfies it exists or they would have been implemented.

Futher, according to Karl Popper: "...distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Verificationism

I have applied source criticism (i have a background in Theology) on some (not all) of the sources and they have no falsifiability. They start with the definition of what the conservative intellectuals claim, skips the evidence part and jumps straight to the conclusion. That is NOT science. I want the ban lifted so i can resume the process of making the article follow Wikipedia guidelines.

"To history has been assigned the office of judging the past, of instructing the present for the benefit of future ages. To such high offices this work does not aspire: It wants only to show what actually happened (wie es eigentlich gewesen)" - Leopold von Ranke

Kaffeburk (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't even begin to address the problems with your past conduct but repeats them. Quoting Popper and von Ranke does not show an understanding of Wikipedia's policies, nor a willingness to comply with them. Also, writing an encyclopedia is not science. Huon (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your unblock request only provides further proof that you're here to push your personal beliefs. I suspect that revoking talk page access would probably be in everyone's best interest. Or at least, everyone who is here to contribute neutrally.

Not that you'll listen, but for the sake of others: There are inline citations for that section, and they're from reliable sources. The only people who challenge those citations are advocates of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. The sources cited are secondary and tertiary sources that have reviewed the primary sources -- we don't need to include the primary sources they reviewed. Your attempts to argue with the sources using your own research go against WP:No original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The correct way is to provide verifiability to the challenged material, NOT to other material in the same section and not to ban whoever challenge it, there are no special rules for people who somebody believes "are advocates of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" or perhaps just intellectually honest.

"Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources."

Please inform me on what book and page the "secondary and tertiary sources" refers to the primary sources regarding the conspiracy, but you cant do that either, can you? Thats the problem, there is no such source because the whole thing is a scientific fraud. That's why the rules must be broken, and that's why new rules must be invented to stop honest people like me. And yes, we all do research as part of the source criticism process as we are required to do. And "Wikipedia:No original research" does not apply to source criticism, does it? The article clearly states "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research"? Source criticism is about the due weight of sources and if they should be excluded or not, not about creating text for the article, but You already know that, don't You? I dont need to prove a point. All i need is to enforce the rules of Wikipedia. But You wont let me do that, right? There is no limit to the rules You will break or the dishonest methods you will use in order to NOT expose that there is no primary source on claims of "conspiracy". What strange cause can it be that You pursue that only can be achieved with cheating and lying. Final suggestion; don't insert a primary source inline citation as rules demands. Instead, do something dishonest in order to make the world a better place (smile) Kaffeburk (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]