Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disambiguations

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DSDAB)
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Disambiguations. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Disambiguations|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Disambiguations. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Disambiguations

edit

Oluwatumininu

edit
Oluwatumininu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page about a name, sourced to one unreliable (wiki) and very short source. I had redirected it to the one article for someone with this name, but this was reverted, so here we are. This AfD is to reinstate the redirect, not to delete it. This seems to be part of some major Nigerian project to have a separate article for every single Nigerian name, no matter the notability or the need for a disambiguation. Fram (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South American Youth Championships

edit
South American Youth Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles included are different from each other in name. even at close scenario, hatnote can work. kemel49(connect)(contri) 18:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Marxism (disambiguation)

edit
Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page only disambiguates between two articles which is easily dealt with by hatnotes on those articles. Other articles listed under see also have no relevance to the DAB and just pad the page out to make it look like it should exist. WP:ONEOTHER suggests that DAB page is not needed. TarnishedPathtalk 14:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure, there is an RFC occuring at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#RfC: Cultural Marxism DAB discussing whether the hatnote at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory should be changed to redirect to this DAB page. TarnishedPathtalk 08:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No need for disambiguation between only two topics. Talk page discussions at the associated articles have repeatedly reached consensus that the term just needs to redirect to the primary topic (Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory) and those few that were looking for Marxist cultural analysis will find it via the hatnote. - MrOllie (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MrOllie and OP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That the keep votes appear based on sources espousing the conspiracy thoery, only shows that there should not be a disambiguation page. Peterson, Braverman, they might say "Cultural Marxism" but it has nothing to do with any real subject. They are espousing the conspiracy thoery. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a good faith attempt to mollify the people who kvetch about Cultural Marxism redirecting to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory but it won't work and we don't need to do that anyway. There is only one other definition so a hatnote is sufficient. The only thing this brings to the party is the See Also but I'm sure that the articles already cover that. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't it "work" if the redirect redirected to this dab? I'm curious what you mean there. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean that no change to content will stop the kvetching because the kvetching is an editor conduct issue not a content issue. Look at how it has spiralled out of control even on this very page. This happens wherever and whenever "Cultural Marxism" is mentioned. We need topic bans and page protections, not attempts to mollify those who improperly wish to hide the fact that the phrase "Cultural Marxism" refers to the conspiracy theory 95-99% of the time it is used. They will not be happy until Wikipedia supports their POV with no mention of the conspiracy theory at all. Sometimes compromise is a valid approach but not when it is a compromise between neutral coverage and POV pushing. I know it seems tempting to try to fob them off and stop the constant arguments but that's just the first step to the POV pushers gradually getting 100% of what they want, which is to legitimise the conspiracy theory and to promote it in wikivoice. They won't stop arguing until they get that or they are forced to stop. Of course, if there really was a need to disambiguate then we would have to do so, and all add the page to our watchlists to prevent it being wrecked periodically, but there really isn't. It just creates another opportunity for disruptive behaviour. The hatnote covers it. Let Occam's Razor apply. DanielRigal (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's employ the scientific method. We can use the dab page for a year and measure the amount of 'kvetching,' as you call it, before and after. I'm just being a bit facetious, but it would be interesting to see whether the amount of kvetching goes up or down. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are several senses in which the phrase 'Cultural Marxism' has been used. I created the disambiguation with the two I had found, but other senses can be included, and there are many citations for these.
To claim that the term has only been used in one sense is not logically coherent. To put it bluntly, if you are claiming that everyone who has used the phrase 'Cultural Marxism' is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, then you will need your own private suite in the libel courts!
The phrase has become recently uncommon, possibly because of the Wikipedia article. (It is not Wikipedia's task to be defining meanings rather than reporting them, but that is going to happen.) More concerning is if past uses, over the last fifty years or so, are judged by a definition issued later. We must recognise the ambiguity. Samuel Moyn traced usage back a hundred years.
(On Wikipedia it has been decided, for example, that 'Boston' primarily means the city in Massachusetts. You would not then assert that every written reference to the name over a twelve centuries is retrospectively by definition to an American city even when the author meant the town in Lincolnshire. Denying the multiple uses there have been of the term 'Cultural Marxism' is just as ludicrous.)
