Jump to content

Talk:Cargo cult

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conflict Noted[edit]

I have not edited the article, because I don't know where the truth lies, but the following sentences seem to be in conflict.

"continuously growing since World War II" "over the last seventy-five years most cargo cults have petered out."

It is probably technically possible for them both to be true depending on what exactly they are claiming to measure, but it looks like different people passing their own guesses off as fact to me.


The Tupolev Tu-4[edit]

There were three planes that had to land in Russia. Two were used to discover their performance characteristics and one was completely dismantled for reverse engineering to build duplicates.

That one happened to have a patch from repair of earlier battle damage. Only the first Tu-4 had that repair duplicated. Russian aeronautical engineers weren't _that_ dumb. There were some differences between the B29 and Tu-4, most notably in the thickness of the outer skin. The B29's skin was all the same thickness. Due to aluminum being in shorter supply in Russia, the skin on the Tu-4 varied in thickness, only matching the B29 where it was riveted to structural members. It was thinner between the structural supports.

As for why the repaired damage was duplicated on the first Tu-4, I've heard that a likely reason was the men doing the project feared that any visible discrepancy could mean at best the loss of their jobs or at worst their lives. I also heard somewhere that it could've been a bit of a joke, to see if the project's government inspectors would notice what should obviously be seen as a patch.

Would people _please_ leave this section deleted in the article? It is one of the most implausible theories I've seen on wiki, with absolutely no evidence cited or implied.The preceding unsigned comment was added by 34.173.92.238 (talk • contribs) .

Lead is super unhelpful[edit]

A person with no familiarity with cargo cults would not be too illuminated by the lead here. The section theoretically complicating the term is poorly-written and grammatically unclear—and also probably not really duly weighted for inclusion in the lead at all, let alone taking up >50% of it. The intro to the Britannica article on the topic is a good example of a helpful lead. Isthistwisted (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the lede could be better worded. It does however reflect what the academic sources we cite in the article have to say on the subject, unlike the unsourced nonsense you tried to replace it with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Girl don’t get snippy with me Isthistwisted (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“It should be written in a clear, accessible style” Isthistwisted (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, feel free to propose a new lede that accurately reflects the article content, in such a style. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You like it, hoss? Isthistwisted (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is still exceptionally academic and inaccessible. It needs to be simplified and clearly explain the origin of the term. Then later, by all means go deep into the anthropology and get technical. Carllottery (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it’s lead not lede 2603:8001:7800:23C3:912D:DB61:A20:25E2 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context[edit]

It's hilarious the extent this article has been rewritten to ensure that no one can actually tell what a cargo cult was and how people use the term.
GPT-4o does a 50x better job:
A cargo cult is a social movement that arises when a less technologically advanced society encounters a more technologically advanced one and attempts to imitate the behaviors and practices of the latter, often in the belief that doing so will bring them similar material wealth ("cargo").
History of the Term:
The term originated during and after World War II in the South Pacific.
Indigenous Melanesian people observed the wealth and supplies (cargo) brought by Western military forces.
After the war, they tried to recreate the conditions they believed would bring back the cargo, building mock airstrips, planes, and military-style structures.
The term "cargo cult" was later used more broadly to describe any group or practice that imitates the outward form of something without understanding its underlying principles. 207.96.123.224 (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you want bullshit-bot regurgitation of third-hand just-so-stories 'cargo-cult' narratives paraphrased from ill-informed mass media, ChatGPT will do a splendid job. Wikipedia however has a policy against using factually incorrect computer-generated garbage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term "cargo cult" hasn't been erased, but if it has, that's good, because as the article makes clear, the science says it should be erased. 2600:8801:BE12:6E00:306F:B513:EEE6:AB93 (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with criticizing how the term is commonly used, but this common definition needs to be provided before it can be criticized. The current article fails to do that. 73.186.114.128 (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the current article reads like a GTP prompt, just a different one. It is sorely lacking in context. It seems you are emphasizing the inappropriateness of the "traditional" explanation/description of cargo cults. The literature offered in support of the article is consistent with this position, so it seems to be the best current understanding. However, the term itself is relevant because it reflect the chauvinistic misunderstanding, and therefore it is important that the underlying reality is, in fact, distinct from that term. The term doesn't suddenly become a discrete and reified entity just because researchers have learned earlier understandings were wrong. The first line of the article "Caucasian race" is "The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, Europid, or Europoid) is an obsolete racial classification of humans based on a now-disproven theory of biological race." The article doesn't discuss only population demography based on current understanding; it acknowledges the problematic origin of the term. I'm not suggesting something similar for this article, but it seems the inclusion of some discussion of the analogous problematic history merits acknowledgment. Kenton M (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be all for rewriting the article to cover this newer approach, but we need sources which cover those things, and that's what has been lacking so far. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish this article was just a redirect to the excellent Open encyclopedia of anthropology article on the topic, which is really balanced about describing what "cargo cults" actually are. Ideally the article should be reworked to be closer to that article, though not to the point of basically just rephrasing it entirely. I think Peter Worsley's 1957 definition of cargo cults:

