Talk:James A. Lindsay

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

I have twice reverted this edit which takes "wokeness" out of quotations and refers to "Cultural Marxism" as if it is real. I think that both of these changes are misguided. "Wokeness" needs to be in quotes because the "wokeness" being invoked here is not actual wokeness (an AAVE term) but the far-right's straw man version of it. If we really don't like using quote marks (and I'm not sure why) then there might be some other way to do it but surely that would be more complicated for no additional benefit. Replacing "conspiracy theories" with "concepts" seems to soft pedal what is being said. In particular it has the effect of hiding the nature of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory behind the redirect, although the redirect itself is not new. Now, I'm not saying that that was the intention. Probably this is all just misguided rather than intentionally misleading. I do see the argument about repetition but we need to find a wording that is explicit that both the things listed are conspiracy theories. We either need to keep it as it is or we need to use the the full name of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article to make it explicit what it is. In both cases these are fairly longstanding elements of the article text and hence form a status quo position that should not be changed without good reason. So, are there any good reasons to change it and, if so, how can we change it in a way that avoids these problems? DanielRigal (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support edits by User:DanielRigal based on the above explanation. Editors are re-litigating the same argument, over and over again on this page (look above). We need to take a roll call, demonstrate a consensus and implement a stable version to prevent this from being a daily occurrence. Otherwise, we need page protection. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• I honestly don’t know why this is a topic for the talk page at all.

Wokeness is an established term and long-standing concept, hence it has an Wikipedia article. There is simply no need to put it in quotation marks as if it were a made-up term.

My intention with removing conspiracy theory was simply that it appears twice in one sentence. There might be other ways to phrase this better though.

Both changes change absolutely nothing as far as content is concerned. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The quotes around "wokeness" are understandable because the source cited consistently puts quotes around "woke". It's common practice to put quotes around a neologism when introducing it. However, I take exception with DanielRigal's reasoning above about the word. The AAVE usage is no more legitimate than the pejorative usage applied to criticize the political left. It's not a straw-man, nor is it used only by the far-right. While it surely gets used sloppily by many on the right, the term is used by mainstream conservatives, centrists/moderates, liberals, and even some leftists to target aspects of leftist political ideology that are truly regressive and illiberal, like the idea that all white people are intrinsically and uniquely racist, or the notion that it's impossible to be racist against a white person. The article would be better served by not relying on loaded neologisms like "woke", but rather substantively detailing Lindsay's criticism of the political left, mostly prominently in books like Cynical Theories and Race Marxism.

DasallmächtigeJ brings up a good point about the repetition of the word "conspiracy" in the final sentence of the lead. However, this point of style is subordinate to a greater problem here, one that I've raised more than once before, that the article is relying on opinion pieces from leftist (in same cases overtly Marxist) sources and the SPLC (which has a recent history of defaming figures similar to Lindsay, like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) to label Lindsay a conspiracy theorist in Wikivoice. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think SPLC has any such history, but I am curious about who at the organization made the decision to accuse Nawaz of being an "anti-Muslim extremist". That was a very costly decision for them. As for Ali, they retracted that accusation as well. Organizations are not perfect and make mistakes. I've noticed in conservative cultural circles, admitting a mistake is looked down upon as a sign of weakness, but in liberal circles it's considered a sign of strength. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, the Nawaz and Ali defamations did happen; that's the history that been settled legally. I don't think this is the only instance such misconduct by the SPLC. I think they're doing the same sort of thing with Lindsay. And there other examples. I personally consider admitting mistakes to be a virtue, but it's usually more virtuous when you so before the weight of a multi-million dollar lawsuit is thrust upon you. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Ali didn't sue and they removed the page. The SPLC has been accused of "defaming figures" for a long time. 99% of the allegations are baseless. Nawaz and Ali were only the two most recent incidents, and it didn't help that Nawaz and Ali were both taking right-wing positions in various areas (Nawaz was even leaning towards defending Trump in several areas). This possibly contributed to the confusion, I don't know, but the confusion is even greater lately, with Ali coming out as a new Christian and turning her back on atheism. This sounds remarkably familiar. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