There are citations aplenty for variant meanings. One analysis is in Zubatiov's article in 2018. The Antisemitism Policy Trust agrees that the term is used by Antisemites, but also "It is often used, without antisemitic intention, to describe liberals, progressive movements and others.": a very different meaning.
Dennis Dworkin used the term in another sense in 1997 in his article 'Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies'.
The most popular writer using the term is Jordan Peterson; certainly no conspiracy theorist nor antisemite, who argues that the idea that cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory is "completely preposterous". Now, Dr Peterson is a psychologist not a political philosopher, and you can disagree with him, but his works have been seen by millions, and if he means it another way, that meaning is the way millions have received it.
A balanced popular article I have read was by Danny Stone (Chief Executive of Antisemitism Policy Trust) in the Jewish Chronicle in 2023: 'Is the term 'Cultural Marxism' really antisemitic?'. He concludes that it is used in that way, but also with innocuous meaning, and sometimes by Marxists themselves. It shows the ambiguity, that needs disambiguation.
The use of the term in conspiracy theories is well documented (many have referred to the Paternotte / Verloo De-democratization and the Politics of Knowledge: Unpacking the Cultural Marxism Narrative on that meaning, while on the other side, the Libertarian Brian Doherty in 2018 Don't Blame Karl Marx for 'Cultural Marxism' dismissed conspiracies and its even being Marxism, noting it the term to have been used as a synonym for Critical Theory (which can be described as a conspiracy theory: classes and races conspiring to oppress others? Really?)
Professor Jerôme Jamin is cited on the conspiracy theory page: the paper cited though argues that it is ambiguous: the summary states "It tries to locate and identify the exact moment the theory changed itself from a regular and well-known knowledge in the field of cultural studies towards a key element used in multiple books and articles to explain the so-called destruction of Western traditions and values." In short – there is a conspiracy theory, but it has also been a field of genuine academic study. Therefore that very citation contradicts the assertion it tries to prove.
Doherty's argument is persuasive; that much of the use of the term is as a demonising synonym for Critical Theory in which case Critical Theory should be added to the disambiguating list.
All this said, the page could do with a slew of citations for each usage of the term. Howard Alexander (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Jordan Peterson? Really? TarnishedPathtalk 23:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jordan Peterson is using "Cultural Marxism" as it's described in the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article. Using him in a keep argument shows exactly why the disambiguation page should be deleted, as it is simply misleading. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be very careful of what you are saying: you seem to be implying that Dr Peterson subscribes to an antisemitic theory, which is not a wise move. I said that he is not political scientist. However he uses the term, and the sense in which he used the term is one heard by millions. It is not the conspiracy version, and certainly with no antisemitic implication. You may not like his work - I may not like his work, or I might - it does not matter, but language is defined by usage and not by professors. Howard Alexander (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this has anything to do with the function of a disambiguation page, which is simply to navigate to extant Wikipedia articles. It's not a place to WP:COATRACK a bunch of stuff about alternate (that is, WP:FRINGE) definitions, especially not stuff that has been rejected by the community at other AfDs and RFCs. - MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It simply has not been rejected. That is a misrepresentation of history. There have been plenty of people arguing that the lede and the article is contentious and it's been contentious for literally a decade. There is enough disagreement on the talk page and its archives (with plenty of sources) to show that this term is not solely a conspiratorial term. Seriously.
Based on the history of the page, a disambiguation page would at least prevent so much defacing of the lede and so much argument about the lede, because it would be clear that there is a distinction between the term 'Cultural Marxism' and the 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory'. As used pejoratively, cultural marxism clearly references Western Marxism, Marxist Cultural Analysis, the Frankfurt School, Postmodernism, Post Structuralism, Critical Theory and its offshoots.
These would all be appropriate topics to link to in the disambiguation page. I am a Leaf (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough disagreement on the talk page and its archives (with plenty of sources) to show that this term is not solely a conspiratorial term. Seriously.
The page has been greatly complained about in the talk page archives for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory - that doesn't mean anything, and is true for most WP:Fringe conspiracy related articles.
