Talk:James A. Lindsay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reverts[edit]

XMcan, could you please discuss instead of reverting other editors? Ping to Viriditas and MrOllie. Valereee (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Valereee, I got a little carried away on account of MrOllies’ frequent reverts. I’m happy to abide by 1 rv per editor if others abide by it. Thanks for the reminder! As for the contentious material in this BLP, I have an alternative solution that I will present soon. Hopefully, the compromise solution will be acceptable to other editors, at least on an interim basis and until we find a more permanent solution. XMcan (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 'permanent solution' is to respect the consensus that has been arrived at over several discussions on this talk page - it is what is currently in the article. MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee:, XMCan ignored your request and went right back to reverting without any discussion. Viriditas (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with XMcan here. Lindsay is the author of Cynical Theories, which is a criticism of postmodernism. The article for the book is categorized as such and is included in Template:Criticism of postmodernism, as is Lindsay. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but can you explain to XMcan that the edit summary is not the place for discussion? Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Kathryn Joyce's 2022 Salon article, Lindsay began as an Obama volunteer and a staunch atheist who wrote three books in support of New atheism (It's worth noting that this important aspect of his work is omitted from the lede). Over time, Joyce claims, his views have shifted more and more to the right (although presumably he still remains an atheist). Joyce identifies Glenn Beck and Alex Jones as the reigning conspiracy theorists of the right but does not explicitly label Lindsay as one.
Lindsay may or may not be a conspiracy theorist of this or that kind. I personally have no problem either way. What's problematic for me is the source referenced in the lede to support the CMCT claim, namely Mr. Rabinowitz’s article. It is clearly a WP:PARTISAN opinion piece whose author has personal entanglements with the people covered in his article.
My position is that we need better quality source(s) to label Lindsay as a conspiracy theorist of antisemitic and pro-Christian variety (CM/CMCT article is very specific about these two aspects). Additionally, there are currently no sources referenced in the lede that support the LGBT GCT label.
As an interim solution and for all the stated reasons, I am placing a [better source needed] tag on the last sentence of the lede. Hopefully, this tag will prove less controversial than outright removal of that sentence, which in this case is arguably justifiable per WP:BLP, as the boxed policy at the top of this Talk page urges us to do. XMcan (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of convenient for you to cite a 2022 article while ignoring the entire year of 2023 when Lindsay spent his time spreading conspiracy theories on Twitter. Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I first heard of Lindsay a few years back when the grievance studies affair was making national and international headlines. If someone were to encounter him today through a controversial tweet, I imagine they would have quite a different initial impression. XMcan (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added another source, but (in addition to what it says in its own voice) it also describes and cites the Southern Poverty Law Center summary of Lindsay, which we can see here. That should probably be present and attributed somewhere in the article as well - it is currently cited for something trivial but it's not really summarized or mentioned, and if it's getting secondary coverage then it is probably worth a sentence, possibly even in the lead. Secondary coverage of their article on him is [1][2] - this would be in addition to what's already there, of course. --Aquillion (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Frankfurt School conspiracy theory[edit]

The Centre Daily states that Lindsay promoted the conspiracy theory that LGBTQ supporters are pedophiles.[3] There is no mention of Marxism or CMCT in that source. Centre Daily Times is a small, local newspaper and the hometown media outlet for Penn State. I'm not familiar with this source and don't see it listed in RSP, so I don’t know how reliable or partisan it is.

LA Times refers to Lindsay as conservative influencer that the nonprofit advocacy organization Southern Poverty Law Center describes as a promoter of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and “conspiracy theories about the supposed communist takeover of the world.”[4]

As the WP:LATIMES article clearly spells out, the SPLC is an advocacy organization. According to the Biographies of Living Persons policy (WP:BPL), the SPLC guideline (WP:SPLC), and the Reliable Sources guideline on opinion sources (WP:RSOPINION), anything sourced from the SPLC in a BLP needs in-text attribution (WP:INTEXT).

That said, the SPLC profile on Lindsay claims he promotes conspiracy theories and lists a long litany of them. Sadly, it has no named author, but the writing style is undeniably RSOPINION. At one point, it even uses Lindsay’s hobby interest in massage therapy as a put down: “In October 2018, the massage therapist gained national attention for his part in…”

Most importantly, what the SPLC profile doesn’t have is any direct reference to CMCT, the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, the Frankfurt School, or any hint of accusations of antisemitism. Do you doubt for a moment that if there were anything linking Lindsay to antisemitism or antisemitic conspiracy theories, it would be excluded from his SPLC profile?

To summarize, no mainstream reliable source that I'm aware of links Lindsay to any antisemitic conspiracy theory or any conspiracy theory about the Frankfurt School. Therefore, linking Lindsay to Frankfurt School conspiracy theory a.k.a. Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory in the lead is a WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP violation that should be immediately deleted. (I’m open to including PARTISAN and RSOPINION sources but only with INTEXT attribution).

