Talk:List of cults of personality/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cuba?

What about the cult of personality of Fidel Castro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.82.168 (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to add it, including references to back it up. Cambalachero (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"The decision to hold a private [funeral] ceremony came the morning after Castro’s brother, President Raul Castro, announced that Cuba would prohibit the naming of streets and monuments after the former leader, and bar the construction of statues of the former leader and revolutionary icon, in keeping with his desire to avoid a cult of personality...“The leader of the revolution rejected any manifestation of a cult of personality and was consistent in that through the last hours of his life, insisting that, once dead, his name and likeness would never be used on institutions, streets, parks or other public sites, and that busts, statutes or other forms of tribute would never be erected,” Raul Castro told a massive crowd gathered in the eastern city of Santiago."

Mercy11 (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Castro isn't a personality cult. He has no governmental monuments of any kind or any locales named after him. Raúl has done everything in his power to avoid a personality cult from arising. DiegoAma (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a posthumous cult around Che Guevara, but Castro was careful to avoid centering one on himself during his lifetime. 2604:6000:D182:51F0:A9FC:BB21:9A9:92A (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Barack Obama and El-Sisi's inclusion

It is suggested that this edit [1] is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, I would like this justified here, or at the least the reference to past discussion. The cited authors all claim that Barack Obama's admininstration meets the criteria of 'a cult of personality [which] arises when an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods, to create an idealized, heroic, and at times, worshipful image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.' I don't see how including reference to these criticisms here is either undue or fringe, when El-Sisi's inclusion here appears to be founded on similar if not identical criteria. Cpsoper (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This page got split from Cult of personality, and the related discussion (and consensus) is at Talk:Cult of personality/Archive 3#United States.. Two American presidents were proposed: Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, both of whom were rejected as too far away from mainstream academic/journalistic thought. Obama was also discussed several years ago in Talk:Cult of personality/Archive 3#Barack Obama?. El-Sisi is sourced to mainstream newspapers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks have read these, though quality of discussion weak. The three sources are all right wing sites, and that should be acknowledged, but all are regarded as mainstream right wing sites, each with a considerable following, IBD has a circulation 11% that of NYT, Breitbart and the American Thinker have Alexa Internet ratings of 1,639 and 10,647 respectively. It appears disingenuous to argue these are fringe or that the direct testimony three sources are undue. If Sisi is included, why not Obama? Cpsoper (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a huge different between citing The New York Times and citing Breitbart, which is often rejected as a reliable source at WP:RSN. I think the existing consensus is fairly clear, and I don't think anything has changed since the last time this was discussed here; the sources are somewhat different, but they're still pushing a fringe viewpoint. If you're unsatisfied with that, or you think the discussions were not good enough, the easiest solution would be a request for comments. This would solicit opinions from uninvolved editors and run for 30 days. But I would suggest that we wait a few days to see if anyone else replies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08BAfKCfu74 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOtGr1JFCnE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJFC1qFCgyA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPDlkaQqptA http://s80.photobucket.com/user/DonaldDouglas/media/American/1377354218001-epa-usa-civil-rights-march_zps3d7938be.jpg.html Lets not forget the "Hope and Change" posters 2602:306:CC42:8340:B8F4:DF4F:65F7:F787 (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The British Monarchy as a cult of personality

@2.222.47.168, NinjaRobotPirate, 2600:1006:b129:a994:b945:d20a:9451:85d, and Office worm: Recently, there has been a bit of reverting going on at this page saying that the British monarchy is or isn't a cult of personality. Currently, there are two references directing to The Guardian, one to the Daily Mail and one directing to Wikimedia Commons. I think that we should probably try to establish a sort of consensus about whether or not to include it. The four references are:

1. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/dec/06/monarchy.features11
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Cypher_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II.svg
3. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/30/queen-elizabeth-how-age-remembered?CMP=NECNETTXT766&fb_ref=Default%2C%40Total
4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054441/The-monarchy-exposed-Historian-A-N-Wilson-examines-Great-British-institution-major-new-book.html

Cults of personality are, according to the wiki page, schemes/people trying to create an idealized, heroic, and at times, worshipful image.

If some sort of discussion could be had, instead of lots of reverting and unreverting, that would be great. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  21:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The linked sources seem perfectly legitimate and the original inclusion appears to have been edited to distinguish that 'republicans' perceive monarchies as projecting cults of personality. As long as that is contextualised and presented as a matter of opinion held by a discernible group, then I see no reason why it should not be included on this page, along with the linked sources. There is a strong case to be made for monarchies cavorting cults of personality - for example, the lyrics to God Save the Queen are notably obsequious and a clear example of an 'idealized, heroic, and at times, worshipful image' as described on the wiki page. Naturally, this is subjective, but then the same could be said of all cults of personality ... they are not static, uniform entities. They are organic and peculiar to their specific country of origin. Imperial avis (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Imperial avis: I agree with your point, in Britain I would say that although (I think) the majority of the public support the monarchy, there are definitely some who oppose it and see it as a bad thing, a cult of personality. But then if the UK monarchy goes in, shouldn't the Danish one or the Spanish one be included as well? As you say, there is a strong case to be made for monarchies cavorting cults of personality.  Seagull123  Φ  22:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Seagull123: Absolutely, all monarchies should be included - perhaps a new sub-category should be added on the page? I think part of this 'edit war' is motivated by a sense that cults of personality are inherently evil things due to their common association with dictators etc. Whereas, this should be treated neutrally - they are cultural appendages and just because a constitutional monarchy like that in Britain, for example, is not as autocratic or ruthless as Hitler's dictatorship, it does not mean that a cult of personality does not exist around it. The main 'Cult of Personality' wiki article even accepts that 'nominal democracies' can play host to them. What I am saying is, regardless of morality, cults of personality exist, but there is a bias assumption that they are intrinsically nefarious. Moreover, the points highlighted in the original edit make a strong case for just how more visible and percolated the symbols of the Monarchy are in British society compared to some of the more well-known examples of cults of personality. The w:Republic (political organisation) pressure group has long argued that it is taboo to mock, criticise or question the Monarchy in the British media, and it points to the BBC as a prime source of sycophancy. Imperial avis (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the linked sources'

1. Is a 2000 opinion piece by Christopher Hitchens suggesting that the British "grow out of" the monarchy. In it, he suggests that the media purveying "brainless twaddle" serves to condition "mild hysteria and personality cult". End of CoP mention in this anti-monarchist column.
2. Is an image on WP Commons. The image itself says nothing other than what the editor wants it to say, even if Wikipedia were a reliable source. Which it's not.
3. Is a general overview of the reign of Elizabeth II. Lots of mentions of "culture"; none of either "cult" or " personality", let alone a phrase joining the two.
4. Ignoring for now the tabloid reputation of the Daily Mail, in discussing the adulation received by Princess Diana the author praises monarchy, saying: "It is a cult of personality without sinister or fascistic overtones." He does not clarify whether this is intended literally or as a metaphor.