ALL of the discussions were resolved as having no ACADEMIC MERIT.
Just because something has been complained about or discussed a lot, doesn't mean those complaints were well founded, let alone well sourced. They weren't. That's why you're complaining about complaints rather than presenting a well substantiated, well documented alternative usage. You are in fact, spraying out a whole list of "possible meanings" without any single one these claims having an academic source to back it... what's more you'd need more than just one source to say it's a notable school of thought, movement, or set ideology.
The fact remains cultural Marxism (lower case, upper case) is just two words together, and has been used sparingly to reference something to do with culture and Marxism. Never a set singular school, or well defined area or mode of academic investigation.
Sorry we can't edit Wikipedia just because people complain. We have to use the sources at hand, as per WP:RS. As I've said to others in this discussion. Please search the talk page archives at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory before trying to present any here. The page has been around and very stable for over a decade now - and that's because we've dealt with each complaint as it's come up. We've done so in line with Wikipedia's policies, and sourcing requirements. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you strike the implied legal threat. TarnishedPathtalk 00:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peterson does actually play on the borders of race science. He has blogged about the problem of Jewish Intelligence, and even does so under the well known anti-Semitic phrase "The Jewish Question". Of course, he does so playfully by using the phrase to reference their intelligence, rather than their extermination (as the Nazis used it).
He's also been tied to well funded pushes to normalize race science in academia, as per this article [1]. This is in part because of his strong affiliation with conservative think tanks [2]... and he has appeared on the podcast of the white supremacist, Stefan Molyneux. These are undeniable facts, which thus, present no legal risk, especially because they're just being stated on talk pages. Talk pages aren't as subject to WP:BLP as they're less likely to be litigated. So your reaction is unwarranted. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peterson wrote an open letter about the rise of antisemitism in left wing politics, here is the Jerusalem Post's reply[3] in which they point out his points are couched in antisemitic ideas and his misuse of concepts such as “Cultural Marxism.”.
So I have no worries that Dr Peterson subscribes to an antisemitic theory, as I'm just a private citizen and if Peterson has an issue with that idea he could go after larger fish. He has not, and the Jerusalem Post's article is hardly a outlier. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's examine all of your sources:
Zubatov - Zubatov is a non-notable author writing an opinion piece for Tablet_(magazine) which is a conservative Jewish magazine. He has no expertise in any relevant field of academia related to the term, and the publication has endorsed views similar to that of the conspiracy theory (eg. that "woke" leftists have taken over society and the media). So no, Wikipedia isn't going to use this as a reliable source on the matter. See WP:FRINGE. We don't use WP:FRINGE sources as if they're authorities on conspiracy theories, truth, and fiction.
Dennis Dworkin - had you looked at the FAQ on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page, you'd see that on page 3, that book specifically states it's "the first of its kind" and is trying to start the classification of a movement under this title. That's not a good proof that the term is WP:Notable enough for a disambig page.
Is the term 'Cultural Marxism' really antisemitic? - that article which again is just an opinion piece responding to a conservative using the term in the conspiracy theory usage. It doesn't endorse any other usage as having prevalence, the closest it gets is claiming that some leftist use it as a badge of honour. That doesn't mean it's a notable school of thought worthy, large, or well defined enough for a disambig page. Sorry, this article supports the current status quo of not having one.
Reason Magazine - This website is either funded or part of the Cato institute isn't it? At any rate, it's another conservative publication, and another opinion piece. The author once again doesn't have any credentials in any related academic fields as far as I can tell. So once again it's a dud source. It also notes the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as the main usage, and doesn't offer anything substantive in any other direction.
Jerôme Jamin - the text you quote doesn't explicitly reference there being any movement under the term "cultural Marxism". No one has a well defined movement or group under that name. It's at best two words strung together.