The Centre Daily links Lindsay to the groomer conspiracy theory, so we can keep that information for now. However, ideally, that statement should be sourced from mainstream national press, as we have done for all other statements in the lede. XMcan (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to slow down on calls for topic-banning XMcan. His behavior here is not disruptive to anything except a long-lasting problem with this article, one that I've raised issue with as well, the conflation of Linsday's critiques of Marxism and its contemporary cultural applications (i.e. "cultural Marxism") with a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol no we do not need to "slow down". if the user is unable to edit collegially on the cultural Maxi m Wikipedia page, then they are unable to handle the subject matter anywhere in the project. the problem is the topic not the page. ValarianB (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ValarianB, I haven't looked at what transpired at the Cultural Marxism article, but XMcan's editing here been no less collegial than several other regular participants. The difference is that he holds views on this subject that dissent from the entrenched consensus. Consensus can change. But that's highly unlikely when anyone who challenges the existing consensus is systemically banned. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it isn't our fault that most right-leaning editors are generally unable to comport themselves to the expected social norms of the wikipedia. ValarianB (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ValarianB, I don't believe that right-leaning editors, or moderate liberal editors like myself, are less able to comport themselves decently on wikipedia, than left-leaning editors. I believe that we have a biased regime of sanctioning that disproportionately punishes non-leftist editors because of the bias of the administrators, who are themselves disproportionately leftist. 05:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a ton of disruption, HEB. It's a contentious subject, there's bound to be contentious discussion and sometimes a lot of it. But XMcan, this edit summary is not cool. I really do not want to see you calling an edit you happen to disagree with "vandalism". If you do not understand what WP:VANDALISM is, please do not use the word. Valereee (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I prompted the question a couple of weeks ago, no mainstream reliable source has emerged linking Lindsay to the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory or any form of antisemitism. We have numerous articles from the mainstream and national press, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, Newsweek, and most recently, the Los Angeles Times [5], ensuring that we are not lacking in quality sources. The UK op-ed source in an oblique way implies links to antisemitism and CMCT, but SPLC's exhaustive and highly critical profile on Lindsay contradicts this on both counts, mentioning no links to antisemitism. BLP and BLPRS are clear what to do with contentious material that is poorly sourced, especially when contradicted by more reliable sources. XMcan (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article doesn't contain the word 'antisemitism' or any variation of it, so it is unclear what you are concerned about. MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MrOllie, this article states that "Lindsay has promoted the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory." Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is in turn defined as a "far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory" on its article. I'm pretty sure that I've made this point here before, but it's highly inappropriate that we use opinions advanced in Marxist publications like Current Affairs or Jacobin to make derogatory statements of fact in wikivoice about Lindsay. It's unsurprising that such publications would have a slanted view of Lindsay's critiques of Marxism and its applications to contemporary culture. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    if those sources are deemed reliable, then that is a enough of a solid basis to label Lindsay as a promoter of cultural marxism conspiracy theories. ValarianB (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jweiss11, you've argued that, yes. But the response now (as it was then) is that labeling a source 'Marxist' doesn't somehow cause it to be unreliable. Also, I'm sure you don't mean to say that XMcan's concerns here are related to the contents of some other article that he has been blocked from for disruption. MrOllie (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The antisemitism accusation is thinly veiled; all it takes is one click. In fact, you don’t even need to click; just mouse over the CMCT link, and the page preview will pop up (you might need to be logged out for this feature). XMcan (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do indeed mean to say the concerns are related to contents of another linked article. Those contents provide a definition for what "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" means in this article. It's irrelevant that XMcan is blocked from editing that article. I share the same concerns. Those Marxist sources are certainly a reliable account of what those Marxist sources think about Lindsay. But the use of those opinions to state facts in Wikivoice is inappropriate and a BLP violation. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the CMCT sentence in the body is also a BLP violation. In essence, what we are doing is taking a talking point from L’s ideological opponents and then amplifying it in Wikivoice, while endorsing the unsupported conclusion that L promotes antisemitism. That's not NPOV, and it's not BLPBALANCE. (Editors, if necessary, please reread WP:BLPBALANCE. It’s only two paragraphs and is a policy, not a guideline). XMcan (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I'm not suggesting that WP:PARTISAN political magazines, such as Jacobin and CA, should be avoided altogether. Instead, I am saying that if we choose to use them, it should be executed in a proper NPOV and BLP manner – namely, through the use of quotations and in-text attribution.
    The LA Times article sets a good example of how to do this in NPOV: the advocacy organization Southern Poverty Law Center describes [Lindsay] as a promoter of ... “conspiracy theories about the supposed communist takeover of the world.”
    I would have no problem presenting the information this way. However, in accordance with BLP policy, particularly WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPRS, we should start with a clean slate first. Afterward, we can discuss whether to reintroduce cites from Jacobin and CA or to use the SPLC quote instead. XMcan (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Earlier, I was arguing about PARTISAN and RSOPINION angles, presuming that both Jacobin and Current Affairs articles were correctly cited in the first place. However, they were not. Bias issues aside, neither of the two texts explicitly says that Lindsay promotes FSCT/CMCT.
    The Jacobin article doesn’t link Lindsay to any conspiracy theories. In fact, the phrase conspiracy theory/theories appears in the article only twice in a completely different context than the cited sentence. Who added this citation, and why wasn’t it vetted before? (－‸ლ)
    The CA article doesn’t contain the word promote, nor the phrase Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. I even checked all occurrences of the phrases cultural Marxism and conspiracy theory/theories. There is a sentence with conspiracy theories about "Cultural Marxism", but it’s discussing CMCT in a theoretical context and without referencing any person individually. Using the CA article as a citation for L promotes CMCT is a clear example of WP:SYNTH because the source never explicitly links Lindsay to FSCT/CMCT.