When merely taking a right-wing position or being a Christian gets you confused with Neo-Nazis and similar extremists, we have a problem. The SPLC seems have that sort of problem at its core. I find Ali's adoption of Christianity lame and pathetic from an intellectual leadership standpoint (I saw her discuss this in person with Richard Dawkins in May), but it doesn't make her an extremist. It just makes her about a weak as the average person. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Ali becoming a Christian or being religious. I have a problem with her stated reason for doing so because the reason makes zero sense and indicates that she philosophically backslides into her previous beliefs, using them to make the same justifications she originally protested against. In other words, Islamism and Christian Nationalism are essentially identical. I see this kind of thing a lot with people who swing from one extreme to another, so it always makes me sad. Pretty much the same thing could be said for Nawaz, who went from one extreme to the next. I don't know how or why SPLC thought any of this was "anti-muslim", so that's just a mistake on their part. I do agree that over many centuries, Christianity has undergone reform and secularization, which, depending on how you look at it, has either integrated into democratic society or helped encourage some aspects of pluralism. Most atheists disagree with this position, but I think there are some minor aspects to it that are true. But it also needs to be said that there has been a lot of push-back and opposition to modernity by Christianity, so this argument tends to fall apart when you look at how much effort has been undertaken by Christians to backslide into pre-enlightenment territory. That's not to say there aren't various aspects of liberal and progressive Christianity that take democratic and secular forms, but this has been overtaken by conservative Christianity in recent years. Lindsay, in fact, argues that liberal values are destroying conservative Christianity. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The SPLC's defamation of Ali and Nawaz happed long before the ideological shifts you reference occurred with either of them. It happened because they both were critical of Islam and violent acts motivated by Islamic belief. The SPLC has made similar, although less prominently-placed, libel against Sam Harris for the same reason: https://www.splcenter.org/20180419/mcinnes-molyneux-and-4chan-investigating-pathways-alt-right#race-realism. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Harris has gotten himself into some hot water with the things he has said. He's also, like Nawaz and Ali, swung from one extreme to the other, becoming more of what people are calling a "religious personality" these days. While this shift started with Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality without Religion, he and his wife have clearly gone much deeper, and his mentors, like Joseph Goldstein, who I respect and admire, has been very squirrely on the topic of religious beliefs like "rebirth" and other religious ideas. Same thing happened to Michael Shermer, who went from atheist to skeptic, to climate denier, and now is flirting with the alt right, and whose interviews with fringe figures and conspiracy theorists has gone into Joe Rogan territory. This also saddens me, as I like many of Shermer's ideas. So there's clearly a pattern here, of swings from one extreme to the next, instead of a pattern of moderation and staying in the center. I don't think you're going to like this answer, but it's what is happening, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

That summation of Sam Harris is detached from reality. It’s also totally orthogonal to the reliability of the SPLC, which is the topic germane to this article’s integrity. But I suppose I should not be surprised to hear this sort of alternate reality opinion. At any rate, we (really you) are straying out bounds here (again). Jweiss11 (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I was quoting conservative rabbi David Wolpe who told Lex Fridman that Harris was "in some deep way, a religious personality." Is he wrong? Where is the "detached from reality" bit? Hint: there is none. It sounds like you aren't familiar with this argument. It's extremely old, and it was first popularized to a larger audience by Stanford professor Frederic Spiegelberg (1897–1994) in 1948, but if I understand the history, he had been talking about it for some time in the 1930s, particularly with his young friend Alan Watts, who would much later spread Spiegelberg's idea in the late 1960s. Jeffrey Kripal summarizes the idea in Spiegelberg's bio. If you read it closely, it sounds like he's describing Sam Harris. This is not an alternative reality, this is an established idea. If you think "religion" or being "religious" comes down to which church, synagogue, or mosque one belongs to, then you're not paying attention. Given your deep and abiding interest in football, this might interest you: it is said that the holiest religious holiday in the United States is Super Bowl Sunday. This idea was popularized by religious professor Joseph L. Price. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Can you provide any evidence that Shermer denies global warming? Here is an article that states the precise opposite of your claim. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This is off-topic, so I responded in the page history. If you wish to continue this subject, you may want to consider Reddit, where it is actively discussed on r/skeptic. Thanks for your understanding. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

James Lindsay has been very vocal over the last few months about the "woke right" meaning factions of the right-wing movement mainly the far-right who, in Lindsay's view, have been using identity politics by calling things "anti-white" or thinking that Jewish people control everything in the same way leftists think that white people control everything, also this page is a slander. James is a centre-right person he's not promoting "far-right conspiracy theories" Redsky1200 (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this article mischaracterizes Lindsay in a defamatory manner. Has there been any coverage of Lindsay's commentary on the "woke right"? Jweiss11 (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

With respect to the "woke right", this has been covered by Unheard and VOX so there is likely WEIGTH for inclusion. Springee (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

