Talk:Cult of personality

List of cults of personality & WP:Fork

I suspect that List of cults of personality has become a fork from this page. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Is it easier to isolate a population today?

Under Mass Media, this article states "Today, governments are capable of isolating citizens from the outside world and creating a monopoly of what citizens have access to, making it much easier to foster a cult of personality." I have twice requested a citation and twice had that request reverted by user:Beyond My Ken on the basis that the truth of the statement is obvious, a "sky is blue fact." I don't want to engage in an editing war, but my understanding of how Wikipedia works is that facts presented should be supported by impartial evidence.

It is not obvious to me that it is easier today for governments to isolate their citizens from the outside world than it was in the past. On the contrary, it seems to me that communications technology developed in and since the 20th century has made isolation much more difficult than in previous centuries. Fairly simple software makes evading blocks to satellite communications possible for anyone with a cellphone.

So if it is factual that isolating a country's population from the outside world is indeed easier today, I would like to read the evidence that supports that. If it is more than just an opinion, please cite your sources instead of continuing to revert my request for citation. Saying that "it's obvious" or "sky is blue" or that a citation isn't needed is not evidence; it's just more opinion. Whaledancer (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, as I look up -- and if the snowy clouds disperse -- the sky is still blue. Blockage of information may be evaded by "simple software", but first people have to know that there's something out there to be unblocked. Isolating people from facts is still widely and efficiently effected by governments with much more powerful software and bureaucracies and great willingness (and need, in terms of their survival) to block undesired information from their populations. Just check out the state of the public's knowledge in Russia and China, for instance, the two most obvious cases. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, all you are offering is your own opinion. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I have no interest in changing your mind. However, Wikipedia is not a forum for unsupported opinions. Cite your factual sources, let the readers check your sources and judge whether they, and your opinion, are valid.

Repeatedly saying "it's obvious" and reiterating that the sky is blue is not evidence. The fact that it seems obvious to you is irrelevant.

Cite your sources. Or quit deleting my request for sources and let someone else do it. If it's so obvious, it should not be difficult to find a reliable source of evidence to support it.

If there is no evidence, and it is simply your opinion, then the whole passage should be deleted. Whaledancer (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

"One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that all article content has to be verifiable. This means that reliable sources must be able to support the material. All quotations, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons must include an inline citation to a source that directly supports the material. This also means that Wikipedia is not the place for original work, archival findings that have not been published, or evidence from any source that has not been published.

"If you are adding new content, it is your responsibility to add sourcing information along with it."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners

"To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, Wikipedia provides a means for anyone to question an uncited claim. If your work has been tagged, please provide a reliable source for the statement, and discuss if needed."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed Whaledancer (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-Political Cults of Personality?

I recall that this page used to also cover non-political cults of personality. It does not do so now. Were such moved to another page or removed? If moved, there should be a link. 104.187.53.82 (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The article and basic introduction seems to omit a lot of things to frame personality cults as exclusively in the domain of political authoritarianism in autocratic governments, dictatorships etc. Even the cited source for the definition "Populism: A Short Introduction", doesn't actually have any definitions for personality cults. In fact the word cult is only mentioned once in the entire book on the page cited, as so:

In both academic and popular debates the populist leader is implicitly or explicitly defined as a charismatic strongman. In Latin America the stereotypical populist leader is the caudillo, a generic term with roots in the Latin caput (head), which normally alludes to a strong leader, who exercises a power that is independent of any office and free of any constraint. Populist strongmen tend to rule on the basis of a “cult of the leader,” which portrays him as a masculine and potentially violent figure.

Which clearly makes no attempt to even define personality cults in politics, let alone in anything else. Aramisskai (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Covid Vaccine Certificate.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems nonsensical

Why do they all have to be men, for one? The phraseology is absurd. Preposterous bias against Marxists. Des Gens Pour un Monde Meilleur et Libre (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"Cult of personality" is shallow political analysis, but plenty of sources use and analyze this not-very-useful term such that the article will surely continue to exist.

An attempt to address the issues you raise might be to add a "Criticism of terminology" heading (I suspect you would find more sources like this one). Or simply to address other personality cults like that of Queen Elizabeth II (providing sufficient reliable sources exist). JArthur1984 (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)