Amlans

Punctuation in the Wikipedia Manual of Style

Wikipedia has a manual of style, which dictates that punctuation remain outside quotation marks, unless the quotation is a complete sentence. See: MOS:LQUOTE. Please read the manual of style so you become acquainted with Wikipedia standards. MarconiCheese (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

Concerning your previous edit request, it appears to consist entirely of original research, mostly WP:SYNTH in particular. Proposals to change an article on a particular topic must be based on reliable sources that are clearly relevant to that topic. Assembling sources to back up a WP:FRINGE interpretation of history and culture is not a viable approach to back any proposal for revising an article. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of the articles I provided (both here + now buried in a separate thread where I was explicitly instructed to make a new independent post for discussion) just further prove why this page in its current state is such a problem. All of these critiques can made against many of the sources currently in use - pieces from Commune, Verso Books, the SPLC, The New York Times, Critical Sociality, VICE.

I don't care to get into a back and forth, the nitty gritty, to prove XYZ, as the "powers that be" of this page clearly lack earnest desire to engage in consensus-building unless potential change sits tightly in line with the narrative the article presently holds. Years on years of powerless editors making reasonable arguments in the archives, and years on years of those with the authority to make change refusing to do so.

Just crazy that on this platform supposedly dedicated to the co-creation of knowledge, claiming to be rooted in consensus-building, that authorities have concluded that an abundance of complaints on particular content is indicative of a problem with the complainers rather than indicative of a problem with said content... a shame. Amlans (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how back you have gone into the page history and pre-history, but there was once a page that treated Cultural Marxism as "something real", that page was deleted following a discussion with wide participation, the consensus being determined by three uninvolved administrators, and a redirect was created to a "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" section of Frankfurt School. Years later, after several unsuccessful proposals, consensus was achieved (in an RfC or Requested Move; I don't remember) to split off the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory topic as its own article. Meanwhile an article, Marxist cultural analysis, was linked as a disambiguation to present discussion of Marxist analysis of culture (which is usually not called "Cultural Marxism"). All steps of this process were quite public and openly discussed, and consensus was quite clear at each stage. "There is no cabal" (TM). Newimpartial (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

But now this new "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" page is generating new discussion after new discussion, year over year, over reasonably expressed problems...and these discussions are shut down and no change is made.

Why were earlier iterations of this page worthy of change and new consensus-making while this one is not? Amlans (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, the best sources on the topic all agree that "Cultural Marxism" in the context of US Conservative discourse refers to a conspiracy theory based on antisemitic tropes. If every year people convinced by those tropes arrive at the article Talk page asserting that its topic isn't a conspiracy theory, that isn't evidence that their arguments are "reasonable", based on appropriate sources or compliant with enwiki policies and guidelines. Unless the sources on the topic change, the content of the article on the topic will not change.

The standalone article on the conspiracy theory has changed considerably in its organization, content and focus in recent years, as a result of policy-based discussions of sources. But it hasn't changed into an article about something other than the conspiracy theory, because there is no basis in reliable sources to do that. Newimpartial (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

But that's exactly what is not making sense. Standards of what evidence is "the best" is not being applied impartially. Standards of "appropriateness" + "compliance" with policies are being used in one manner for some information and in another manner for other information. Or in one manner towards those who agree with this "consensus" and against others who challenge. And that is very explicitly against wiki policies and guidelines. And totally against the spirit of the platform.

There is effectively no room for anyone to challenge the present dialogue. None is given. Amlans (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, come on. Be real.

It takes only a few minutes of browsing through the archives to see that there is a select number of users who have been monitoring, judging, and arbitrating "consensus" on changes to this article for years. And that judgment by these users only ever leans in the direction of keeping things as they are.

That's not to suggest that there is a "cabal," that these individuals are organized in their efforts. But there is undeniably a number of editors committed to monitoring this article, even across years, apparently ready to reject any change should it not be to their liking, overpowering all others. That is very clearly not indicative of "a neutral, detached" attitude/approach. It is also very clearly not "welcoming to newcomers."

To deny these things is to deny reality. It's in black and white. Amlans (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Another also - this focus on "sources" and the need for "sources" for every edit as justification for why this article has not been edited to appear more impartial is disingenuous. It's in bad faith.

There have been numerous suggestions to change language that is obviously loaded. Make no mistake that these too are what I'm referring to when I refer to reasonable arguments that have been ignored.

Suggestions of this sort are not only fully in line with wiki policy and guidelines, but are demanded by the platform as musts. And yet even these suggestions are shut down time and time again. Amlans (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

So far as I am aware, the suggestions to change language to which you refer have all been judged by most participants on the article Talk page to fall in one or more of the following categories:

• Proposed language suggesting, against the source-based consensus on the topic, that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is based in some way on something real-world "Cultural Marxists" are actually doing (and therefore, perhaps, that it is not a conspiracy theory, though not all such proposals take that second step).
• Proposed language suggesting, against the source-based consensus on the topic, that right-wing/conservative discourse may be invoking one of two distinct referents when referring to "Cultural Marxism" - one of those may be an antisemitic conspiracy theory, but the other is something real, probably a progressive political project.
• Proposed language suggesting, against the source-based consensus on the topic, that the status of "Cultural Marxism" - whether it is a real political project or a conspiracy theory - is a matter of contention with reliable sourcing on both sides.

As far as I can tell, the local consensus on the article Talk page (grounded in large-scale community consensus at AfD, RM and RfC) is correct in asserting that proposals falling under any of these three headings count as WP:FRINGE perspectives and cannot form the basis of constructive changes to the article.