All in all, this is extremely weak sourcing for the section as written, which still contains extensive synthesis and personal opinion. 2600:1006:B129:A994:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There isn't a whole lot to say. I agree with the 2600 IP. This page, as a controversial political appellation, should require strong sourcing, avoid any original research, and generally focus on only the most notable examples. There are serious issues of due weight and fringe theories involved when you list throwaway comments from questionable sources. This article is already getting crowded with unnecessary examples. The last thing we need is more poorly sourced additions. For living people, WP:BLP applies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The sources and visual testimony to a cult of personality around monarchies is arguably more documented and self-evident than Sisi's alleged cult of personality. At least in Sisi's section, the word 'alleged' is actually used - I do not see why it cannot be used on a section about monarchy and those who see it as such (republicans) - which they clearly do. I believe that :@NinjaRobotPirate: has simply established this talk without any sincerity to a genuine debate, having decided what the outcome will be beforehand. Clearly there is documentary evidence to support the edit's point and that needs to be acknowledged (and plenty more out there, I'm sure). Those who ignore this are ironically invoking 2600 IP's point of allowing 'personal opinion' to narrow their outlook. We also need to appreciate that any piece of documentary evidence that supports Monarchy (or a dictatorial regime for that matter) is extremely unlikely to explicitly describe it as a 'cult of personality' given my points above that show many associate them with negative connotations rather than point-of-fact cultural phenomena. Therefore, 2600 IP's point about these links conveying anti-monarchist sentiment is largely irrelevant and misleading. Furthermore, that many cults of personality are only recognised as such after the political foundation that manifested them no longer exists and it becomes possible to think critically, contextualise and reflect upon them.

2600 IP's third point about the general overview of Elizabeth II's reign fails to contextualise the reference as it was used in the edit. The edit was used to support a point that many commentators perceived the present monarch's reign as a 'second Elizabethan Era'. It was more generally applied following on from an earlier point that British history is usually chronologically ordered and defined by reigns rather than say decades etc. in the popular and academic imagination. The fourth point was further used to highlight a point about cults developing around other personalities within the Royal Family. Given the standard bias of the Daily Mail in favour of Monarchy, this is actually rather surprisingly critical. Overall, I do not regard the edit's content as especially aberrant and it makes some very unequivocal points and examples of how the British Monarchy, at least, does showcase many, if not more than standard, features evident in other accepted cults of personality.

Therefore, we need to acknowledge the following: 1. That there is a significant proportion of people and commentators in the public sphere who do regard monarchies as cults of personality and provide examples of things as presented in the original edit; 2. That a section within this page should be written stating thus; 3. That it be written in as balanced a manner as possible, explicitly stating that a viable group of people do perceive it as a cult of personality; 4. Locate appropriate and/or stronger sources if necessary— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperial avis (talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you the IP editor that was edit warring to include the information? The 2600 IP is making policy-based arguments, and you're not. You'll find that I'm a hardliner on policy compliance, especially on controversial political pages that could involve BLP compliance.

1. Every source should include the phrase. Using sources to say something that they don't explicitly say fails verifiability, and to imply that multiple sources have reached a conclusion unsupported by all of them is synthesis.
2. Interpreting primary sources is original research, and this is expressly forbidden on Wikipedia. You can not use a picture as evidence.
3. The Daily Mail is a bad source. For its own opinions, yeah, maybe you could cite The Daily Mail and get away with it. But you'll need much better sourcing than The Daily Mail to make a controversial addition to this page.

The general topic of monarchies is discussed very briefly in cult of personality, and I'm sure it could be expanded. That article is very poorly sourced, and it needs a lot of work. I've been meaning to get around to it for a long time now. This article is better sourced, but it's drifting toward what I think are questionable examples. I don't think we should be in such a rush to label everything as a cult of personality until it is well-represented in academia or at least well-sourced by professional journalists. This would not include random editorials, which are primary sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

So basically, even if the British Monarchy is in fact a cult of personality, because it doesn't openly acknowledge itself as such, and because most sources who warrant their benefaction etc. would never dare describe or allege it to be as such, we should totally ignore the explicit overtones and features that would define it as a cult of personality under any other circumstances? Let's face it, were Britain a republic, this wouldn't even be 'controversial'.194.126.71.138 (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you've got a point, but the bottom line is that, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia requires sources to add content. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The more controversial and doubtful the content is, the higher quality the sources need to be. It's difficult to identify existent institutions as having a cult of personality, as academia focuses on the past and contemporary news organizations may have political reasons to stay silent (or speak up, for that matter). Instead of ignoring our core content policies, we should wait for high quality sources to identify each example. The role of dictatorships, monarchies, and other non-republics would be a good choice of discussion at the parent article, cult of personality, but it would have to be written neutrally and be well-sourced. I'll get around to it eventually if nobody else does. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Iran

Iran should be included here, both now and before the revolution.

Almost every shop in Iran has pictures of Khomeini and Khamenei displayed, and their pictures are displayed everywhere around every city. Khomeini's picture is on the currency, and many places have been renamed in his honor.