strange religious movements in the South Pacific [that appeared] during the last few decades. In these movements, a prophet announces the imminence of the end of the world in a cataclysm which will destroy everything. Then the ancestors will return, or God, or some other liberating power, will appear, bringing all the goods the people desire, and ushering in a reign of eternal bliss

which is widely used in discussions regarding this topic, probably should be included somewhere. There are genuine commonalities with regard to some of the "cargo cult" movements, and perhaps the current article goes to far in the "cargo cult is a meaningless term" direction. (Full disclosure, I wrote the lead as it currently stands). Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem that I and a lot of other people have with the article is that if you're having a conversation with someone and they mention the term "cargo cult", and you go to Wikipedia to try to learn what they mean by that, you'll be completely lost. I totally understand that the actual social/religious movements are more complicated than the layperson's understanding, but I think there's room for expansion here.
Adding a sentence like "the term is based on the now-debunked theory that the departure of major powers from the Pacific theater after World War II led the native Melanesians to ritually mimic the actions of soldiers in an attempt to lure back the planes and ships carrying 'cargo' to the islands." could give the common definition while also noting that it's not accurate to our current understanding. Jokertyf (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 'theory' didn't need debunking. It wasn't even a theory. It was nothing but pop-cult facts-wrong story-telling. In this regard, our 'current understanding' differs in nuance only from that of the anthroplogists who first document these events (starting many decades earlier, it should be noted). At no time did academic sources support the patronising, and frankly sometimes racist, metaphor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fine, "mistaken idea" instead of "now-debunked theory". The point I'm trying to make is, this article needs something in the intro saying how the term is used in common parlance. It may be an incorrect understanding, but when the common meaning differs from the academic one, that is something that absolutely belongs in the article. Jokertyf (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For that, we need a source. One that doesn't merely repeat the 'mistaken idea' as truthful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
look, you wrote that it's understood to mean something it is not. Not only is that a lie, it's not supported by sources Demigord (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the point of the article is to avoid describing the "mistaken" pop-culture version of the term as fact, it does a bad job of this considering that the Postwar developments section refers explicitly to islanders "mimicking the day-to-day activities" of soldiers and building "life-size replicas of airplanes out of straw," etc, citing sources from the 50s-60s. PenguiN42 (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll echo @Kenton M. It reads just like a GPT with a "but make it sound like a grad student wrote it".
It really does read like an academic *in training* wrote it. Even if you're writing for a journal, you still want to make it clear, simple, and concise.
Get to the origin of the term immediately. Then jump off from there, debate the relevance etc later. Carllottery (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Wikipedia gods abhor anyone interested in editing the article “cargo cult” and have devised a severe punishment: editing the article “cargo cult” 2605:A601:A862:A200:3026:C662:9564:8EEC (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sure we can all dial it back. Why doesn’t someone try rewriting the lead? Zanahary 20:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term "cargo cult" is vague and confusing. That's the whole locus of this dispute. There's no way write about cargo cults that doesn't get at the fact that the term is poorly defined. The confusion draws from the fundamental issues of the term, not the way the lead section of this article is written. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because you will be reverted Demigord (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Include link to simple Wikipedia?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Maybe we should just link to the simple Wikipedia page so readers will have some idea of want a cargo cult is.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult Joeletaylor (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is simple, certainly. As in so simplified as to be grossly misleading, where it isn't simply wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump you do not seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia. It’s to inform people. Not for you to be a pedantic show off. 2603:8001:7800:23C3:912D:DB61:A20:25E2 (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform people. Not to misinform them, as the simple Wikipedia article does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Wikipedia is just repeating the way cargo cults are poorly understood by the general public. Wikipedia should be trying to reflect what the recent anthopological literature is saying about cargo cults (e.g. [1]). Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
piss-ant politics piffle
Recent anthropology is bullshit though 47.153.19.44 (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is enough to tell that your opinions are competely and utterly worthless. Wikipedia is not an anti-intellectual encyclopedia. Perhaps you should consider editing Conservapedia instead? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have more time and resources than you and will be re-editing this article infinite times per day until you and Andy are defeated. 47.153.19.44 (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the article has now been semi-protected, making the above threat to edit-war factually incorrect material into Wikipedia null. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources[edit]