If you have proposals to make that do not fall into any of these three categories, and that are based on reliable sources relevant to the topic, you have my encouragement to bring such proposals to the article Talk page. But you can understand that editors get tired of re-treading proposals (and even more so, complaints without a concrete proposal) that fall into one of these three headings, when consensus about those three aspects is quite clear. Newimpartial (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The page is about the conspiracy theory... So sources fit into two general categories, 1) factual and accurate sources about the Frankfurt school which don't claim they that they wrote about any such conspiracy or reject such claims, and 2) sources that incorrectly assert a conspiracy, or claim that The Frankfurt school took over modern politics, or created an ideology/movement under the label "Cultural Marxism". The Frankfurt School expressed no such plan, saying they did is demonstrably false. Saying they did under the label "Cultural Marxism" is demonstrably false. Sources that do so aren't "impartial" they're pushing the conspiracy theory (which its self was advertised very early on, by its instigators to Holocaust denial and White Nationalist groups, so it picked up that baggage and continued with it)... And those sources pushing conspiratorial claims of a political take over are almost invariably right wingers commenting on left wing Academics to demonize them.

Wikipedia focuses on factuality and reliability of its statements/reporting. We're not here to retransmit right wing or left wing falsehoods about anyone. We're here to give accurate summaries based on reliable sources.

Your politics may cause you to perceive that as a bias... But that's not our problem. Just because you don't like the content doesn't make the content inaccurate or biased. Perhaps if right wing and conspiracy theorist sources were more focused on the reality and factuality of what The Frankfurt School actually wrote, they'd be included more (due to being more accurate and reliable). It's a matter of fact vs fiction, nothing to do with some bias you've decided we have. The sources you brought up were all claiming things that weren't true, or showed no notable expertise/background in the subject matter.

2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:BD50:7899:BF60:4720 (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Amlans, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome!

Heh, actually, my talk page might not be that useful for questions, as I'm an IP editor. But all the same, I thought you might like to be welcomed to Wikipedia, and have these links so you can understand the basics of how policies work. Of particular use is how WP:Reliable Sources work. Good luck here on Wikipedia. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You also might be aided by this list of WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Basically, academic articles are ranked quite high on Wikipedia. Journalistic articles are below them. Educational and research websites below them. Then comes things like news blogs. Then comes personal blogs and random websites, which aren't very well respected at all. Basically part of reliable sourcing is finding sources that have a long standing reputation for accuracy or factual reporting. Looking through that list on reliable/perennial sources might give you some taste of what gives a website/journal/institution credibility, and what diminishes credibility. Having editorial standards matters here, and Wikipedia is a quite journalistic place (figuring out how something is known, or can be known, and from what sources, is important). Wikipedia is kind of like a massive news paper. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:1976:4608:F3D:3D0C (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Amlans (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Learn more about The Frankfurt School.

You won't be able to tell fact from fiction if you don't.

Stuart Jefferies isn't professing a membership of the Frankfurt School - his book is a HISTORY of the Frankfurt School, not some addition to their thinking as if he was a member. He's not doing a new Marxist analysis to be counted in their lineage - he's not qualified to, nor does he have the apt associations (the current generation are people like Nancy Fraser, a prominent critic of modern Identity Politics feminism).

And on that point, you clearly believe "The Frankfurt School" had a unified position, ideology, or were acting as a solid movement. They weren't. They were a bunch of separate academics doing analysis which sometimes overlapped (so they sometimes collaborated). That's not the same as having a unified set of political beliefs or a singular goal that they pushed or followed. They didn't even call themselves "The Frankfurt School", that label was only applied to them by others afterwards. They were also critical of Soviet Marxism 1, and often acted against American Socialist groups 2. To quote the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 3:

The final break with orthodox Marxism occurred with the Frankfurt School’s coming to condemn the Soviet Union as a politically oppressive system. Politically the Frankfurt School sought to position itself equidistant from both Soviet socialism and liberal capitalism. The greater cause of human emancipation appeared to call for the relentless criticism of both systems.

They were just mild mannered 1950s academic researchers and Sociologists who had similar interests, and occasionally collaborated. Not some radical Communist revolutionary group trying to take over the world. You can actually read some of the conflicts between Marcuse and Adorno - in their personal correspondence here. In which Adorno defends the fact that he called the police on Student Radicals (and the student radicals protested him for it using the phrase "If Adorno is left in peace, Capitalism will not cease"). 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:6D02:FF03:7182:3E92 (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

"Stuart Jefferies isn't..."

Never said he was. And my review of im/partiality re: Verso books is not based in whether or not he is/was - or any other source used in a similarly authoritative manner within the context with this article...though if he/any other source were, and was being used in this same manner, that would certainly would not help the case for use.

"And on that point you clearly believe..."

I do not believe that, but even if I did, questions of Verso book's reliability as a source here is not dependent upon the dis/unification of The Frankfurt school as an entity. This conversation is about a vested interest in material production for The Frankfurt School, as disjointed or unified as it may be - so long as it exists as thing to be profited off of with some semblance of boundaries for identifying an in vs out group of the thing itself.

"They were just mild mannered 1950s..."

No point of consideration I've made on this topic that includes a suggestion for a particular change to written material on this article has been based upon personality traits of these academics. Amlans (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Take up your complaints with WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. The fact you're choosing to repeatedly beat a WP:DEADHORSE instead of going to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard is why you're being accused of WP:Sealioning/WP:CPOV. You're repeatedly being civil, whilst choosing not to WP:Listen (repeating arguments that have been explained using policy already). That's the basis of WP: Sealioning. Repetitive, civil, but unyielding. If you think you know policies and the intentions behind them better than others... Go have WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard prove you're right, if you think that's the case. If not maybe they'll at least have a better chance at explaining the relevant policies to you. Good luck, all the best. 2405:6E00:22EC:AA6E:51AB:A68C:EA45:D784 (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)