This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political / Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Philosophy of religion Atheism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century. Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Socialism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Soviet Union Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 2015. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in Germany may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

None of the references indicate that Jordan Peterson discusses Cultural Marxism, and should be removed. He does like to talk about postmodernism, but then those references should be in the postmodernism wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiquark ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I've adjusted the wording of the page, but raiding a Wikipedia page because it mentions JBP unfavorably is particularly childish - even moreso that the copy wasn't adjusted and simply deleted instead of discussing. Thank you for starting this talk panel.

Mishmoo ( talk) 23:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:FOC & WP:BLP - Ryk72 ^talk 02:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply

If "Postmodern Neo-Marxism" is merely another term for "Cultural Bolshevism" you will have to find a reference that states that. Otherwise, you're doing original research. Antiquark ( talk) 23:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply

All I have to connect it to is Cultural Marxism, since that's explicitly what the paragraph JBP is in, is about. I'll add the citation.

Mishmoo ( talk) 23:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply

4 out of 5 references don't link Cultural Marxism to postmodern neo-Marxism.

• The #9 reference has no mention of Cultural Marxism/Bolshevism or postmodern neo-Marxism : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkNzYttjSHE
• The #10 reference has no mention of postmodern neo-Marxism : https://psmag.com/education/jordan-peterson-sliding-toward-fascism
• The #11 reference has no mention of Cultural Marxism/Bolshevism : https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/26/17144166/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life
• the #12 reference has no mention of postmodern neo-Marxism : https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/04/08/jordan-peterson-beating-pundits-own-game-217773

Antiquark ( talk) 23:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply

This appears to be classic WP:SYNTH. I've again removed the content as poorly sourced or unsourced material about a living person. The sources simply do not mention the subject of this article, Cultural Bolshevism, in connection with Peterson. Per WP:BLPDELETE, it should not be restored without consensus. Additionally, this much material about a single person, in an article this short, seems WP:UNDUE/ unbalanced. This article is also about a term used during the first half of the 20th century, so inclusion of this material reads like a classic WP:COATRACK; particularly as it appears on in the lead, with no mention in the body. - Ryk72 ^talk 02:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Not sure if this is relevant for wiki's standards Ryk72, but this article has been linked to on the jordan peterson reddit and his fans are actively seeking out to edit unflattering references to him, including Antiquark: https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/kkq9yr/wiki_page_on_cultural_bolshevism_associates/

FWIW, it seems clear to me that it is correct to include references to Peterson using this theory. Getting hung up on the specifics of the name misses the point of the shared content of the theory. The review of Peterson's book in the NYRB specifically draws out this connection: https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19/jordan-peterson-and-fascist-mysticism/

User:JCTullos, why did you revert User:Ryk72's edit? Ryk72 provided the following reasons for removing Peterson from the intro: WP:SYNTH, WP:BLPDELETE, WP:UNDUE/ unbalanced, and WP:COATRACK. Please describe why these reasons are inadequate for Ryk72's edit. Antiquark ( talk) 00:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Having read the whole of Pankaj Mishra's piece in the NY Review of Books, it does not mention either "Cultural Bolshevism" or "Cultural Marxism", far less say that the latter is frequently referenced by Peterson. In addition to the issues previously raised, the content that we have in the article fails WP:V. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

That's interesting, Antiquark is also the user name of a moderator of the Jordan Peterson subreddit. 220.235.229.181 ( talk)

Because JP frequently brings up Cultural Bolshevism/Marxism in his books and lectures. The source I linked showcased this and if that isn't enough here are other sources backing it up: ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}

Other pages on Wikipedia also bring up Peterson's repeated use of the term ^{[5] [6]}