There was also a cult of personality around Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, though perhaps not quite as prevalent as the current one in the Islamic Republic. The Shah's picture was at the front of school textbooks. His picture was also put on the screens of movie theaters at the beginning of each movie, while the national anthem (also about him) was played. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.150.222.54 (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely. I would also recommend discussion of the personality cults of Idi Amin, Habib Bourguiba, Pol Pot, Jozef Tiso, and Josip Broz Tito among others. Charles Essie (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Walt Disney

I was recently at Disney Land, and I really felt that Walt Disney, based on the number of statues, plaques, videos etc that he was being presented in a manner that could full under the "Cult of Personality." Could a commercialized person be an example of a "cult of personality?"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.207.104 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. But it would require a citation to a reliable source, such The New York Times. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will keep my eye open for it. My thoughts generally came from my experiences at DisneyLand. Many of the "shows" we watched were "Walt Disney did this, Walt Disney did this, his dream was to do that, He was the first to do this" There were also lots of plaques in his honor, and statues all over the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.207.104 (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

United States of America

No US in the list because America has no "cults?" I offer in order of appearance: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FD Roosevelt, Regan, Obama, HR Clinton, Trumph. Paintings, photos and sculpture available on-line and at brick and mortar shops.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of cults of personality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120902070240/http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/south-caucasus/azerbaijan/156-azerbaijan-turning-over-a-new-leaf.aspx to http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/south-caucasus/azerbaijan/156-azerbaijan-turning-over-a-new-leaf.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131026025832/http://www.uscirf.gov/images/stories/pdf/nkwitnesses.pdf to http://www.uscirf.gov/images/stories/pdf/nkwitnesses.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140908000052/http://fusion.net/leadership/story/venezuelas-hugo-chavez-cult-created-18070 to http://fusion.net/leadership/story/venezuelas-hugo-chavez-cult-created-18070

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Can someone get rid of the United States section?

This is ridiculous. This isn't a public forum to post your opinion of President Trump but are we really going to add the United States as the practice of a personality cult? Are there portraits of Trump everywhere? Are there songs praising him every day? Is there the equivalent of "Mao's Red Book" being made for Trump? This an opinion piece on Trump and I have no love for Trump and I hate defending him but seriously delete the United States from this article. This is honestly a trivialization of countries/regimes that practice personality cults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddediteddie (talk • contribs) 17:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with its removal. I think we should establish some kind of standard for inclusion here, such as requiring at least one peer-reviewed academic source. That would ensure that the list is based on the work of historians and political scholars, not just opinion pieces by journalists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The citation appears valid, so from that perspective it seems to be OK. We cannot pick a criteria for inclusion that would apply to only this one article and not to the rest of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia has matured standards for inclusion already. In addition, if we are going to establish our own standard for this one article, then we would also have to ensure that such standard applies uniformly to every other personality in the entire article, not just to the USA section. All other personalities listed here (from Russia, to North Korea to China, etc.) would also have to abide by such peer-reviewed academic source based on the work of historians and political scholars.

I sympathize with the point that the Chicago Tribune article may be an "opinion" piece, but the idea behind RS is not who said it but whether or not the publication where it was recorded is considered a reliable source, and Chicago Tribune is considered an RS.

On these two basis alone, I don't think there is enough in the arguments to warrant removal of the section. There has to be several (not just one) sources that illustrate how or why a character conveys cult of personality. Also most Wikipedians as well as readers are more comfortable with a mix of sources rather than a long list of sources that are opinions authored by (for example) the same groups of individuals, for example, journalists only. Mercy11 (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

As per the previous consensus, I have removed Trump from being definitive of the list but still kept allegations by Mercy11. This isn't a political forum. This is Wikipedia. Bias is unacceptable. The previous writing style also doesn't fit Wikipedia.. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That cannot be done. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." The wider community consensus here are WP:V, WP:RS, etc. And, if you feel someone is using this as a "political forum", please provide your evidence, not just claims; claims aren't evidence. With evidence, we can all consider and discuss it together first. I am reinstating the citations you removed as the cites are all from verifiable sources; please note Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is the WP:RS policy, not the stated Mao-Stalin claim you are making. Mercy11 (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no community consensus. There are allegations that Trump has a personality cult, but there is no widespread consensus. There are no large statues or paintings of Trump, unlike Nasser, Ataturk, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, or Khomeni. This is just plain bias here, and I won't stand for it. Trump's cult is far smaller than those of Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln, of whom have statues built for them in Mt. Rushmore. Trump has towers that he built as part of his business. Say what you will about Trump, but this isn't a cult in the traditional meaning of the word. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have further read the original citations. Huffington Post and Newsweek have demonstrated outright bias against Trump. I am not for including articles from Breitbart, but your citations are as useful as writing an article about the history of Armenia using Azerbaijani textbooks on history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fierysunset (talk • contribs) 16:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And yet the "allegations" of a personality cult is still on there with links to Newsweek and that opinion piece. I hate that I have to defend Trump but this is seriously not appropriate for Wikipedia. I have no agenda with Trump, I can't stand Breitbart and other websites but there is no state sponsored personality cult. As I said before, this is an insult and trivialization for people that live under regimes that practice these personality cults. A free press is important for any free society but journalism like this is just opinionated fluff about Trump.

I would personally like to remove the link, but it was a de facto compromise with Mercy11, who wrote practical paraphrasing of the same biased articles that you mentioned. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You cannot do that. You cannot continue to undo my sourced edits and reject remove those Reliable Sources just because you consider them biased. Per WP:BIASED, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." You cannot, as you did HERE and then also admitted in your edit summary, remove biased information. Likewise, per WP:WEIGHT, you cannot remove sourced edits because, as you admit above, of your perception (even if true) that only a minority of sources speak of Trump's cult of personality. What you *can* do is add sources that hold the opposite view (i.e., that Trump does not have a cult of personality following). BTW, you should be careful in your use of the term "consensus" and, in particular, "community consensus". You should not be using them to refer to the body of sources that have published regarding Trump's cult of personality. In Wikipedia, "Consensus" has a very specific use and meaning and it is not the one you are implying.

{For the record, I added 5 cites to the 1 cite from The Chicago Tribune another editor had there already. After my addition, there were a total of 6 cites, 5 of them unique. You have reduced the cites to 3. I am not sure why you are doing that when all 6 cites satisfy WP:RS.