    @ValarianB, MrOllie: NPOV and bias issues aside, it is evident that both Jacobin and CA sources are incorrectly cited. XMcan (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a sentence with conspiracy theories about "Cultural Marxism", You're drawing a distinction without a difference. As to Jacobin, they write James Lindsay accuses critical race theory of being a “sweeping set of conspiracy theories about race and racial power in Western liberal democracies” that is descended from a long line of “Marxist conspiracy theories about the upper class of society.” (among other quotes, you must read the whole piece) We summarize reliable sources, articles are not stitched together from copy and pasted quotations. MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To jump from a sentence that quotes someone saying something is a conspiracy theory, to concluding that this implies the person is promoting a different conspiracy theory, and then to assign a specific name to that conspiracy theory constitutes a 3-step WP:SYNTH.
    Here’s some pertinent quotes from WP:OR (emphasis mine):
    • do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source
    • Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research.
    • each statement in the article being verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly
    XMcan (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I cite a source that says "the sky is azure", I can still write "the sky is blue". You are drawing distinctions without difference. MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, if a source says "X espouses Frankfurt School conspiracy theory," we could write "X promotes Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory." But earlier, you were not simply rephrasing or using another name; you were daisy-chaining implications to draw a conclusion not directly and explicitly stated in the source. That’s WP:SYNTH. XMcan (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    someone who is banned from editing <article about subject> should also be banned from raising <subject> at other articles. this is getting disruptive. ValarianB (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added an additional source, but ultimately the language in the article is all reasonable paraphrases of what those sources say. We aren't required to (and in fact aren't allowed to, for WP:COPYVIO reasons) take text directly from a source; but Current Affairs unambiguously presents Lindsay as promoting the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion, which part or parts of Moira Weigel, 2023 support "Lindsay has promoted the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory".? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ValarianB, XMcan is not being descriptive here. What are you doing here is threatening to use a technicality to silence dissent, dissent that is shining a light on an obvious BLP violation. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A substring search for “conspiracy theor” (matching theories, theorist, theory) yields a total of 5 matches within the article body. None of them are found in the same paragraph where Lindsay is mentioned. XMcan (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do have to read the whole paper, which does clearly support the sentence in question. Skimming and 'a substring search' are not sufficient. For instance: The books on CRT that I analyzed exhibit multiple traits of conspiracy theory., and then At the same time, by “proving” that cultural Marxism “spawned” CRT, these authors connect CRT to a well-established image of the enemy. [...] including the conspiracy theory that Marxism is a plot by Jewish cosmopolitans to convince non-Whites to overthrow White civilization., etc., etc. MrOllie (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand there's a way to interpret that chain of quotes as referring to Lindsay. However, unless he is explicitly mentioned by the source, it becomes an inference and therefore violates WP:SYNTH. Please adhere to the policy which states: do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. XMcan (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly not a SYNTH problem, and the source does explicitly state the conclusion. Remember, we are required to summarize and paraphrase. MrOllie (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entire paper is focused on examining what it says books that exhibit multiple traits of conspiracy theory; its conclusion is clear that part of those is the conspiracy theory that Marxism is a plot by Jewish cosmopolitans to convince non-Whites to overthrow White civilization. Likewise, the description of how and why these authors are focused on in that paper makes it clear they are ones who are promoting the conspiracy theory in question. It's a paraphrase of what the article, as a whole, plainly says. Also, I'm baffled that you removed this particular source, and no other, as well as an in-text attributed citation to the SPLC; those are the best sources we have - it is well-established that the SPLC can be cited with attribution and is often WP:DUE; that doesn't mean we must cite it, but it is certainly not a clear-cut BLP violation to do so, nor is it synthesis given that all the cited sources for that aspect are discussing the conspiracy theory in direct relation to Lindsay in order to establish why it matters. If you believe tweaks to the wording would better-summarize the sources, go ahead, but this is well-cited and summarizes the given sources to the point where it's not in the realm of a clear WP:BLP violation. If you disagree you can take it to WP:BLPN or even WP:AE if you think people have been violating policy by reverting you (though a rough nose-count of this discussion shows a rough consensus to include anyway, in my opinion), but otherwise, it'd make more sense to suggest alternative summaries rather than remove one of our better sources entirely or just repeatedly insist that you disagree on how to summarize it without suggesting any alternatives. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion, the text you added is WP:UNDUE. This article is about Lindsay. Attempting to reframe and redefine what CMCT is doesn’t belong here. Also, using antisemitism and Nazi references is a clear example of guilt by association (WP:BLPBALANCE). You are welcome to cite the Weigel source for statements it explicitly makes, but it does not explicitly state that Lindsay promotes CMCT. Without consensus, any further attempts to reinsert the cite and the text is a WP:BLPUNDEL violation. Of course, even without consensus, you and MrOllie are free to pursue this matter via appropriate noticeboards. Although I would suggest seeking a compromise, for example, using a SPLC quote and attributing it as the LA Times [6] does. XMcan (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Lindsay and the other authors studies in the paper promote the Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory is the main topic of the Weigel source. This is plainly a relevant source and attempts to improperly apply BLP like this are highly disruptive. A peer-reviewed source like this one is exactly what we are all supposed to be looking for and adding to the article. MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do the subjects of the articles about Lindsey say on the subject? One of the big problems with how CMCT is covered with respect to antisemitism is there seems to be a common use that doesn't include the anti-Semitic aspect. This was something I found when I last posted here [7]. Previously I found that the Heritage Foundation has a definition of CM