User talk:Leej12255

Welcome!

Hi Leej12255! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

More focused response needed

I undid the reversion of your critique because I didn't agree that it is contrary to our policy wp:Wikipedia is not a forum. I won't be terribly surprised if it is deleted again. This is not to say that your criticism is without merit, but just that you haven't yet learned how Wikipedia works. Rather than write what is essentially a blog post, it is better to be very focused and specific and be prepared to edit the article directly. So check out the tags template:better source and template:not in citation given. See also the procedure wp:bold, revert, discuss: it is legitimate to revert a controversial change pending discussion. Indeed prospective edits that are likely to be disputed should be debated in the talk page first, since it is unseemly to hold wp:edit wars in main space. Welcome! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman has already covered the big points but I wanted to add an important one: don’t edit your own wikipedia page again. We have a rather extensive conflict of interest policy which can be found at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, I would recommend familiarizing yourself with it if you intend to have a successful editing career. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to pre-empt a misunderstanding, you may of course contribute to the talk page about yourself, for example to point out items that you believe are inaccurate and can provide a neutral, disinterested, third-party wp:reliable source that supports the correction that you consider should be made. The backstop is wp:Biography of living persons: it is an important tenet of Wikipedia that no assertions may be made about a living person without a reliably sourced citation. You may request (via WP:ANI) that a libellous statement be deleted but not a report of an unflattering comment made by a reliable source. See policies WP:REDACT for I don't like it; WP:REVDEL for libel; WP:Oversight for outing or doxing or anything more serious. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

You're somewhat correct about Peterson.

But completely wrong about the nature of Cultural Marxism. It is a conspiracy theory, and YOU specifically, don't understand the nature of Wikipedia when it comes to WP:FRINGE theories. Cultural Marxism is NOT a critique of Critical Theory. It's a long established, right-wing narrative about how and why Critical Theory was developed, and the extent that "Plan" was completed.

The reality is that Critical Theory was developed by academics, specifically academics effected by WW2 (The Frankfurt School, and The Birmingham School). It was created, as a way to analyze Capitalism's effect ON culture and humanity. That is the general gist of it. The true account.

The Conspiracy Theory has it that The Frankfurt School (who never used the term "Cultural Marxism" or called themselves "Cultural Marxists") are Cultural Marxists who aimed to infiltrate America for the Soviet Union. The claim is that they were so successful they could control the sexuality of people on television (See William S. Lind), another claim is that Adorno's music was an attempt to induce mass-necrophilia.

When it comes to Cultural Marxism, Wikipedia will ALWAYS choose academics in fields closely related to Critical Theory as the experts that make up reliable bodies of work on the subject. Wikipedia will never see this long standing right wing conspiracy narrative as legitimate. Because it's not.

I believe you're correct about Peterson, and I've raised that issue previously (and had it deleted). But the right wing Conspiracy Theory of "Cultural Marxism" has been debunked to death. Go look for debunks on youtube - there's many. 110.174.125.43 (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)