There's also this from the Deseret News: published earlier this month. Here's an archive link to the Vox article that Springee provided above: Jweiss11 (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Biggest problem with this page is that it states as facts the opinions of opponents - much of this page needs an addition of "Group X claims that..."Dejvid (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Give examples. You folks keep saying that, and when we look into it, there's nothing there. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Another source on Lindsay and the "woke right", from The Economist; https://archive.ph/SAFa2. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Sorry, this is completely unacceptable. "Wokeness", however you want to define it, is not "extremism", nor is Lindsay "fighting" extremism on the right. This might be a good edit if you live in Hungary, North Korea, China, or in Florida, but it not acceptable for Wikipedia. It is wrong, it is false, and it is a lie. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Please justify your rationale for adding propaganda and disinformation to Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Three reliable sources have reported this. I've cited them. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

We apparently are at odds with the meaning of a reliable source and the correct way of adding content to Wikipedia. You added a link to a bizarre piece (almost hallucinatory and stream of consciousness) at Unherd, a right-wing site which appears flagged on the Global Disinformation Index for its anti-trans position. Doesn't sound that reliable to me. You then posted a link to the Deseret News, a right wing site owned by the LDS church. That particular article was written by a GOP activist. You posted a link to Vox, which correctly and accurately framed the topic as Lindsay "attacking his enemies as the 'woke right'" which is completely different than the framing of the content that you added, which means you misused the source. You also posted a link to New Discourses, which can be safely discarded as nonsense, as always. You added content to the lead section that says "Since 2022, Lindsay has criticized right-wing extremist movements, which he calls the 'woke right'", whose framing asserts that Lindsay is not a right-wing extremist but a critic, which is not supported by any reliable source. This is doublespeak, a hallmark of right-wing discourse. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, I reject all your assertions here. I think your arguments are not really in touch with the reality of the subject matter; we've covered this before. The Deseret News is a 175-year-old newspaper, one of the oldest newspapers in the American west. As for the Vox piece, it describes Lindsay as a critic of many on the right including white nationalists. I think we can agree that white nationalists are right-wing extremists. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I know you reject my assertions about reality having a liberal bias. That's why we are discussing your right-wing additions again, which I reverted and you added back to the lead. This is what Vox wrote in the article you cited:

The first fight is really a struggle over who should determine the philosophical identity of MAGA, pitting a group of anti-woke writers against a wide group of illiberal or post-liberal figures. The lead figure in the anti-woke camp, the prominent pundit James Lindsay, has been attacking his enemies as the "woke right" for months. In his mind, this group's emphasis on the importance of religion, national identity, and ethnicity is the mirror image of the left/s identity politics — and thus an existential threat both to American freedom and the MAGA movement’s success.

That is completely different than the material you added:

Since 2022, Lindsay has criticized right-wing extremist movements, which he calls the "woke right."

The former says Lindsay is attacking his enemies; the latter says he is criticizing the extreme right-wing. This is doublespeak. Lindsay is part of the extreme right wing. He is not attacking himself. MAGA is a coalition of disparate political interest groups that work together to achieve their conservative goals in the same way that the Council for National Policy is a coalition of different religions that work together to achieve conservative goals. Saying that Linsday is going after right-wing extremists not only makes no sense, it's not what Vox said. Vox made it clear that this is a civil war within MAGA, not outside of it. Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that reality has a liberal bias. What reality doesn't have is a leftist (i.e. left of liberal) bias. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "leftist" bias canard. Like clockwork. Leftist bias in a country whose major opposition party to Republicans is center-right. A country whose media is owned by billionaires and coprorations. A country that doesn't have universal health care or universal education, pensions, or worker's rights. A country whose unions have almost no power. A country that has two political parties that have no single piece of legislation or policy authored by leftists or passed by leftists. A country whose Supreme Court has no "leftist" to speak of on their court. A country where "leftism" only exists as a bugbear to scare centrists about the myth of capital flight. Is that the kind of leftism you are referring to here? Yes it is, the mythos of American leftism that only exists as a brick to hit the public on the head with whenever they demand a government that represents people rather than corporations. But back on target...