that doesn't include the antiemetic aspects. If nothing else that would mean that someone who adopts that version of the idea many not be using it with all these other negative connotations. I also found that the Antisemitism Policy Trust notes, "It is often used, without antisemitic intention, to describe liberals, progressive movements and others." For this reason we need to be careful in creating a guilt by association implication if that isn't clearly in the sources tying a BLP to a concept. BTW, even when using a peer reviewed source, if we are using such a source for a narrow, specific claim we really should look to see if they provide ample justification for such a claim. Especially since this is a BLP in a contentious topic area. XMacn, rather than reverting editors, I would suggest creating a RfC on this material. The problem with reverting is, even if you are correct, when enough editors decide they don't like what you are doing it may end up in you getting sanctioned. Springee (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One positive aspect about Aquillion is their effort in discovering new sources that could potentially enhance the quality of this article. I hope other editors would adopt this approach instead of defending poorly sourced text and arguing against the core WP policies. Here are some pertinent quotes from WP:BLP:
  • Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.
  • The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.
  • To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material.
  • Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
  • Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources.
Emphasis mine. XMcan (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYBLP is also good reading. MrOllie (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Policy > guideline > essay!? XMcan (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just by a quick nose-count, there's a consensus here to restore the deleted material (two-to-one in favor of restoration.) Both Weigel and Current Affairs refer to Lindsay as pushing the conspiracy theory of Cultural Marxism, in a context in which they are unambiguously framing it as a conspiracy theory and clearly intended for that to apply to Lindsay. I understand that you personally don't read it that way because their explanation is spread over multiple paragraphs, but WP:SATISFY applies here; in the face of so many editors who clearly read these sources as supporting the text, you cannot simply repeat that you don't see it over and over. If you think more people might see things your way you could always raise the issue on WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN, but otherwise there's not much left to discuss; to me, the source I added clearly ends this discussion and answers all reasonable objections. --Aquillion (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion, I oppose restoration, so we don't have a two-to-one "consensus". Sounds more like 2-2 to me. Current Affairs is itself a Marxist publication, so it's no surprise it would vilify a critic of Marxism and culturally-applied Marxism. Using a Current Affairs opinion to state a fact in Wikivoice here is a clear BLP vio. Please provide the passages where Weigel states that Lindsay has pushed the "conspiracy theory of Cultural Marxism". Jweiss11 (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you have overlooked Viriditas and ValarianB, who weighed in above; if you think it's ambiguous whether they support this particular iteration of the text, we can always ping them and anyone else who weighed in here, but it seems obvious to me that the overall consensus leans towards inclusion in some form. Likewise, as I explained above, Weigel clearly discusses Cultural Marxism in the context of it being a conspiracy theory, and plainly discusses Lindsay in the context of people who promoted it. Parsing that down to the sentence we have is not synthesis, it is paraphrasing. (Also, as I pointed out, the main thrust of your most recent edit was removing the part of the definition of Cultural Marxism that we attribute to the SPLC and to remove Weigel entirely as a source, neither of which make much sense as BLP concerns. If you object to using Jacobin or Current Affairs unattributed as a source, why did you remove the other sources instead?) --Aquillion (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made that reversion because with I think the way Weigel is being used is tenuous and synthy. The problem is layered in many, many edits. That Linsday's critique of cultural Marxism is an antisemitic conspiracy theory is the opinion of various Marxists (who have a political incentive to delegitimize such criticism) and activists orgs like the SPLC with a history of defaming people like Lindsay. That we are using these opinions to state facts in WikiVoice remains a blatant BLP violation. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors watching this talk page will find this ANI thread relevant. MrOllie (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a courtesy ping, so please feel free to ignore it. I'm reaching out to ALL editors who participated in the preceding Antisemitism Insinuation discussion. Currently, there is an attempt to reintroduce content [8][9][10] that was previously discussed and removed by consensus.[11] I'm reaching out to Loksmythe, Springee, Hob Gadling, and skipping those already participating in the ongoing discussion. XMcan (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind summarizing what is the issue at hand. This does appear somewhat similar to the previous discussion I participated in. As a general rule I think we should be careful about giving too much weight to biased sources when they are providing a contentious description of a BLP. That said, in skimming the discussion I'm not sure what is the specific material in contention. Would it be better to simply agree on a RfC then let others join in to decide? Springee (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many problems, Springee, but let’s focus on the most glaring one, which is also the easiest to explain. If you take a look at this diff, Aquillion is attempting to insert into this BLP a new alternative mini-definition of what CMCT is (independent of the actual definition in the CMCT article). Moreover, they tag on another sentence that creates a false impression that Lindsay is antisemitic, something that no RS claims, including L’s SPLC profile. Just to spice it up, they've added a mention of Nazis, presumably to link Lindsay to them as well. I strongly oppose this on WP:BLP and WP:DUE grounds. Jweiss11 and I have each deleted this content once, while Aquillion and MrOllie have (re)added it 3 times, so twice against WP:BLPUNDEL and without consensus. XMcan (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a consensus on the Weigle cite is yet to be ascertained [12], I support this Pgayed's edit [13], which emphasizes the misuse of the phrase known for. Lindsay is known for the grievance studies affair, which garnered widespread national and international press coverage. There are no mainstream news sources linking him to FSCT. Therefore, asserting in wikivoice that he is known for promoting something that is “a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory” appears UNDUE and not BLPBALANCED, as it equates mainstream press (NYT, WSJ, WaPo, The Atlantic) with less reputable sources. XMcan (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]
    Easily fixed, we can simply change 'He is also known for promoting' to 'He has promoted' - MrOllie (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be an improvement to which I wouldn't object. XMcan (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLP template tags and bio information[edit]