If it's good enough for those pages, it should be good enough for this one. JCTullos ( talk) 02:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Are there any sources that aren't opinion columns? Are there any sources which don't trace solely back to this YouTube video - where "Cultural Marxism" appears only in the title, and which is published not by Peterson, but by the Epoch Times? Are there any sources which directly support the statement JP frequently brings up Cultural Bolshevism/Marxism in his books and lectures? Was the Google search to find these sources "Jordan Peterson cultural Marxism" or was it "cultural Marxism Jordan Peterson"? Looking for sources to fit a predetermined viewpoint is a terrible way to write a Wikipedia article; it leads to POV garbage. Other stuff exists is not a good argument - If it's not good enough for this page, maybe it's not good enough elsewhere. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

And are there any sources whose primary topic is Cultural Bolshevism, the term as used by the Nazis, which mention Peterson? If not, WP:UNDUE WP:COATRACK. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

All of those sources link to Peterson talking on the subject of Cultural Marxism, usually with direct quotes, and this very page mentions that CM is the modern form of Cultural Bolshevism. And again, other pages on this very website make it clear that Peterson likes to bring it up. If that's still not enough, here's videos of lectures and interviews where he talks about it at least briefly. ^{[1] [2]}

And here's more articles: ^{[3] [4]}

Just because its unflattering does not make it untrue, the only reason this argument over whether JP deserves to be on this page came up is because his fans raided it. If you want to clean it up that's fine but leaving out pertinent information is asinine. The man likes to bring up the Cultural Marxism/Bolshevism conspiracy theory, there's no denying it. JCTullos ( talk) 17:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Are there any sources which are not opinion columns? Sources link to Peterson talking on the subject of Cultural Marxism appears unsupported by those sources - particularly if "Cultural Marxism" means Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. The sources link to a YouTube video which has "Cultural Marxism" as part of the title; but Peterson does not use the term, does not advocate or discuss the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and the video is not published by Peterson. Usually with direct quotes is not supported by a review of those sources. While he rails against Marxism & post-Modernism in equal measure, there aren't any quotes in those linked sources of Peterson advocating for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Videos of lectures and interviews where he talks about it at least briefly is also false. In only one of those videos does the Frankfurt School get even a mention, and Peterson explicitly rejects the CMct. And none of this addresses the undue, coatrack issues. Sources which primarily discuss the term Cultural Bolshevism (Kulturbolschewismus) do not mention Peterson. - Ryk72 ^talk 05:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC) reply

You're going to have to take this up with the editors on the main Jordan Peterson page then, because this is all fine for them and I'm trying to keep everything uniform. ^{[1] [2]}

JCTullos ( talk) 18:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC) reply

That's not how Wikipedia works. Even if this content were supported by reliable, non opinion, sources (and it's not); we don't include the same content in different articles - we include content which is germane to the article subject. This article is about the term "Cultural Bolshevism" (Kulturbolschewismus). Sources which primarily discuss that term do not mention Peterson. Even the sources which do mention Peterson & "Cultural Marxism" (not "Cultural Bolshevism") together, broadly speaking, do not discuss it as a conspiracy theory. This is SYNTH upon SYNTH and is wildly UNDUE. - Ryk72 ^talk 06:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• This looks like an UNDUE coatrack. The article focuses on something the Nazi's did and how they used the term/related activities. For some reason the lead has an unrelated "Cultural Marxism" which is hardly supported in the body of the article and again looks like a coatrack. To Peterson, this raises a question of reciprocity of weight. Just because subject A mentions B doesn't mean A is due for inclusion in article B. That Peterson uses this term doesn't tell us anything about this term or what the Nazi's were doing with it. The list of sources supports the view that this simply isn't due. Many are opinions or are sources that include strong opinions in their writings. Sources like Jacobian don't make clear distinctions and aren't good sources when deciding if a topic is DUE. This question of DUE is particurally important since this isn't an article about Peterson rather it's an article about something from the past and we are discussing shoehorning criticism of Peterson into this article because he is using a modernized version of an older term. Springee ( talk) 02:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Stating the following is nice.

Cultural Bolshevism (German: Kulturbolschewismus), sometimes referred to specifically as "art Bolshevism" or "music Bolshevism",[1] was a term widely used by critics in Nazi Germany to denounce modernist movements in the arts, particularly when seeking to discredit more nihilistic forms of expression.