For those of us outside of the MAGA moment, and those of us who have studied it closely, we do not buy the sanewashing from the right that MAGA is mainstream or populist or the sanewashing that Lindsay is attacking right wing extremists. We can clearly see that MAGA meets the definition for right-wing extremism at every level of the group. That right wing and corporate sources have whitewashed this designation for almost a decade does not go unnoticed, and you are contributing to that discourse with your edits. MAGA is a right-wing extremist movement. Lindsay isn't attacking himself or criticizing it. In fact, Lindsay has spent the better part of the last several years promoting right-wing extremism, including the very ideas he says he is attacking. This is doublespeak. Your edits aren't supported by reliable sources. They should be removed or modified based on the above. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems like something that would be reasonable to add. I think it could be integrated better but we really shouldn't just include all the negative things people who appear to be opposed to Lindsay say without including anything that goes in the other direction. A good reason for this is it adds some understanding to the person's motives. Too often wiki articles read like all who are support right of center ideas (or left of center) are doing it because the idea is left/right. Take FIRE (or even the old ACLU) as an example of an organization that ends up on both sides of the right left fence because they are advocates of free speech. In this case it's clear that Lindsay is concerned about cancel culture etc. In the 80s that was the domain of the religious right. Recently it has been the domain of some on the left. However, as some on the right are doing the same it makes sense that Lindsay may call them out as well. I'm not certain it should be in the lead but it should be in the article. The lead shouldn't be written in a way that makes this inclusion in the body contradict the lead. This has been covered by Reason and perhaps by The Economist (paywalled) and Times of Israel (blog so probably not an acceptable source) . It does seem that this is something about Lindsay that should be covered.

As an aside, it's fine to criticize a change but "might be a good edit [in] North Korea" etc is over the top and borderline uncivil. Springee (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I was considering reverting that edit but I was also considering other options as there is something to cover here. First up, it adds a topic to the lead that isn't in the body at all. That's no good. Also it frames the matter incorrectly as "criticized right-wing extremist movements" when the truth is that this is a falling out within the far-right. My thought is to move the content down into an appropriate place in the article, drop the Unherd and New Discourses sources as those are not RS, and to reframe it as "Lindsay has criticized other right-wing figures, who he refers to as the "woke right."" I think "extremists" has to go as it is not at all clear which side is the more extreme. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

OK. I have done that. I changed criticised to "clashed with". I think that's about the correct level of coverage it deserves but if anybody wants to add a second sentence then maybe that would be OK. Let's not go overboard though. This is just some internecine right-wing bickering. It's not a proper schism in MAGA, like the Epstein stuff is. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

DanielRigal, moving this stuff of the lead isn't unreasonable, but you've mischaracterized what's going on here. Of course much of this mischaracterization is resting upon a huge misunderstanding of Lindsay, as this article is written from a far-left perspective. Lindsay here is making same sorts of criticisms of the far-right that he has in the past made of the far-left. Has there been any discussion anywhere on Wikipedia about the reliability of UnHerd. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

DanielRigal's version is a better summary of the cited sources, which are writing about this as conservatives attacking each other, not criticism of extremists. Vox even says Lindsay is 'attacking his enemies'. Unherd has been brought up at WP:RSN and has not been received well there, best leave it out here. MrOllie (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I recently reverted changes that were clearly trying to cast doubt on Lindsay's claim that he was previously a Democrat or that he volunteered for Obama. These changes that I reverted were almost entirely a change to tone. I want to remind all editors is that our personal feelings about Mr. Lindsay are rather irrelevant here. We aren't Rationalwiki and we should avoid that irreverent tone here on Wikipedia. Whatever we may think of Mr. Lindsay's ideological trajectory from the Sokal Squared incident onward, whatever we my think of the overall ideological trajectory of the New Atheist movement, its complex relationship with Islamophobia and Misogyny, regardless of all that, this is a BLP article about a living person and should be written as such. And this means we can report statements about his past opinions and affiliations per WP:ABOUTSELF even if his public persona is diametrically opposed. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree, but it's not just about tone. It is about letting the facts speak even when they don't fit what some might expect. It's not even a particularly astonishing claim. There are plenty of well documented cases of people who made genuine dramatic shifts in their political views in various directions. Are there some who fake it? Yes, I'm sure that there are. It can be effective political rhetoric to claim to be a convert from the other camp, whether you actually were or not. Still, we have no evidence that this is the case here. We are not investigative journalists and it is not for us to go digging. Unless any Reliable Sources have called this into doubt it is not our job to look for doubt. If there is anything to be found then I'm sure that somebody else will find it eventually but most likely there isn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I mean, for what it's worth, I agree with you. My point was simply that, regardless of other matters, we should maintain an encyclopedic tone and that includes accepting, at face value, statements about past (no longer held) ideological commitments unless there is, to your point, a compelling reference suggesting any reason to doubt this. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)