Wikipedians refuse to provide me with a copy of the deleted "Draft:Cultural_Marxism" page
Interesting. But no problem. We simply write our own.
Up until the original Wikipedia article was rediscovered, I was going to recommend using Kellner's essay (linked in the sources) as the basis for our approach. Even with the current text available, it's worth re-reading Kellner as he provides the quintessential leftist presentation of the ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnate (talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
A redirect to the Frankfurt School is not appropriate as there is considerably more to Cultural Marxism than that. Wikipedia has buried and deleted its Cultural Marxism page, so let's make this a stellar and objective one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenris (talk • contribs) 13:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Critiqued by military theorist William S. Lind, who may have coined the term "cultural Marxism".
- Identified with Political Correctness.
- Uses the divide and conquer strategy of Marxism.
Retrieved a copy of the old page
If it's any help, I have parked a copy of some version of the old page at User:OldCaliber/test
It can be used either to harvest text or to check what it looked like. It is based on a version from the Wayback machine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldCaliber (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Way ahead of you. I've just restored it based on the Jan 2013 copy from the Wayback Machine. All the typos and stuff were preserved, but I had to recreate all the markup and citations. The citation list is probably better than it used to be. Iris ensata (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Oopsie daisy. Some logic from the Wiki link above- It does not seem right to accept contributions to a page, delete it, and then provide copies without attribution. One way to fix: provide the attributions to Infogalactica, since they're acknowledging a duty to the original contributors. The Law of Salvage applies- the (common, in this case) property is abandoned but the specific obligations are not. Rectified (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Restored copy from 2014-01
To be more specific about my restoration, I specifically chose to duplicate the archived copy from 2014-01-02 - I got the year wrong in my prior comments, sorry. Since I actually don't know anything about this topic, I simply selected the latest version that seems to predate a massive amount of rewriting. An alternative that I also considered was 2011-09-27, which is objectively the one closest to the halfway point of the article's existence. However, even though it has more citations, it's filled with tags asking for improvement.
Also, I would like to point out that there are other ways of obtaining older versions of articles even after deletion, since you can just get an older database dump of Wikipedia.