However, it does not say if the criticism was justified and whether this was actually propaganda. Was it? -- JamesPoulson ( talk) 05:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I think that is implied. Readers can make up their own mind if this was justified.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 19:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Cultural Bolshevism was a derogatory term used by right-wing Germans to describe what is commonly known today as the Weimar culture. The term Weimar culture does not refer to all culture under the Weimar republic, but rather to the modernist cultural avant-garde that emerged in 1920s Germany. It is bit misleading to describe modernist culture as Weimar culture, but that is the term is generally used. It is true that the Nazis did use that term "cultural Bolshevism" to describe Weimar culture, but this article is being rather misleading in giving the impression that it was only the Nazis that used that term. I know the rules about the OR, but for those inclined, The Weimar Republic Sourcebook (Los Angeles, 1994) edited by Anton Kaes, Martin Jay, and Edward Dimendberg, is a very huge book that contains translations of all sorts of writings from the Weimar era. It is almost certainly the best source on that subject in English. There is a chapter about conservatism in the Weimar era, and anyone reading the selection of writings in that chapter cannot be struck by how often that term "cultural Bolshevism" gets used. That chapter has the transcript of a speech given in October 1932 by the Chancellor, Franz von Papen, an extremely right-wing Catholic politician who was not a Nazi, through he was certainly willing to work with the Nazis to achieve his goals. Papen goes on at much length in that speech about the evils of "cultural Bolshevism" and about how Germany needs to go back to the proper conservative, Christian values under his leadership. That term "cultural Bolshevism" was actually used by the German right in general to describe Weimar culture.

This is almost certainly not intentional, but there is an unfortunate tendency around here to break up German history into two boxes with the völkisch language and ideas in one box and language and ideas of everybody else in another box. This gives the misleading impression that völkisch ideas were rejected by everybody else. That is not the case at all. It is very more correct to speak of a continuum with the völkisch ideas at the extreme right of the continuum. Take one of the key Nazi concepts, namely that of the volksgemeinschaft (the people's community) as an example. The idea of creating the volksgemeinschaft was one of the core Nazi ideas, but that was not just a Nazi idea. Ironically, the concept of the volksgemeinschaft was actually coined by a Social Democrat, which the völkisch people then took over and put their own peculiar racist spin on it. In the same speech by Franz von Papen in The Weimar Republic Sourcebook that I just mentioned, he talks quite a bit about creating the volksgemeinschaft, through to be fair, Papen's idea of what the volksgemeinschaft should be like was a bit different from the Nazi version, through in both versions there was to be no place for "cultural Bolshevism".

Not just the Nazis, but German conservatives in general preferred the Russian terms Bolshevik and Bolshevism to describe Communists and Communism as a way of emphasizing the supposed "unGerman" nature of these people's ideas. And in the same way calling Weimar culture "cultural Bolshevism" was a way to say that Weimar culture was not real German culture. This article would benefit by bringing that in. This is probably not intentional, but at present this article gives the very misleading impression that it was only the Nazis who objected to Weimar culture, which was not the case at all. For many conservative middle-class Germans, the new culture that emerged in the 1920s caused much angst as it felt that Weimar culture was "disgusting" and "sick", a sign of decay and decline. The same thing happened in other nations like France, Britain and the United States at the precisely the same time, but the key differences was that those nations were the victors of World War One and did not experience a revolution. Losing World War One, which was promptly followed up by the November Revolution that toppled the monarchy were deeply traumatic events for the conservative German middle classes whom felt that everything they loved and respected was being swept away. And for people in that frame of mind, the new culture of the 1920s was an additional trauma and threat, which helps to explain the intense, visceral reaction to "cultural Bolshevism", which was more ferocious than anything experienced in France, the UK and the United States during the same period. That is no doubt the reason why the Nazis kept banging on about the evils of "cultural Bolshevism", which is something that the article would benefit from by mentioning. -- A.S. Brown ( talk) 06:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC) reply