In short, your 3 conservative opinion pieces with no credentials, are not enough to justify a disambig. Your 1 leftwing Jewish source (its self also an opinion piece) doesn't support your claims. Nor do your quotes from the one half-qualified academic in this grab bag of sources. Sorry, you have not proven the need for a disambiguation page using these sources... which are mostly conservative opinion pieces. Please search the talk page archives of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory before you even consider trying again with more sources. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are on the topic of academic books, in addition to historian Dennis Dworkin’s 1997 book [4] mentioned earlier, there is also Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology, a 1981 book by sociologist Richard R. Weiner, which is available online for those interested in browsing it. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Academic sources may be useful in addressing the content or notability of either Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory or Marxist cultural analysis. In this circumstance the existence of any academic sources neither adds nor subtracts from the fact that the DAB page disambiguates between exactly two extant articles and therefore per WP:ONEOTHER the DAB page is not needed. Proponents of keeping the article would be better off spending their time improving the DAB page so that it disambiguates between more than two extant articles than arguing about academic sources. The fact that they haven't already suggests that there is no option to do so. TarnishedPathtalk 09:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weiner - To quote every description of Weiner's book there is online: "Weiner considers the work of theorists as diverse as Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Alain Touraine, Anthony Giddens and Alvin Gouldner, many of whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement." - so no, this book doesn't define some definitive movement or school of thought. It specifically says that it's including thinkers "whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement" - so that's a no go. It wouldn't be acceptable elsewhere, so it's not acceptable here. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, Discrimination, Politics, and Judaism. TarnishedPathtalk 02:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You shouldn't be adding it to a sorting page for Conservatism. That would be an attempt at brigading the discussion. It's not a conservative topic, it's a conspiracy theory about LEFT WING academics... not RIGHT WING ones. But at any rate, I suggest any conservatives who come here to debate the point first check the talk page archives for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as this is well trodden ground, and we've dealt with pretty much every source under the sun on this one. I suggest to them, and anyone else, to not waste their time playing the fool here. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiProject Conservatism is listed in Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. I added deletion sorting for all WikiProjects listed in that article's talk where deletion sorting existed. But do please tell me more about policies which I'm well aware of. TarnishedPathtalk 06:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no reason to have a disambiguation page. The term "Cultural Marxism" almost exclusively references the conspiracy theory usage. RecardedByzantian (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That assertion is clearly contradicted by the very sources cited in support of it. Dismissing some sources because the authors are deemed 'conservative' is not something you should want to admit. Several sources who certainly are no conservative have still asserted that the term has been used in different ways. Howard Alexander (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources are discussing the conspiracy theory, as shown by other references. Per the JP[5] misuse of concepts such as “Cultural Marxism.” -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (conditional). This AfD is premature. The disambiguation page was created only a few days ago, giving the community insufficient time to improve it. Additionally, no other articles link to the page, making it effectively invisible to readers, so there’s no reason to rush its deletion. Moreover, the AfD was initiated just hours after an RfC discussion on linking to the dab page began, which the nominator conveniently omits, raising concerns that this AfD may be an attempt to derail or shorten the RfC process. I urge the closing admin to either Keep the page or delay the decision until the RfC concludes, allowing the community time to evaluate the merits of the page and giving editors an opportunity to improve it. I will present my rationale for keeping the dab page in the RfC. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't "conveniently omit" anything. Stating that there is an RFC occurring elsewhere is irrelevant and you have produced zero policy arguments. If the DAB page can be improved such that it disambiguates between more than two extant articles, the time that the AFD runs is more than sufficient time to do so. TarnishedPathtalk 08:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that you edited the body of the AfD to include the RfC reference, which is a good thing. [6] Do you mind adding a timestamp or acknowledging it in some way so that my earlier comment doesn't seem out of context? Thanks 87.116.177.103 (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Just to clarify though I didn't "conveniently omit" it, as I didn't even think about it as it didn't strike me as being pertinent. I added it however after your comments because I didn't want to spend any time arguing about it. TarnishedPathtalk 09:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is the basic premise is flawed, aso the disambiguation page can not be improved. It can only be made into a WP:COATRACK. RFCs are not the correct place to decide on whether a page should be kept, the correct process is this one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been a long standing consensus not to have such a page, and there's ZERO academic evidence the term refers to anything but the conspiratorial usage.