For reference, here are the 5 RS sourced entries (4 unique) I added and which you continue to remove:

1. A Newsweek article compared the political tactics employed by Donald Trumps to those of Adolf Hitler.
2. Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service professor Joseph Sassoon explains that "when Trump says he’s his own best adviser and has no speechwriters, 'this is really a prototype of Saddam or Qaddafi or Nasser...the wanting to control the language of their speeches.'"
3. In his piece, Adam Garfinkle states that due to the short amount of time that Donald Trump has been president, what bears watching is not only the President himself but his movement, referring to the followers that brought him to power.
4. In Donald Trump’s Cult of Personality, Ruth Ben-Ghiat compares Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi in their personal brand, financial clout, charisma and media strategy.
5. Jordan Dicciccio argues that a personal jet with his own name on it, claiming “he is the only one who can fix everything”, erecting monuments (Trump World Tower, Trump Taj Majal, Trump Building) that invoke confidence in the leader depicted, imposing strict control on media and the way journalists speak about him, and denying responsibility for everything bad to befall the country and taking sole responsibility for anything good, are some of the traits that reveal the parallels between Donald Trump and a totalitarian leader working to advance his cult of personality.}

Mercy11 (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have rephrased the sentence to active voice and removed the "many" qualifier.[2] I think the section would need a second sentence expressing the opposite point of view. That would make this section balanced and neutral; no need to write much more. Removing the section would only call for its re-creation next time a bored journalist writes a "Cult of Trump" column. — JFG ^talk 21:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough to include those articles but the Trump cult as one person had stated on here is smaller compared to others. Its fine to link to articles that talk about Trumps' "personality cult" but I'm going to cringe every time I see asinine comparisons of Trump to Adolf Hitler as cited in one of the articles. This isn't a forum and I have no power in what goes but really think about it how silly these accusations are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.229.255 (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• This matter went before WP:DRN on 18 July 2017 and its discussion and results are archived HERE. Mercy11 (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of cults of personality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141104035212/http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard/Article/Macias-Nguema--Ruthless-and-bloody-dictator/117291 to http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard/Article/Macias-Nguema--Ruthless-and-bloody-dictator/117291
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160313200255/http://afroarticles.com/article-dashboard/article.php?id=117291 to http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard/article.php?id=117291
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823055030/http://news.za.msn.com/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=154791786&page=3 to http://news.za.msn.com/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=154791786&page=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130906195147/http://www.journal.com.ph/index.php/news/national/57283-luistro-has-no-problem-with-epal-politicians to http://www.journal.com.ph/index.php/news/national/57283-luistro-has-no-problem-with-epal-politicians
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512233746/http://espacio360.pe/noticia/actualidad/chavez-y-dios-soplaron-para-eliminar-la-sequia-en-venezuela-afirma-maduro-c703 to http://espacio360.pe/noticia/actualidad/chavez-y-dios-soplaron-para-eliminar-la-sequia-en-venezuela-afirma-maduro-c703
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140430050107/http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/08/05/maduro-compares-chavez-to-christ-on-5-month-anniversary-his-death/ to http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/08/05/maduro-compares-chavez-to-christ-on-5-month-anniversary-his-death/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

PhD dissertation

This edit HERE makes the claim that "PhD dissertations are acceptable sources only if they have been generally accepted by their academic community." Perhaps, but where is that claim stated as a policy or community practice other than the editor's own view? Mercy11 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:Identifying reliable sources#Scholarship:

• Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

• One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. (emphasis added)

The Reliable sources noticeboard is the place to go to discuss the reliability of any particular source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, here is the material under dispute, which Mercy11 added top the article and I reverted:

In his Ph.D. dissertation, Adrian Teodor Popan asks, "Is the cult of personality of state leaders worth studying?...To answer this question, I would point to a September 2009 Fox news report that children of an elementary school in New Jersey were taught songs in praise of president Barack Obama...Unfortunately, the cult of personality of state leaders is often recognized too late."<ref>The ABC of sycophancy: structural conditions for the emergence of dictators’ cults of personality. Adrian Teodor Popan. University of Texas at Austin. Ph.D. Dissertation. p.2. 2015. Accessed 3 August 2017.</ref>

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Don't get so excited, you aren't determining the outcome of World War III! And, as I said from the get-go, I am open to discussion. In any event, you are wrong in your reverts because one person isn't consensus, and crying like a baby doesn't prove you are correct. To your enlightenment, I was interested in hearing your side when you wrote your edit summary, but your combatant attitude leaves little room for a sane dialogue: I was originally wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt; you aren't worth it. Your stupid suggestion on the RSN is precisely where -you- should had gone if you had a problem with the source, but you were too much of a coward to do that yourself. I am not going to dirty my hands with your verbal diarrhea above; so, yes, the removal stays, just like you were crying for. Alleluia!...Go celebrate! You just won WWIII! None of what you have stated so far in this Talk proves your claim that "PhD dissertations are acceptable sources only if they have been generally accepted by their academic community." But I am not going to spend any more time on this because you aren't worth it. Ah, btw, so you get the thrill of reverting my edits --which you have already shown clearly thrills you-- I am leaving you a little gift at the article; so, go, hurry, knock yourself out and revert me again. Oh, btw, don't come here to bother me again becuase, unlike you, I am not fond of diarrhea and will ignore it -let me suggest to you to go cry to the Banning Board for real diarrhea relief instead. Mercy11 (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest you read:

• WP:BRD - When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.
• WP:AGF - Always Assume Good Faith of other editors whenever possible.
• WP:NPA - No Personal Attacks, such as saying that another editor is "crying like a baby" when they're simply attempting to uphold WIkipedia's policies, or referring to "[my] stupid suggestion" of using the noticeboards that are provided for discussion of specific topics.
• WP:POINT - Do not make edits in order to make a point, such as "leaving you a little gift at the article"

As an editor who has been here for 9 years and has made over 30,000 edits, these are things you should already know, and which shouldn't have to be pointed out to you. I hope you will keep them in mind for the next time some editor innocently annoys you by trying to follow our policies.

As for the material you're attempting to add to the article, since nothing in the article raises the question of whether studying cults of personality is a worthwhile endeavor or not, it's hard to see it as anything except an attempt to connect "Barack Obama" with "cult of personality", "sycophancy", and "dictators". For that reason, it appears to me to be a "point of view" edit, which violates our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. As such, I will be removing it again. If you continue to think it should remain in the article, this talk page exists for you to convince other editors of the correctness of your arguments, and in this manner create a WP:consensus, which is the way things are done here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Obama

"A number of scholarly papers and peer-reviewed articles have assessed a personality cult that has developed around U.S. president Barack Obama."
But that's not entirely true for those sources. The ref From Candidate to President: Obama’S Discourse Two Years Later was written by people with a degree in Literature, and only mentioned that critics accused Obama of building a cult of personality, much like the second citation from someone with a degree in Education describing a Republican's accusation. Only the third citation fits the first sentence of that paragraph. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed that section as being POV and not reliable sourced by neutral sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

