Talk:Cargo cult

Conflict Noted

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

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) .

Adding the section about Reverse cargo cult and its subsequent removing

Moved from User talk:Novem Linguae § Adding the section about Reverse cargo cult and its subsequent removing

Hello! I have added the section "Reverse cargo cult" into the article "Cargo cult". You've removed it. I protest against it on the following grounds:

1. As for Due and undue weight. Just some examples ... This article on openDemocracy mentions political analyst Yekaterina Shulman’s theory of the “reverse cargo-cult” and consists the link to second source that I used (newspaper Vedomosti) ... Reverse cargo cult was discussed in 2017 by users of Reddit in regard to Donald Trump policy ... I think this proves that the term "reverse cargo cult" has emerged in modern socio-political lexicon, both in Russia and English-speaking world.

2. As for self-published sources. I had to used the link to Yekaterina Shulman’s blog (first source that I used) because it's the proof of first recorded usage of the term “reverse cargo-cult”. I haven't found earlier mentions of this term.

3. As for independent sources. Newspaper Vedomosti is a Russian media which isn't affiliated with Yekaterina Shulman. The article "Практический Нострадамус, или 12 умственных привычек, которые мешают нам предвидеть будущее" in Vedomosti (second source that I used) is not press release, syndicated story and there is no conflict of interest. As I noted earlier, this source was mentioned in the article published on openDemocracy, British media, this fact also confirms the independence and reliability of the source.

Thus, I think your decision to remove the section "Reverse cargo cult" is wrong. 5.129.59.116 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey there. I went ahead and added a sentence about it using your OpenDemocracy source, which is a better source than the two original sources. I'm still not thrilled with this sentence. The term is not succinct (it's not obvious why western institutions have anything to do with cargo cults), and it only has 3 hits in Google news search. I think this is just a WP:NEOLOGISM that almost nobody is using. I won't object if someone reverts me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any documented proof, but I first heard the term "reverse cargo cult" being used in the 1990's. I'm also fairly sure is was used on PBS discussion. So I pretty sure she did not "coin" this term. AllUltima (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This is an article on Melanesian millennialist movements, not critiques of the Russian economy. I've removed the section as entirely-off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Too abstract

The section "Causes, beliefs, and practices" is too abstract. Somebody new to this concept has to wade through this text and only at the second half of the section "Pacific cults of World War II" sees a practical example that makes everything clear.

A Wikipedia article doesn't have to be a dissertation. Please start with the example so people instantly know what is meant. Edwinm (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead is super unhelpful

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)

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)

Girl don’t get snippy with me Isthistwisted (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

“It should be written in a clear, accessible style” Isthistwisted (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

You like it, hoss? Isthistwisted (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yup. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

Also, it’s lead not lede 2603:8001:7800:23C3:912D:DB61:A20:25E2 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Context

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I’m sure we can all dial it back. Why doesn’t someone try rewriting the lead? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Include link to simple Wikipedia?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Recent anthropology is bullshit though 47.153.19.44 (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)