    Yes the two words "cultural Marxism" do appear from time to time within academia, or on book covers, but that's not the same as Wikipedia having multiple articles under that title. We don't. So the more you expand your disambig and try to rope in a wider and wider variety of articles, the more faulty your disambig will become.
    You can't just rope a bunch of articles all with different names into a disambig because of some conservative conspiracy theory about "the woke left". You need ACADEMIC and LEFTWING sources. Not opinion pieces and right wing talking heads. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant and unnecessary. DAB pages are for three or more related subjects, and this clearly fails that measure.

— The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per WP:D2D. This is the third scenario there where there is one primary topic and one other topic to be "linked directly using a hatnote" without a disambiguation page. The Boston example in the lengthy !vote to keep seems (to me) a good example of why the hatnote should point directly to the other topic rather than a disambiguation page. A reader could go from Boston to Boston (disambiguation) to any of the dozens of the links. With this page, a reader could go from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory to Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) and then only to Marxist cultural analysis, so it doesn't make sense to have that extra step at the disambiguation page. The stuff listed under "See also" like Cultural Bolshevism is covered in context and wiki-linked in the primary topic's page already. Rjjiii (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've worked on many of the pages concerned for a long time, and have become convinced that editors of Marxist cultural analysis are planning on making the page a WP:coatrack for any number of Marxist theorists. The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School and many of the thinkers on that page, aren't Marxists. They're neomarxists - who were critical of Marxism, and wanted to be critical of BOTH Orthodox Marxism and modern Capitalism. This fact is not respected on that page, and it gives a biased view, and an incorrect set of assumptions about the theorists listed. The fact that the page is looking to expand with a focus on including random Marxists - makes it no longer suitable as a hat note for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (which is about a specific set of neo-Marxists, who became run of the mill social democrats and liberals. Theorists like Raymond Williams and Richard Hoggart of The Birmingham School went as far as to burn their Communist party membership cards). So obviously, as I hold this viewpoint - I also don't think that Marxist cultural analysis is an appropriate page to be involved in the disambig. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how relevant this is to the AfD discussion, but the IP seems to put forward the view that because some scholars went as far as to burn their Communist party membership cards, that they aren't "Marxists". The view that "Marxists" and "neomarxists" are mutually exclusive categories is a small minority view, not supported by scholarship, and can't be reflected in either WP article space or for that matter in disambiguation decisions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've explained to you elsewhere, there are clear sources that back up my point of view, and zero sources that call them orthodox Marxists, despite what the title of the article suggests. That's why they're called "cultural Marxists" because the whole point of these schools is that they were radically breaking from Marxism.
    You can deny that and slap the title "MARXISTS" on them all day - but that completely ignores the historical facts, and leaves Wikipedia in the position of substantiating a false claim about these very modern thinkers. Some of whom are still alive by the way.
    "Hoggart’s political viewpoints were not outwardly expressed until much later in life, and make clear his aversion to Marxism" Source 1
    "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" Source 2
    "This is Habermas' basic judgment on Marx: Marx's praxis philosophy is still a kind of subjective philosophy, while behind the concept of “labor” in praxis philosophy is still a single rationality: cognitive-instrumental rationality." Source 3 (hence why we don't say Habermas is a Marxist on his page - because he wasn't.)
    There are plenty of similar sources out there. You're the one without any sources claiming they were regular old Marxists. That's the truth here: it's actually a fact that YOUR position is unsourced. NOT MINE! This is the whole reason why they're called "Critical Theorists" - rather than Marxists (as Wikipedia currently has it). Labeling them as Marxists is ahistoric and leans towards the conspiracy theory rather than away from it.