India

India is chock-full of large portrait of Narendra Modi giving sagely advice, paid for by the government. A brief drive through any city and you'll see a dozen such posters roadside. There is even talk of "Modi culture," as there is talk of "Xi thought" in China. If someone would research this, I think it would be a valuable addition to the list. 2604:6000:D182:51F0:A9FC:BB21:9A9:92A (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Disputed edit

These edits were added to this article by User:RRawpower, reverted by me, and restored by User:BrandonXLF:

Whether deliberately or even consciously referenced, Trump’s calculated and consistent provocation that “the news media are the enemy of the people” directly derives from Stalin’s own suppression of a free press and general attack on enemies: “The phrase was too toxic even for Nikita Khrushchev....‘The formula “enemy of the people,’” Mr. Khrushchev told the Soviet Communist Party in a 1956 speech denouncing Stalin’s cult of personality, ‘was specifically introduced for the purpose of physically annihilating such individuals’ who disagreed with the supreme leader....Nina Khrushcheva, the great-granddaughter of Mr. Khrushchev and a professor of international affairs at the New School in New York, said the phrase was ‘shocking to hear in a non-Soviet, moreover non-Stalinist setting.’ By using the phrase and placing himself in such infamous company, at least in his choice of vocabulary to attack his critics, Mr. Trump has demonstrated, Ms. Khrushcheva said, that the language of ‘autocracy, of state nationalism is always the same regardless of the country, and no nation is exempt.’ She added that, in all likelihood, Mr. Trump had not read Lenin, Stalin or Mao Zedong, but the ‘formulas of insult, humiliation, domination, branding, enemy-forming and name calling are always the same.’”

References

It seems to me that there are a number of things wrong with this material:

• It is not actually about "cults of personality" at all. Although that phrase is mentioned in passing, the material is actually about Trump's use of "enemy of the people", and would be more appropriate for the article Enemy of the people.
• The material is WP:POV, exemplified in the opening phrase "Whether deliberately or even consciously referenced, Trump’s calculated and consistent provocation..." That formulation is unsupported by a source.
• The material violates WP:SYNTH, in combining sources together to make a statement that none of the sources themselves explicitly say.

For these reasons, I reverted the edits (giving simply "POV" as the reason). They were restored, but I believe they need to be reverted again until they can be discussed and a consensus reached about them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Looking back, it's no related to the page as much as I though, I'll revert my edit. After that feel free to add it again start a discussion or whatever. —  BrandonXLF   ^{(t@lk) (ping back)} 22:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for re-evaluating. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"Whether deliberately or even consciously referenced" is by no means any "POV opinion" but, on the contrary, corresponds directly to the cited quotation within the article referenced: "...in all likelihood, Mr. Trump had not read Lenin, Stalin or Mao Zedong, but the ‘formulas of insult, humiliation, domination, branding, enemy-forming and name calling are always the same.'" That same quote should likewise effectively qualify the terms "calculated and consistent provocation" by the very definition of the word "formula": "a set form of words for use in a ceremony or ritual; a conventionalized statement intended to express some fundamental truth or principle especially as a basis for negotiation or action" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/formula).

That article, for that matter, was from an established source as reliable as the New York Times, which has heretofore apparently been deemed "fit to print" by Wikipedia throughout this and a great many other articles on the site. Unless, that is, we devolve into some preposterous argument as specious as Trump's own dismissal of "mainstream media" in general, and the supposedly "failing" "fake news" New York Times in particular.

I would add only that I saw fit to supplement this particular Wikipedia page in light of the most recent escalating attacks that make perfectly clear their direct relevance to the history and intent of "cult of personality" as both term and function. And, frankly, having already had my first attempt quite some time ago to include Trump on the term's primary Wiki page removed for cause as basically too subjective and/or provocational, I only inadvertently discovered this other extensive list page which had already included both Obama and Trump (for "equal time"?). That seemed reason enough my apt and accurate references and quote should have no such problem of proper relevance for approval, in and of themselves. I would contend, however, that dispute or disregard for the entire page, or any such list, is entirely beyond the purview of the immediate editorial question. RRawpower (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here and making your views known. As a new edior, you may not know that while this discussion is going on, the disputed edits should remain out of the article, as there is not yet a WP:CONSENSUS of editors who agree with you that it should be there. In fact, at this point, two editors think it should not be, and only one -- you -- thinks that it should. Until we reach a consensus here on this talk page, please do not restore your edit again. This is per WP:BRD and WP:ENGAGE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about "cults of personality". In fact, it's not even an article about them, it's a list of them. Your material is not about "cults of personality", although those words appear in it, it's about Trump's use of "enemy of the people". Therefore, it would be more appropriate for the article Enemy of the people. But even there, it still violates WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH and would have to be re-written not to be in violation of those policies. I would suggest that you endeavor to re-write it, keeping in mind the requirements of those policies, and then take it to Enemy of the people. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

EXACTLY what part of this article and quote remains in dispute??? "‘The formula “enemy of the people,”' Mr. Khrushchev told the Soviet Communist Party in a 1956 speech denouncing Stalin’s cult of personality, ‘was specifically introduced for the purpose of physically annihilating such individuals’ who disagreed with the supreme leader." THIS article references BOTH Krushchev EQUATING "enemy of the people" and "cult of personality" AND his own grandaughter! NOT MY CONCLUSION!!! RRawpower (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

No, the material cited does not "equate" "enemy of the people" and a "cult of personality", it says that Stalin used the phrase "enemy of the people" at the time he was cultivating a cult of personality. That does not mean that every use of "enemy of the people" is related to a cult of personalty. The comments specifically about Trump talk only about his use of "enemy of the people" and donot mention a "cult of personality" at all. That is why it is WP:SYNTH, the synthesis of two sources to make a point that neither source makes. Please read WP:SYNTH to understand this policy better. The material is a violation of WP:NPOV, because you are using these sources to express your own personal opinion.{{please post your comments in this section rather than at the bottom of the page. That is a different and unrelated discussion. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this material should be reworded and added to the article because the use of the phrase "enemies of the people" to refer to the media might be a characteristic of a cult of personality as the quotations indicate. Thinker78 (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

"Might be"? We don;t publish "might be", we publish facts aa reported by reliable sources. If RRawpower can come up with a source that explicitly says that use of "enemy of the people" is a defining characteristic of cults of personality, or even something that is often done by such cults, then that would be fine, but right now, they don't have one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

"Might be" is just fine because not all uses of the phrase are a characteristic of cults of personality. Some people will agree that Trump used it because of a cult of personality and others will disagree. So the information should be added for readers to analyze. Thinker78 (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Except that we don't do things that way. Leaving something open-ended so that the reader will draw the conclusion we want them to draw even though we don't actually outright say it is a violation of WP:NPOV as well. We're not politicians or ideologues, who can look coy and say "Well I never said that", knowing full well that everyone knew what they meant when they didn't say it.