We need to elaborate, as per some topics in the discussion above. Zezen ( talk) 08:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The discussion above notwithstanding, there is a good case to merge this article with Art in Nazi Germany and Cultural Marxism as a WP:CFORK. At the moment, it adds nothing. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 09:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 20:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply

This restoration was done due to the offending editor Sennalen having been caught performing a similar tactic on a more well known page (Culture Studies), attempting to merge Marxist cultural analysis with Culture studies. The user seems intent on vandalizing the topic area, and deleting pages via mergers. 220.235.229.181 ( talk) 06:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC) reply

1. There was no "offending" or "tactic"
2. The procedure of WP:MERGEPROP was followed to the letter
3. All the content is present and contextualized at Degenerate art, not "vandalized"

Sennalen ( talk) 14:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC) reply

As you've been involved with similar attempts to get rid of pages over at Marxist Cultural Analysis, the correct action would be to conduct a proper RfC. 220.235.229.181 ( talk) 01:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, how long your change went unnoticed doesn't matter, because the page isn't heavily watched. So in this case, longevity does not equate to legitimacy. If it were a highly active/monitored talk page and a merge with people OTHER THAN YOU involved, then longevity might reflect an ongoing consensus, but it does not. 220.235.229.181 ( talk) 01:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Besides having a vendetta against me, do you have a reason this should remain a stand-alone page rather than a section of Degenerate art? Sennalen ( talk) 02:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Because they're different concepts, degenerate art is not necessarily Cultural Bolshevism, and vice versa, and I'm not sure why you're claiming them as synonyms (culture and art are after all, also two greatly separate concepts). By your logic degenerate art could just be merged into modern art [27] - but again, they're not the same concepts. In fact, if you read the first line of the article, it mentions Cultural Bolshevism as also consisting of: "art Bolshevism, music Bolshevism or sexual Bolshevism" - so are you now saying sex is art? I mean you may THINK I have a vendetta against you (although I don't know why, you've never done anything against me as a person), but in actual fact, you do just merge and cut away what does not fit your new conception. This is damaging vandalism, and not the building of an encyclopedia. You may not realize that you do this, or think that's what you're doing. But it is evident in moments like this.

If anything, I'd say it's you, who has a vendetta against this topic area, hence your multiple attempts to minimize it and secret it away. 220.235.229.181 ( talk) 05:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. "Degenerate art" and "cultural Bolshevism" are closely related as Weimar perjoratives for modern art. It better serves the reader to have them together than apart. Cultural Bolshevism could indeed be merged into modern art, or Art in Nazi Germany, or be a standalone page, but merging into Degenerate art was the Goldilocks solution. If you think I cut out something important, WP:FIXIT on Degenerate art. Sennalen ( talk) 12:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm not opposed to Degenerate art having a snippet, summary or section about Cultural Bolshevism. My unmerger didn't involve removing anything from Degenerate art, that was done by another editor. At any rate, sexual Bolshevism, and music Bolsheivism, aren't readily digestible as forms of "degenerate art" - so I disagree with your opinion on what serves the reader... and we are here to WP:BUILDWP an encyclopedia that serves the reader. 220.253.3.32 ( talk) 09:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Didn't notice this was merged until now. I'd tend to agree that I'm opposed to merging it; the term has sufficient coverage to support an independent article (something that was affirmed by stronger consensuses in both an AFD and another requested merge above), especially coverage that connects it to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory in a way that doesn't make sense as on Degenerate art. I'd also somewhat question merging it with a consensus based entirely on WP:SILENCE when there's a clear and significantly stronger consensus that this should be its own article above. Normally, in a situation like that, the thing to do would be to seek additional comments, not to proceed with the merge. While of course a consensus can change, reversing a strong consensus based on "nobody objected this time" is probably something better-off avoided. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  An article can exist based on current sourcing, but that doesn't mean it should. It's short, lacking context, and the presence of this material at Degenerate art improves that page. The strong consensus you point to is from 2015 and concerns specifically merging to "Cultural Marxism" which is a contentious topic in itself. After the cultural warriors moved on, all the comments from 2019 on have a theme: too short, needs context, could be merged to Art in Nazi Germany. That's a slow-moving consensus to merge in principle. Sennalen ( talk) 12:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  Pinging all prior talk page participants in case they wish to offer a fresh opinion on the merge of Cultural Bolshevism into Degenerate art. For those who haven't been following along, I performed the merge last August. An IP has recently objected on procedural grounds. @ Antiquark: @ Mishmoo: @ Ryk72: @ JCTullos: @ Springee: @ Jobrot: @ Maunus: @ Jack Upland: @ Beyond My Ken: @ Raquel Baranow: @ Finnusertop: @ Ceosad: @ Wowaconia: @ Connor Machiavelli: @ JamesPoulson: @ A.S. Brown: @ Zezen: @ Brigade Piron: @ Emir of Wikipedia: Sennalen ( talk) 13:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  Cultural Bolshevism is a larger concept than Degenerate Art.