I just noticed that the 1993 academic book "Cargo Cult: Strange Stories of Desire from Melanesia and Beyond" is completely open-access on JSTOR. [2]. Looks like a good source to use to write the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly a good source, and not that hard-going for non-anthropologists, which is a definite plus. We'd need to be a bit wary of representing it as a current work, or of over-emphasising Lindstrom's particular perspective (which may have been refined somewhat since), or of presenting the (very atypical) John Frum movement that Linstrom discusses in some depth as some sort of norm, but it covers the whole 'cargo-cult-as-metaphor' topic really well. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal[edit]

look i posted the epic maymay tpot image

To growing_daniel followers etc who are pissed off about whatever: maybe I can go epicly viral with a little esoteric illegible tweetfluencing of my own here. Cargo cults are an actual thing that happened in real life, so the Wikipedia article called "cargo cult" is primarily about them.

But the fact of the matter, as I understand it, is that (like most things which exist in real life) cargo cults are a thing that exist in real life, which necessarily have more depth than the kind of allegory that is referenced when the term is used in some guy's essay about Tailwind from the front page of HN lol. Yes? You're with me still?

It is of course true that software engineers from California (such as myself) often use the term to refer to a particular type of being stupid, and maybe we should have a hatnote to e.g. wikt:cargo cult for those who are at this article due to Paul Graham essays. It is also true that the lead of the article as it exists right now is kind of confusingly written, and maybe it should be improved. It is altogether good and proper to do this.

I propose we make a bargain: a bit less piss-and-moan sanctimonious preening from both the tweet rotators and the wikicels? Maybe we even try to write something good on the collaborative encyclopedia project? Yes? jp×g🗯️ 07:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: The problem is that the term "cargo cult" is by definition very vague. As The Open Encyclopedia of Anthropology entry on Cargo Cults notes, the term is basically used for any sort of organised, village-based social movement with religious and political aspirations. Trying to write something coherent about collectively about what is ultimately, a bunch of quite different local spiritual/political movements is no easy task. I've tried to rewrite the article lead to something more understandable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lede doesn't mean anything much at all[edit]

whoop whoop why does it try to obfuscate what a cargo cult is. Don't they worship Prince Phillip in one of those or something? Some dunce (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn't jp×g🗯️ 09:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok. read it, then use that to tell me what they did Demigord (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's actually really funny, because it says nothing, but continually tries to cover up the true meaning. It's a disgrace to wikipedia and anti-knowledge, but funnyDemigord (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can you say where it does this and what it should say instead? this is the talk page not the vague page jp×g🗯️ 09:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can I say where it says nothing? lol. Obviously that includes it all
It should honestly define the concept instead of waving vaguely at spiritual practices
But they won't do that Demigord (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wait, there is this: "The term Cargo cult typically refers to movements of Melanesian villagers revolving around a charismatic prophet figure who foretold a coming great change in society"
which is a flaming lie. Everyone here knows that's not what it typically refers to Demigord (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask how 'everyone knows' this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]