The bottom-line problem with RRawpower's paragraph is that they are attempting to generalize a definitive relationship between using "enemy of the people" and creating a cult of personality based on the singular observation that Stalin did it. Well, Stalin did, so what? The fact that one person said "enemy of the people" and had a cult of personality under one set of circumstances doesn't mean that when another person does it under a different set of circumstances it verifies that they're intentionally creating a cult of personality as well. The connective link is just too tenuous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: You should paricipate in the RfC below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I already labored to minimize any semblance of “editorializing” to quote and qualify the New York Times article in this specific context. Neither I nor the article declared or suggested that “every” cult of personality employs “enemy of the people” tactics. But the direct parallel is irrefutable and most certainly not personal opinion or “synthesis”.

Just today in the Washington Post, "Trump’s rally rhetoric is going to get somebody killed” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-rally-rhetoric-is-going-to-get-somebody-killed/2018/08/06/d3bccad8-99ac-11e8-b60b-1c897f17e185_story.html) emphatically warns that "Trump calls the news media 'the Enemy of the People,' a phrase that blood-soaked totalitarian regimes have used to justify assassinations and purges… Anyone tempted to dismiss these cult-of-personality rallies as freakish sideshows should keep in mind one sobering fact: An astounding 89 percent of Republicans approve of Trump’s performance as president, according to Gallup. The GOP has lost its mind.”

Again, not my conclusion: all I have done is cite reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia’s standards and requirements. Just as dangerous speech is not protected under the First Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater), violent rhetoric has critical life and death consequences that almost any reporter in this country now faces quite literally on the firing line with the risk of attacks like Charlie Hebdo.

Which is all the more reason why Trump has been increasingly compared with two of the most prominent cults of personality figures specifically in this context: "Trump scapegoats the press almost daily, echoing the language of Mao and Stalin in calling journalists 'the enemy of the people’”, not to mention "he has advocated for forced displays of patriotism — a hallmark of authoritarian leaders who seek to develop a cult of personality” in the same article that is still hardly jumping to any conclusion to be disqualified as “synthesis”. (http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/359753-One-year-since-election-Trump-steadily-eroding-democracy)

And in even more immediate proximity, this passage from The Despot's Apprentice: Donald Trump's Attack on Democracy by Brian Klaas: "He has blurred the line between fact and fiction, using lies as a tool to create a cult of personality and convince his supporters that he can do no wrong. He has attacked the press, echoing Mao’s and Stalin’s rhetoric in calling free independent journalists the ‘enemy of the people.’” (https://books.google.com/books?id=fmQ1DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT162&lpg=PT162&dq=trump+%22enemy+of+the+people%22+%22cult+of+personality%22&source=bl&ots=_yNMmvaosG&sig=fB4FdpJHbr_l3IUup8hUj7__YOI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwilptfZrtncAhUFX60KHUO9CKU4KBDoATAFegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=trump%20%22enemy%20of%20the%20people%22%20%22cult%20of%20personality%22&f=false)

Far too many examples of both terms "enemy of the people" and "cult of personality” have now appeared together referring to Trump which simply cannot be ignored or dismissed as mere “synthesis” supposedly contrived by any Wikipedia contributor that has only compiled as I have such a historically conclusive assessment by so many others.

As for the Trump cult of personality in general at this point, fairly voluminous documentation exists demonstrating that the term applied to Trump is far from “bandied about” but, in fact, extensively stated over several years by a great many established reliable news sources and even a number of elected U.S. senators alike. As with the following dozen, for starters. Q.E.D.:

"Rep. Sanford: GOP Risks Succumbing to Trump’s ‘Cult of Personality’” https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/mark-sanford-trump-cult-personality

"Sen. Bob Corker says the GOP is becoming 'cult-like' in its support of President Trump” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/13/sen-bob-corker-gop-becoming-cult-like-its-support-trump/698086002

"Senator Jeff Flake Plans to Drop Nuclear Truth on President Trump in an Upcoming Senate Speech” https://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2018/01/14/senator-jeff-flake-plans-drop-nuclear-truth-president-trump-upcoming-senate-speech: "'It bears noting that so fraught with malice was the phrase ‘enemy of the people,’ that even (later Soviet leader) Nikita Khrushchev forbad its use, telling the Soviet Communist Party that the phrase had been introduced by Stalin to for the purpose of ‘annihilating such individuals’ who disagreed with the supreme leader,'" Flake will say. Indeed, Stalin exercised control over the media, using journalists to push pro-Stalin propaganda and suppress truth, as he built his cult of personality."

"Rick Santorum admits Trump leads a 'cult of personality’"https://www.salon.com/2018/06/17/rick-santorum-admits-trump-leads-a-cult-of-personality_partner

"Trump Cult Personality Corrupting Conservatism” https://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/donald-trump-populism-corruption-conservatism

"Donald Trump's Paradoxical Cult of Personality” http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/donald-trumps-paradoxical-cult-of-personality

"The Cult of Trump" https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/07/opinion/trump-republican-party.html

"GOP Consultant Compares Donald Trump's 'Cult Of Personality' To Barack Obama” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-cult-of-personality_us_5671b7a6e4b0dfd4bcc04451

"Trump's bizarre cult of personality” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-trump-pence-priebus-flattery-lies-20170124-story.html

"Trump Made the GOP a Personal Cult. Could Democrats Do that?” http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/trump-made-the-gop-a-personal-cult-could-democrats-do-that.html

"Donald Trump's Monarchical Presidency”: "The assertion of these powers offers a startling view into the mind-set of the authoritarian cult of personality that surrounds the president.” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/the-man-who-would-be-king/562247

"Donald Trump Is Cashing In on His Cult of Personality” https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/donald-trump-cashing-in-on-cult-of-personality-trump-hotel