Jweiss11 has already concisely explained why the removal of the criticism of postmodernism tags was inappropriate. [14] Around the same time, HEB also removed all references to cultural critic from the BLP template.[15][16] Lindsay is a critic of religion (with three books on atheism) and postmodernism (with a bestseller book on the subject). He is best known for exposing and criticizing low peer-review standards in academia. "Cultural critic" serves as an accurate and apt summary of these aspects of his oeuvre.

To address the more recent and more controversial aspects of Lindsay’s notability (or notoriety, if you prefer), we can now refer to the November 2023 LA Times article, which describes Lindsay as a conservative influencer. (Credit to Aquillion for bringing this RS to our attention.)

"Author, cultural critic, and conservative influencer" encapsulates all aspects of Lindsay’s notability, spanning both non-controversial and controversial, scholastic and political. If others prefer terms like "conservative commentator" or "conservative podcaster" instead of "conservative influencer," I have seen these and other labels applied to him in recent publications, although not in sources as reputable as the WP:LATIMES.

Additionally, I have (re)set Lindsay’s date of birth to June 8, 1979. This time, we are sourcing the information from his Ph.D. thesis Vita instead of the tweet that Valereee removed.[17]

While reading the Vita, I noticed we have an error in his academic bio. He holds a BS in physics, not mathematics (his MSci and PhD are in math). This is now corrected. XMcan (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservative influencer" is clearly appropriate, but I'm not seeing the sources calling him a "cultural critic", and I'm skeptical that he's notable enough as a critic of postmodernism to put it in the template or to include the infobox - it's not mentioned anywhere in the article and doesn't seem to be mentioned in the sources. It seems to me like he mentioned postmodernism in passing as a bête noire but that was extremely common for conservative influencers in that era, who used it as a catchall for things they disagreed with. It wasn't the main thrust of what he was saying, which means it isn't reflected in the sourcing or coverage, which in turn means it doesn't really have a place in the article; he has no notability under that role, as can be seen from the lack of sourcing supporting it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"cultural critic" has been in the article for a long time, but I'm not seeing it as useful or well-sourced. A non-exhaustive search did not turn up coverage in reliable sources that describes him in those terms. I'd support removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An additional reason to support Jweiss11's point for keeping the CoP box and tags is that Lindsay is best known for the Grievance Studies affair. If you look in the CoP box, you will see it featured there. XMcan (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My contention is that cultural critic is a summary of already established and listed interests, which, if necessary, can also be cited to Newsweek, as well as to multiple conservative sources, e.g., The Post Millennial.
An alternative is scholar (The Atlantic, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal), or even mathematician (New York Magazine).
At the moment, I am leaning toward "author, scholar, and cultural critic" for the lede per Viriditas' concern that "conservative influencer" is pejorative. Of course, we could keep the current descriptor "author," but on its own, that is so generic and nondescript. Author of what -- children's novels, cookbooks, fan fiction? XMcan (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have at least one mainstream RS for each descriptor, can other editors chime in so we can move toward consensus? XMcan (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through recent news articles and they overwhelmingly use 'author' (as do Lindsay's self-written bios, though that matters less), so we should stick with that. 'Author' and 'Scholar' overlap and so are largely redundant, and scholar is much less used. Cultural critic is used by almost no one. MrOllie (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be beneficial if editors could include links to new articles they’ve found. If there is an overwhelming number of them, a few exemplary ones will suffice. XMcan (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should also consider the negative use of "influencer", as it has become rapidly pejorative over the last year or so, whereas before, it was seen as something almost legitimate or reputable. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you are aware that this is a BLP yet you are restoring challenged text without fulfilling the requirements for doing so? Can you explain that? Also note that if none of the sources say it then it can't be a summary, it can only be original synthesis or analysis which are prohibited per WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if your contentions are true — and that’s far from certain — your wholesale reversal that deleted DOB and other key biographical information is clearly inappropriate. Additionally, you reverted Firefangledfeathers' contrib without explanation. That being said, you are welcome to participate in this discussion if you can contribute constructively. XMcan (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is innaproriate is calling it vandalism... And edit warring on a BLP Horse Eye's Back (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve again blanked out the DOB on a BLP, which answers your own question. I’ve promised Valereee I won’t do repeat reverts over the same content, so I’m backing off and letting others decide what to do with your indiscriminate deletions. Additionally, I'd like to remind you that you have been advised to moderate your tone and behavior in a recent ANI. XMcan (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't actually, I advise you to actually read WP:BLP... Specifically: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." such as the description of the subject as a "cultural critic" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I don't see the DOB in the link you gave. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The DOB is on the last page of the dissertation. It would be better to change all the dissertation citations to refer directly to the pdf version available on that page (this url). The DOB citation could specify the page number (93). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My word it is actually in there... Well there's a first time for everything (I've never seen a DOB in a thesis before) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd. Would you be ok with my restoring the DOB and fixing up the citations? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went for it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry we got on the wrong foot here, Horse Eye's Back. I see now that you made an honest mistake, and I hope you continue to participate in discussions on this BLP. XMcan (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic[edit]

I've added notices. If we need to add revert or consensus required restrictions to this page, we can, but honestly I still can't figure out why none of you has taken this to NPOVN or BLPN. Valereee (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, I agree that we need a formal method to resolve this dispute, and I am considering following Springee’s advice to utilize the RfC format. But first, we need to do something about Pokerplayer513 and their disregard for the basic BRD cycle. Their first attempt to insert SPLC cite has been reverted here. Right afterwards, they re-inserted it in a different place but under identical context.[18] When that was reverted, they reinserted it again with an incorrect summary claiming their original cite had in-line atrib.[19] I have discussed SPLC extensively in the Talk and suggested particular quotes to use, yet Pokerplayer has not posted a single comment in Talk. To make the matter worse, they have reinserted disputed edits from other editors, against a clear BLUNDEL warning to seek consensus first.[20] This is why before any formal dispute resolution process, we need this BLP placed under a "consensus required" page restriction. In addition, Pokerplayer513 should be asked to self-revert the two vio edits or face sanctions. XMcan (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XMcan apologies. I assumed the SPLC was more neutral/moderate than Jacobin or Current Affairs and since it was saying something similar to the current citations then it would be ok. That's why I made my first edit. When you removed it I was confused as to why, but I figured it was because it was in the lede so I moved it to the conspiracy theory section. I didn't include an attribution because Jacobin and Current Affairs didn't and again, I thought it was more moderate/centrist/neutral than the other two so I didn't think it was necessary.
"When that was reverted, they reinserted it again with an incorrect summary claiming their original cite had in-line atrib.[21]" - XMcan
It did have a in-line attribution, but you deleted it on the previous edit. I suppose I could have done a full revert, but I figured just adding back the citation would be a compromise since I wasn't sure why you deleted the text in the first place considering the other sources do not "attempt to reframe and redefine CMCT" and the Weigel source does "explicitly say Lindsay promotes CMCT" and I said in my original edit. Weigel explicitly says "Most of his rhetoric focuses on the specter of cultural Marxism...". Further the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page says "Conspiracy theories claim that an elite of Marxist theorists and Frankfurt School intellectuals are subverting Western society" which is almost the exact same as the text you deleted from @Aquillion which said "...the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory which alleges a concerted effort by Marxist critical theorists to undermine Western civilization using Marxism." Those mean basically the same thing in this case.
That being said, even though the CMCT article mentions antisemitism throughout, I can see why it isn't necessary to mention here. I'll make the appropriate changes.
If there's something I misunderstood then please clarify for me. How is CMCT being redefined on Lindsay's page since it's the same as on the CMCT page and how does Weigel's article not say Lindsay promotes CMCT? Also, I haven't posted to the talk page because I put my justification in the edit summary. It seemed like you hadn't read the citation before deleting it so I thought a simple edit summary would suffice. I await your reply. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit represents a relative improvement over the previous version, but I still believe we should refrain from appending to the original sentence while we continue to debate whether sources support the FSCT link.
That being said, let me highlight areas where we seem to agree. If CMCT were defined as the notion of a "concerted effort by Marxist critical theorists to undermine Western civilization using Marxism," then I would concur with you, and I would have no issue with the statement that L promotes CMCT. However, that is not how Wikipedia defines it. According to Wikipedia, CMCT is synonymous with the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, which is described as a "far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness." Do you see the distinction? Jweiss11 can correct me if I am misinterpreting his views, but both he and I are asserting that the latter characterization is a misrepresentation of L's views, and there is no support in reliable sources that L promotes FSCT or anything antisemitic. (Even Lindsay's SPLC profile does not mention anything about antisemitism or the Frankfurt School.) This is why I suggest that instead of linking him to FSCT/CMCT, we follow the approach of the LA Times and simply atrib and quote from SPLC that L promotes "conspiracy theories about the supposed communist takeover of the world." Can we agree on that?
Another factor to consider is that the term "cultural Marxism" has different connotations depending on whom you ask. To some, it refers to FSCT, while according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which presumably reflects common usage, it denotes something different. I don’t want to debate who is right and who is wrong; I’m simply pointing out that different people attribute different meanings to the term. XMcan (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If CMCT were defined as... then I would concur with you, and I would have no issue with the statement that L promotes CMCT. However, that is not how Wikipedia defines it. According to Wikipedia, CMCT is..." - XMcan