    101.115.128.217 (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete disambig with only two pages is silly. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I think, per Howard Alexander mostly. I'm not 100% sure this is the best way to solve this problem, but it seems much better than the status quo ante. The term "cultural Marxism" is used quite a bit, by detractors, to describe a flavor of left-leaning politics/academics focusing on identity-based oppression and a critique of liberalism, essentially what is also referred to by detractors as SJW, PC, CRT (or just Critical Theory), woke, etc. Or at least, vaguely adjacent to those things; rigorously pinning down taxonomies of political rhetoric is probably a fool's errand. I feel like we have a couple of articles about that topic already, so I don't think we need a new one with the title Cultural Marxism! But, since that is easily the most common use of the term, it is problematic to have it redirect to a different meaning of the term, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Here's a problem, though: there aren't a lot of high quality sources talking about this more common meaning of the term: it's a sloppy term, and different labels are usually used for the thing instead (Even Jordan Peterson almost exclusively calls it something else, "postmodernism"), and anti-semitic white supremacy is a pretty important subject of academic inquiry. It's an interesting failure mode of Wikipedias policies/guidelines. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As repeatedly noted, there's no reason to have a two-topic disambiguation page. Also, I note that since this AfD was begun, there has been no effort at the subject DAB article to expand or improve it to address this issue, which seems like a tacit acknowledgment that it is unlikely to be expanded or expandable. CAVincent (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true, there's an author on talk at Marxist cultural analysis who is about to throw Trotsky back into what is essentially a page about the early development of Critical Theory. There's also discussions on the talk page that from @Newimpartial about including (in their own words) - "classical Marxist, Orthodox, and Leninist or Trotskyite approaches" on the page. As well as "later developments as Critical Theory (post-Marcuse), Socialist Feminist analysis, and Laclau&Mouffe-style post-Marxist approaches to cultural critique". To this end, editors have already "trimmed" certain founding members of The Birmingham School (because they weren't Marxist enough). So project Revisionist history is well underway at Marxist cultural analysis.
    In short, the plan for the article is to make it a WP:Coatrack that has little relevance to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page. This is a blow for having a disambig... but also means the DAB should probably be removed from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have mentioned my comments while leaving out the point I emphasize the most, which is that we must follow the sources on the topic in making decisions about inclusion. If the sources generally are what you call revisionist, we must follow them. Newimpartial (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your choices for the page give the impression The Critical Theorists were Orthodox Marxists, where are the sources for that NewImpartial? Now you and Patrick are going to put Trotsky back onto the page - so why should the DAB on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory direct people to Marxist cultural analysis any more? Are there any sources for Trotsky being described as a "cultural Marxist" somewhere? Are YOU going to provide any sources like I have above?
    No of course you're not. Because you're building a WP:Coatrack that won't be related in any way shape or form to the disambig hatnote. We must follow the sources - all the sources say they critiqued Orthodox Marxism, and grew further and further away from that term (Source 4) - so why are we filing them under Marxism, along side Orthodox Marxists like Trotsky, as if they share some resemblance??? Likewise, why does the Critical Theory page happily list Habermas under the sidebar for Marxism. This over emphasis of them as "Marxists" is ahistoric. There's an obvious reason why they were called Critical Theorists, and not Marxist theorists - it's because they were Neo-Marxists, then later, not Marxists at all. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Phil Slater traces the extent, and ultimate limits, of the Frankfurt School's professed relation to the Marxian critique of political economy... ...He shows that, in particular, the analysis of psychic and cultural manipulation was central to the young rebels' theoretical armour, but that even here, the lack of economic class analysis seriously restricts the critical edge of the Frankfurt School's theory." (Source 5)
    "Nothing intrinsicaly Marxist, that is to say, defines "cultural Marxism," save for the evocation or hope of a postbourgeois society... ...The mistake of those who see one position sequeing into another is to confuse contents with personalities." (Source 6, page 10)
    "The Frankfurt School, known more appropriately as Critical Theory" (Source 7)
    ...
    The sources say - it has Marxist origins, and uses Marxist principles, but is not its self Marxist. Do we still follow the sources NewImpartial??? 101.115.128.217 (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have noted at the article Talk page, the only sources you have provided in this Gish gallop that actually claim the Frankfurt School to be "non-Marxist" are sectarian, not scholarly ones.
    Also, your statement that I give the impression The Critical Theorists - excellent band name, by the way - were Orthodox Marxists is entirely a straw man. The Frankfurt School writers were unorthodox Marxists and, according to the sources, that was rather the point. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "[I]t is unlikely to be expanded or expandable" is one explanation. Another is that editors are put off by the AfD nomination "scare" box placed at the top of the nominated page. Why invest time in improving something when your efforts might be in vain? Additionally, many editors may not realize that it's permissible to edit a page nominated for AfD. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some contributors seem to be suggesting there is a concerted plan for editing - a conspiracy indeed. I think that is more than somewhat unlikely, don't you? (Perhaps we need a page "Cultural Marxism conspiracy conspiracy theory"?)
    I created the disambiguation page simply because the term has, over the years, been used in numerous different ways. Even the sources cited on the conspiracy theory page affirm this. Therefore when a politician or commentator is quoted as having used the term 'Cultural Marxism' it could be in any of several senses - I started off with two, but the source material shows that several others could be added.
    To take a random example, the article on Suella Braverman mentions that she attacked 'Cultural Marxism', but no one could seriously suggest that she thinks that there are bearded men scuttling in a dark room conspiring to overthrow society for malicious ends, let alone that she is anti-Jewish. That would be libelling her, seriously. Then you get actual loonies who do believe that. In the Braverman example - I have never met her to ask, but in the context it is clear that she meant it as a synonym for Critical theory, explained on the basis of swapping Marx's class struggle / oppression dynamic for a supposed struggle between other groups.
    Others later took the term off the web without context and have spun it into the idea of a conspiracy, and conspiracies usually develop an ugly anti-Semitic variant. Previous uses, before the term took off on a dark path, are still there, and when uttered they did not mean what the term may have come to mean.
    The point then is to find the best way to allow Wikipedia links to point to the right concept amongst many, or to ambiguity where we do not know the context, rather than libelling people in the public eye. That seems to me to be the purpose of a disambiguation page. When we have "Boston (disambiguation)", it is not intended that pages actually point to it en masse, but they can be pointed there while the context is uncertain, and then linked to the correct version when that is determined. Doing that in a long, long hatnote is too clumsy. Howard Alexander (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not a dictionary of what politicians may have meant when they spoke (and you'd be hard pressed to find a politician who cites sources). We're an Encyclopedia of WP:NOTABLE ideas and concepts.
    In the case of Suella Braverman, I believe The Board of Deputies of British Jews sat her down and had a chat with her about what she meant [7]. Wikipedia is not here to become involved in such political occurrences, nor should we seek to become involved in them. We are here ONLY to report them when they become relevant/notable. Braverman's case is listed BECAUSE it became relevant and notable. I'm not aware of any other notable usages from her since sitting down with the Board of Deputies.
    To create a page specifically to sort out what we think politicians mean when they use the term - would be a violation of WP:SOAPBOX. If that's your position, you're unlikely to succeed. We're here to report from sources, not perform original research, or construct coatrack articles (or disambiguation pages) because they're politically convenient. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My earlier comment focused on procedural issues with this AfD. Now, I'll present the actual rationales for keeping the dab page. The nominator argues that the See also articles are irrelevant and serve merely as padding, but this is incorrect. Cultural Bolshevism is both topically and historically related to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, as both articles explain. Similarly, Western Marxism and Cultural studies are closely linked to Marxist cultural analysis, and all three topics overlap to a significant extent. One unique link not available in any other article is the link to Wiktionary, which is particularly important because the term cultural Marxism is highly politicized and has evolved into a meme. None of the articles directly address this aspect -- nor should they, as this is the role of Wiktionary. In summary, given the politicized nature of the term, the inclusion of the Wiktionary link and the "See also" articles not only aids navigation but also provides readers with an important option unavailable elsewhere, representing a reasonable exception to the WP:ONEOTHER guideline. As with any Wikipedia guideline, exceptions may apply, and Cultural Marxism is one such exceptional case. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, these are nuanced discussions that should be addressed in the RfC, which is why I again urge postponing the AfD until the RfC is complete. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not going to happen. TarnishedPathtalk 10:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no sources that say "cultural Marxism" refers to anything that you're claiming it does (eg. refers to any of the pages you've listed). That's your problem. You may see them as "relevant" but that only makes them eligible for a "See also" section, not a for the creation of a disambig. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed deletions

edit

Redirects for discussion

edit

See also

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Disambiguations&oldid=1257111101"