"Ted Cruz, the master strategist, was no match for Trump's cult of personality” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/05/ted-cruz-republican-us-election-2016

So far as I can tell, only one or two individuals in this talk seem to have certain authority to approve or deny the contribution in this case. I am therefore formally requesting instruction on how to submit an appeal for further adjudication of this matter to determine appropriate relevance. RRawpower (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not denying that it's possible to right something about the possibility that there's a cult of personality around Trump, it's simply that you have not written it, you've written something else entirely, with a very vague and attentuated connected to "cult of personality". That simply is not going to fly, as it's off topic. As for "authority" and "appeal" -- there is no "authority" and no "appeal", per se, what goes into the article will be decided by the discussion on this talk page. When a WP:CONSENSUS (and I suggest you read that policy page, as it's very important) forms, that will be what decides what will be done. In the meantime, you're much better off taking this stuff to Enemy of the people (I think that's about the 4th time Ive suggested that -- why are you so resistant to it?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to help things along here, and start a formal Request for Comments about this. When someone closes it (an uninvolved admin or editor), that will decide what will be done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You are clearly not in any position to be considered reasonably objective yourself under these circumstances. As proven by your own failure to see the intent and relevance of "enemy of the people" to this specific topic as its use by Trump is a very particular qualification for his inclusion in this list. As declared by many others which I now gather I must also cite here now to "make the case" for the entire contribution. And which is exactly why I don't "resist" adding such a contribution to the Enemy of the people page so much as it is frankly even more relevant right here given so many other people and publications I apparently must now quote who have considered such attacks one of many hallmarks of a cult of personality. RRawpower (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You're saying that I'm not objective because I don't agree with you. I think you're going to have to do better than that. Let's allow the RfC to decide. You can, of course, participate - but bear in mind, the question is not whether it's possible for you to write something which is acceptable, but whether the material is acceptable as written. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This last statement effectively proves that Beyond My Ken is not nearly as "neutral" or objective as might be expected of any Wikipedia editor or arbitrator. Whatever assumptions may be readily made of my own personal perspective and opinion, I have now gone well beyond the minimum "supporting citations from ... 'neutral' reliable sources" to "make my case" for both the inclusion of Trump in this page and list as well as the intent of supporting that very assertion through abundantly numerous, relevant and directly related citations of the "enemy of the people" tactic as one irrefutable characteristic of a cult of personality, but not necessarily the defining characteristic. RRawpower (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I really don't think you're getting it. What you've written doesn't work, for the reasons given. You can write something different that might work, but you haven't done so. It's got to be appropriate for this article, and not violate basic policies -- have you even read them yet? Just throwing refs around isn't going to do the job -- references support statements, so write something about cults of personality in which every statement is directly supported by a reference, and we'll see what that amounts to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Since the RfC prohibits threaded discussion, I have no idea if any further claim or assertion I can make would be taken into account. Or if I would be wasting my time supplementing my original text if "it has too much detail for a list entry" or attempting any further edit that may simply be overlooked at this point.

In any event, having now glanced over much of this talk page's earlier exchanges, I can only say that my citations – from a great many reliable sources as well as elected officials as noted – of an actual tactic of oppression as the "enemy of the people" tactic is infinitely more relevant and indicative of a "cult of personality" than whether or not said personality has "large statues or paintings [like] Nasser, Ataturk, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, or Khomeni." Then again, on that score too a rational argument can be made that Trump's entire history had already erected properties ("monuments") and products emblazoned with the brand while he was also building his base through millions of televisions promoting the persona of "boss". Though I do have sufficient self-awareness and control to resist a crack hinting at "Big Brother" (and yet: "People Are Comparing This Trump Quote to George Orwell" http://time.com/5347737/trump-quote-george-orwell-vfw-speech). RRawpower (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The RfC doesn't "prohibit threaded discussion", it simply has a separate place for it, the "Threaded Discussion" section, which appears below the "Survey" section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC concerning the disputed edit above

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.

---

Should the paragraph above (the edit added by RRawpower to this article, see here) appear in this list article in the "United States" section? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey (no threaded discussion, please)

• No - For the reasons given by me in the discussion above:
  • it's not actually about "cults of personality", it's about Trump's use of "enemy of the people", and therefore would be more appropriate for the Enemy of the people article
  • It has too much detail for a list entry
  • The material, as currently written, violates WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH, for the reasons given above

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Reasons stated in the discussion above. But it should be reworded. Thinker78 (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Should be added. There's no doubt that a common characteristic of a cult of personality in populist politicians is their attack on what they perceive as their opposition, in this case, the media. Similar pronounced attacks on opposition by Chairman Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, etc., should too be added to further enhance the article. Mercy11 (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Mark my words: in time historians will most definitely cite these many references attacking the news media as enemy of the people as proof positive of our very own American cult of personality as a serious threat to its foundation and democracy. While the presence of Obama herein I would never question so much as to find far more of a stretch.

As long as there may yet be opportunity for "peer review", I'll try to submit another version in time here. RRawpower (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2018 (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.

Re-writes

Re-writes and discussion.