It seems like the main issue you have XMcan is over the definition of Cultural Marxism which isn't something that should be decided on Lindsay's page. I see the distinction you are making and I think the CMCT page goes into depth on those distinctions in a way that Lindsay's page can't and shouldn't. I think removing references to antisemitism from Lindsay's page makes sense if it's contentious and if it isn't a very notable part of Lindsay's public persona (but maybe it is, I don't know), I don't think the LA Times/SPLC quote would be an improvement either as it doesn't give it a broader context. Also, Cultural Marxism does vary in meaning and I think the CMCT page goes into those variations as well. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion and MrOllie, what would you say are the two highest quality sources for “Lindsay has promoted the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory”? If Weigel is considered the top one, which would you regard as the second best in your estimations? XMcan (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Both Aquillion and MrOllie seem to have chosen not to respond to the previous question, likely due to their ongoing contributions elsewhere. The ANI hasn't facilitated a resolution; instead, it has stirred up further controversy. It appears that you (and perhaps Novem Linguae) are the only sysops willing to mediate this content dispute. Therefore, I propose to you the following path forward:
  1. I will write an RfC for the Weigel source. After about two weeks or so, it would be preferable if Valereee could write the closing summary. You're already somewhat familiar with the issues, and you haven't taken a side, neither here nor in the CMCT Talk. (I don't consider my p-block from CMCT Talk as you taking a side; my final acts there were made in frustration, and that wasn't cool).
  2. Before initiating the Weigel RfC, it's crucial to establish a consensus-required restriction on this article, at least for sources. Since I raised concerns about the quality of BLPSOURCES weeks ago, questionable cites have been (re)added without a clear consensus, violating BLPUNDEL and arguably in an effort to substitute quality with the quantity of OVERCITE. [22][23][24][25]
  3. In accordance with BLUNDEL, the CMCT sentence needs to be reset to its state before the disputed citations and text were added. The Weigel RfC and potential follow-up RfCs will determine whether the disputed material is reinstated.
Does this proposed plan sound reasonable to you, and are you willing to monitor its implementation? XMcan (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think maybe a consensus-required restriction for sources would be helpful here, but I'd like to hear from @Aquillion and @MrOllie on that, too. Valereee (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very concerned about the potential for folks to claim 'no consensus' and force RFCs for every added source as a means to stonewall. In my view we are already seeing indications that that would happen on this talk page, between the repeated argument that sources labeled as 'marxist' in the opinion of a Wikipedia editor are inherently unreliable, or the WP:CRYBLP-style statements that obviously well-cited content must be removed because a minority disagrees. We should not create a situation where obviously on-topic, peer-reviewed sources are subjected to an arbitrary 30 day hold (the standard RFC running time) while RFCs are run because one or two people object to normal editing. I am also concerned by the suggestion that a closer for an RFC would be pre-selected by the person opening that RFC, a principle that would seem to be game-able for obvious reasons. MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody is SQS stalling here, it is MrOllie. First with the ANI, then not responding to a simple question above, and now by attempting to derail the RfC plan that would lead to a clear outcome.
If anybody has concerns about V’s impartiality, let them speak plainly. V has been moderating our dispute from the start, and there is no reason to change this – unless V doesn’t want to be involved with all our drama anymore, for which I wouldn’t blame them. XMcan (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we can settle this with an RFC, I will happily start one. I would phrase it something like "Should the article state that Lindsay is known for promoting the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory?"
But I do not agree to any special conditions for such an RFC. No preconditions about special restrictions. No unusual runtimes. No selecting a closer in advance. No removing things while the RFC runs - we stick with the status quo as it is now.
What say you? MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought my 3-step plan above was a reasonable compromise. Should I have insisted that both CMCT links be deleted from the BLP first, so that you and Aquillion can start a 30-day RfC about re-including them? Because that is my reading of BLPUNDEL and BLPRS regarding contentious material that is poorly sourced.
Given that Weigle alone is 21 pages long, your plan to have editors consider five, or however many, OVERCITE sources at once would certainly waste their time and might discourage many from participating. I have offered to write an RfC focused on what you have repeatedly identified as the best source. If Weigle passes muster, I don’t intend to waste my time or yours by RfCing lesser sources. XMcan (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasting the community's time would be holding redundant RFCs. If you think the statement needs to be removed, we can hold a single RFC on the statement. But a plan that would involve us holding RFC after RFC for months is not going to work. MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I don't think that there's any reasonable way to interpret an attempt to remove the Weigel source entirely as being reasonable; it's the best source available and is obviously superior to the ones already in the article. As I said above, I feel that if you disagree with the way it's being summarized, the best alternative would be to propose an alternative summary yourself. If you think that it is somehow entirely unreliable, you could take it to WP:RSN, but I don't think you've really made that argument. From my perspective, though, this discussion is essentially over at this point - you wanted better sources; I found one and added it; and there was a general consensus backing both that use of the source and the general version, even if you refuse to accept it. At that point WP:SATISFY applies, especially given that you've repeatedly failed to articulate any alternative summaries of the source in question or provide any other sources that might point to other formulations. To exclude a source entirely, you need a rationale that it's unusable, not just your personal disagreement with how it is summarized. And, in case it needs to be said, I obviously wouldn't support removing it for the full course of an RFC; it has clear consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags[edit]

Maintenance tags themselves need consensus, and it is apparent that the 'Better source needed' does not have it. If anything, it seems that the opinion of most who have commented on these sources is that RSOPINION does not apply - and the fact that a couple of editors disagree is no reason to keep a tag up indefinately. MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly true, but I have an altogether different take and interpretation based on my own personal experience. Maintenance tags need discussion. If the use of a maintenance tag has already been discussed and consensus has been found to remove it, then it should not be added back. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JRE #4[edit]

Are we really going to keep arguing about this after this latest conspiracy theory JRE upload? Lindsay just went full conspiracy theorist (never go full conspiracy theorist), waxing poetic with Joe about Chinese trans plots to subvert America. Can we please stop pretending Lindsay isn't the number one conspiracy theorist on the right? I don't want to link to it here, but the relevant clip was just posted to r/DecodingTheGurus. Quote from the podcast: "The Chinese are like funding the trans stuff. They're like...pushing it. I just wrote a book...called The Queering of the American Child that talks about how schools have been turned into indoctrination centers. It all goes back, to the not just Marxist, but Maoist strategy to make the world conform, that politics of compliance, to make the world conform to this new ideological vision that they have." Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't do Original Research even when it seems frustratingly obvious what is going on. It is frustrating that News outlets generally don't bother to cover these things events (Just try being British and watching our media completely ignore dangerous extremism when it comes from "respectable" upper middle class authors while performatively wringing their hands over the alleged "extremism" of peaceful protesters!) but we still need Reliable Sources before we can cover anything. We certainly can't use a phrase like "the number one conspiracy theorist", besides that might be seen as a badge of honour and a challenge to other conspiracy theorists to up their game. The only thing I can suggest is to keep an eye out for coverage in Reliable Sources that can be used and then follow those. At least the article is protected now so valid coverage can't be so easily removed. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is my first day. Lindsay's quote points to his book, so the sources should mention it. Viriditas (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_A._Lindsay&oldid=1214623512"