  It also involves the Natsoc conspiracy theory akin to today's Cultural Marxism which claims that some kind of subtle revolution is being stirred through the cultural medium. JamesPoulson ( talk) 11:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose the ,erger and approve of the unmerger. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 15:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  Any reason? Sennalen ( talk) 16:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Oppose the merger and approve of the unmerger. Yes, "Cultural Bolshevism" and "Degenerate art" are both NAZI rhetorical tropes, and there is a zone where they overlap. But they are not in fact coterminous in scope, nor is one a subset of the other, and the nature of each rhetoric is distinct (the role antisemitism plays in each being quite different, for example). It therefore seems more encyclopaedic to treat each in its own article, and I have seen no policy-compliant reason given why they should be combined into one.

(Also, while I have edited this article before I seem not to have participated in prior discussion here on Talk; it might be worth checking the article history in case other editors are in the same situation, and could be productively notified of this discussion.) Newimpartial ( talk) 23:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Signs point to the contrary. The first documented use of "Kulturbolschewismus" was about French expressionism undermining German voelkisch values. The later more common uses are mostly about precisely the same art, music, and architecture called "degenerate": particularly Bauhaus and Dada. One of the precursors of the famous Entartete Kunst exhibition was an exhibit simply titled "Kulturbolshewismus". The Berlin exhibition divided works into 9 categories, of which 4 had to do with Bolshevism. Degenerate art is incomplete without a section on Cultural Bolshevism. If it stands that the copied content is removed from Degenerate art, then a new section will have to be written to replace it. Meanwhile, there is nothing currently at Cultural Bolshevism that does not fit at Degenerate art. There has historically been efforts to coatrack more about Jordan Peterson. That was thankfully curtailed, but evidence of that history is still betrayed by the fact that the bulk of sourcing here is taken from sources about Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory instead of genuine scholarship on the Weimar period. There is nothing more the article could really say on the topic of Cultural Bolshevism that wouldn't fit the topic of Degenerate art. There is however potential for future abuse and coatracking, which I suspect motivates some editors to want to preserve a page by this name. Sennalen ( talk) 16:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Couldn't your desire to merge - also be seen as a form of coatracking into degenerate art though? That claim at least has more evidence than your fear of an imagined future coatracking occurring here - and in fact, this page has been fairly stable for multiple years now (evidence opposing your fear). So I don't think your efforts here are as justified as you're perceiving them to be. 220.253.3.32 ( talk) 09:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Oppose merge Related but distinct topics can benefit from separate articles; I think that applies here. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Oppose merger: these are two distinct topics.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Oppose merge Art is part of culture, culture is the larger context for art. Also, Hitler was making other accusations about culture, and other groups have had their own versions or references to degenerate art, or cultural marxism/bolshevism. Keeping the article keeps that clarity. 194.223.44.220 ( talk) 04:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply