What about this article is biased?

I cannot judge if it's biased (in the way meant in this thread), but there is a rather weird statement right in the first section, "Factors that affect decisions":

> In psychology, the parental investment theory suggests that basic differences between males and females in parental investment have great adaptive significance and lead to gender differences in mating propensities and preferences.[10]

First, the reference is to a text book. That's not good. Second, the theory is not not widely accepted, and did receive criticism. It's certainly not an established fact. Third, the statement's prominent place, and lack of further qualification, suggests that human parents should take care of the amount care men and women invest in parenting, but that's not at all what the theory is about. The article linked explains that very clearly.

Why it was placed there is a mystery, but it's not been a neutral, well-informed edit.

> Second, the theory is not not widely accepted, and did receive criticism.

Then contribute a link to that criticism? AFAIK that's the normal policy on widely criticized statements that are still popular enough that they should be mentioned.

One example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_th..., which is about a term called "Cultural Marxism" which has been used by some mainstream right-leaning people as well as some right-leaning extremists (particularly in the past). If you look at the article itself, it titles this article as a "conspiracy theory" and specifically features the conspiracy theory version of "Cultural Marxism" in its opening sentences. However, the term as commonly used in modern times, does not refer to that particular conspiracy theory but is more like a shorthand for leftist ideology that features collectivism, particularly when it infiltrates academic institutions (and not the notion of a coordinated mass conspiracy).

From a quick Google search, I was able to find other articles that draw this distinction clearly (example https://spectator.us/whats-wrong-cultural-marxism/). However, the Wikipedia article doesn't draw this distinction well, and it seems intent on casting the phrase "Cultural Marxism" as racist, and so it features the worst interpretation of it. It sources articles that are also written primarily to repudiate right-wing political figures or intellectuals like Jordan Peterson. The related debate and edit wars are apparent when you look at the "Talk" page for this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspira.... Note that the Talk page mentions the article is controversial, is in dispute, that there have been attempts to recruit editors to change the article, there have been circular sources introduced, and so forth.

That's just one example, but if you dig deep enough into any topic that has a left- and right- perspective and a Wikipedia article, you'll find the same. Wikipedia is, in my view, developing a US-centric English-centric left-leaning bias. All that said, I still love Wikipedia and will continue to use it everyday. I just worry that like all human-centric institutions, it is itself a target, a theater of battle in the on-going ideological wars.

It's interesting to contrast that with the article on Neoliberalism.

Both are terms that are generally used to disparage views of others. Except for the new 'Neoliberal' clique who are centre left most people described as Neoliberals don't describe themselves that way. Just as what many right of centre would term as 'Cultural Marxists' wouldn't describe themselves that way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

I'm not a fan of the label 'neoliberalism' (outside of IR theory where it's well-defined and different) and think it's often a marker for poor quality partisan analysis, but the fact is it's simply prepending a 'neo' in front of the well established and broad classical liberal school of thought to distinguish it from the colloquial US use of 'liberal' to mean 'left wing'. And most of the people referred to wouldn't argue with the idea their ideas are in the ideological tradition of Adam Smith, even as they take great issue with some of the nonsense written about their motives and ideals and argue a label so broad that the entire EU political project and most of its opponents falls into it isn't particularly useful for understanding politics or economics.

That's quite different from referring to the other side of a debate on sexuality as 'Cultural Marxism', despite Marx having had zero interest in sexuality, many self-proclaimed Marxist states having conservative policies on it and few people on that side of the debate having any interest in Marx. At best, you could argue right wingers describing their culture war opponents as Marxists are trying to invoke the spirit of Joe McCarthy rather than Lyndon LaRouche's ridiculous Frankfurt School conspiracy theory and literal Nazi origins of the term.

My feeling is that "neoliberalism" is a term with a greater degree of academic formality behind it, as well as consensus in terms of definition. I don't think it was originally pejorative, although it has come to be used as an insult, in the same way "Boomer" has. The term "Cultural Marxists" is probably pejorative to those it targets, although I've seen its use as a shorthand for a collection of ideas the right finds disagreeable, rather than a pejorative. It's a term that feels self-describing and immediately obvious to those who use it, but it does not have an academic foundation like "neoliberal" does. And its definition has varied over time, which is the cause of the current lack of consensus on what it refers to. As a result, each political side I think uses the definition that most favors their own ideological bias.

The article about the conspiracy theory has a disambiguating note pointing to "Marxist cultural analysis" as a more common term for the non-conspiratorial use of "Cultural Marxism". The remaining question is whether the conspiratorial use is significant/common enough that it deserves to be treated as the "default", and that's an editorial question that could be argued from either side. It's an uncomfortable situation to be sure, but there's no blatant political bias here.

Check the sources cited in this particular sentence:

Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact and is not based on any actual intellectual tendency.[5][7]

I'm not sure what your point is. That sentence is entirely correct with reference to the conspiracy theory - there's no actual conspiracy or "intellectual tendency" to conspire along the posited lines. Marxist cultural analysis is a rather different animal; to be sure, there are genuinely weird interactions between it and e.g. radical Maoist politics/worldviews which push some proponents of either towards an ideological extreme that's somewhat reminiscent of the 'Cultural Marxist' claims ("Destroy the Four Olds!") - but even then, that's a random/contingent political equilibrium; not a willful conspiracy or even a well-defined "intellectual tendency".

I think the point is that these articles don't prove anything of the kind. The first one "examines the ways in which Cultural Marxism has moved from the ‘fringe’ to the ‘mainstream’", paying "particular attention to the localised use of the conspiracy in the ‘Safe Schools’ controversy of 2016–2017, whereby Cultural Marxist tropes were imbued with local concerns about sexuality and gender issues". The second one "argues that “Cultural Marxism” is an antisemitic conspiracy theory", focusing "on three of the main proponents", and shows that it "misrepresents the Frankfurt School’s ideas and influence", the latter not being obvious from a quick reading.