Submitted for your approval [cue music...] Many articles, editorials, and even a number of elected officials on both ends of the political spectrum have long made specific note of Trump’s emerging cult of personality and cited in particular his continual claim that “the news media are the enemy of the people” as one hallmark of such a figure deriving directly from Stalin’s own tactic which Nikita Khrushchev subsequently denounced. RRawpower (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC) References OK, let go through this step by step: you've got a bunch of citations supporting the "cult of personality" (I haven't looked through them all to see if there all valid, but I'll assume enough of them are to deal with that later). Now, you connect that with the phrase "and cite in particular" etc. etc. about use of "enemy of the people" as being a hallmark, but the citations that follow that are not the same citations that are above, so none of the first set of cites is saying what's in the second statement. That's simply and purely WP:SYNTH -- you've combined two statements together using two different sets of sources, a set that says the first thing, and a set that says the second thing, but what's needed is references that say both things. Now -- and I say this without having vetted either set of sources to see if they truly support the statements -- you can say (not dictating to you, just giving the sense of it) "Some articles, editorial etc. have noted a cult of personality developing around Trump", and then you can say, as a separate and not connected statement, "and some people, articles, whatever have noted that the use of "enemy of the people" is a hallmark of cults of personality." Now if the sources support the statements, that wouldn't be WP:SYNTH, because you're reporting two entirely separate statements without connecting them. Again, if the sources support the statements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Well, solution is to reword the paragraph. Thinker78 (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Yes. I've look at the references, and my two notes are that the last ref (Robinson, WaPo) doesn't seem to have any mention of "enemy of the people", unless I missed it, and there doesn't need to be 2 cites to Jonah Goldberg, one is enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Third time's the charm? Many articles, editorials, and even a number of elected officials on both ends of the political spectrum have long made specific note of Trump’s emerging cult of personalitywhile others have cited in particular his continual claim that “the news media are the enemy of the people” as one hallmark of such a figure deriving directly from Stalin’s own tactic which Nikita Khrushchev subsequently denounced. RRawpower (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC) References Suggested tweaks in wording (w/o the refs, but the Goldberg/Federalist and the Robinson/NYT should still come out): Many articles, editorials, and even a number of elected officials on both ends of the political spectrum have noted Trump’s emerging cult of personality,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] while others have cited in particular his repeated claim that "the news media are the enemy of the people"[11] as one hallmark of a person at the center of such a cult, deriving directly from Stalin's use of the phrase, which Nikita Khrushchev subsequently denounced.[12][13][14][15][16] How;s that look to you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Excessive citations though. Thinker78 (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Perhaps my last edit below omitting those two citations as recommended was not apparent. I have also now broken up the mass of reference numbers to appear more coherent and acceptable: Many articles, editorials, and even a number of elected officials on both ends of the political spectrum have noted Trump’s emerging cult of personality, while others have cited in particular his repeated claim that “the news media are the enemy of the people” as one hallmark of such a central figure deriving directly from Stalin’s use of the phrase. RRawpower (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Getting there . . .

It was not Stalin's use of the phrase, as such, which Khrushchev condemned but the murderous threat and intent behind Stalin's verbiage. Which ultimately goes to my primary point that such words have consequences to oppress and incite violence – though I have certainly refrained from including any such statements beyond complying (finally) with your stipulation to stick strictly to the facts and sources. So that is why I consciously selected "tactic" rather than threat. To avoid any further confusion, then, it's simpler still to dispense with the Khrushchev reference altogether since that already appears at the very beginning of the New York Times article immediately referenced at that point, as it was in my original submission.

As for paring down one or two more refs, there was obviously more than enough substantiation to start. I only thought The Federalist worthwhile because it appeared in publication so early and, along with Red State as conservative publications, serve as conspicuous balance among the majority of mainstream or liberal leaning sources cited here. And though Robinson in the Washington Post mentions "'the Enemy of the People,' a phrase that blood-soaked totalitarian regimes have used to justify assassinations and purges," I now realize that one article does not include the phrase "cult of personality" pertinent to this Wikipedia page. So thanks for your attention and patience:

Many articles, editorials, and even a number of elected officials on both ends of the political spectrum have noted Trump’s emerging cult of personality, while others have cited in particular his repeated claim that “the news media are the enemy of the people” as one hallmark of such a central figure deriving directly from Stalin’s use of the phrase.

RRawpower (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

References

OK, I have put the version above into the article, with the citations combined together for convenience. Let's see if it will stand the test of time. I have also withdrawn the RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I never noticed or realized that multiple citations could just be consolidated within one single footnote reference. Much better, needless to say. So after all this, well beyond my sole original intent to add "enemy of the state" as a relevant qualification for this list, I actually ended up compiling significantly more substantiation for Trump's inclusion here through a range of reliable sources. Thanks again for working toward clarifying your reasoning and input to get the final result together. RRawpower (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem, that's pretty much how the Wikipedia system is supposed to work. I'm glad we could come to a resolution together, with help from Thinker78. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Dreadful article.

Given the way the term 'personality cult' is bandied around in political discourse, any 'list' type article on the subject is going to be highly problematic, and in my opinion, liable to be inherently non-neutral. More or less any individual in a position of power can attract such commentary from political opponents, making the presence of such comments (which seems to be the criteria for inclusion in this list) a foregone conclusion. The article might as well be entitled "List of political leaders that one Wikipedia contributor or another doesn't like". To be sure, there is a serious academic topic behind this, but it needs proper analysis, and a proper exposition of academic debate about the subject, rather than this trainspotters' guide to the subject. In my opinion it would be wise, if Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously it should concentrate on improving the existing main Cult of personality article, and consign this dubious and partisan 'list' to the wastebin. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I rather agree with this. I think that anyone on this list needs to be supported by a citation from a neutral reliable source that specifically discusses their having a "cult of personality". Everyone else should be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@86.147.197.31: I rather do too. at the moment the lead reads

"The cult of personality is a phenomenon that took place in several countries in the world, when a leader or an authority figure creates an idealized or heroic persona that becomes the center of quasi-worshipful adoration among the general population. The cult of personality production is usually government-driven by totalitarian or authoritarian rulers and it involves control over courts and laws, political opposition, the media, art, and everyday life. It consists of production and co-production components; the co-production component is driven by the population that internalizes and supports the cult of personality."

And it should read

"This is a list of regimes of countries or individual leaders around the the world which have been discussed in the media or academia as having created a cult of personality. A  cult of personality uses various techniques, including mass media, propaganda, the arts, patriotism, and government-organized demonstrations and rallies to create an heroic, of a leader, often inviting worshipful behavior through uncritical flattery and praise."

The second introduction to the list makes it clear that it is not Wikipedia editors who have assigned entries a place on this list and reinforces the appropriate citation requirements proposed by Beyond My Ken. I have also included a chopped down definition of C.O.P from our related article on the subject. Having edited the lead thus, it would be prudent to check each source, and weed out those which simply mention the regime, but do not specifically discuss it as having been termed a "cult of personality" - What do both of you think? Edaham (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Edaham: On a quick look, that seems good to me, but, frankly, because of RL concerns, I won't really be able to give it a solid examination for a day or so. More then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken it’s been a while and the existing lead is irksome. I’m going to wp:BOLD it after a short while. Feel free to edit. Edaham (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem. My real life conflicts have only gotten more pressing, so I'm generally going to be less present on the encyclopedia until probably mid-November. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

 done have a good break. Good luck tackling your off-wiki challenges and note that I'm also taking a break as of now, having made good on my proposal to tie up this loose end. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Yugoslav Pioneers with Tito Portrait.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Statue of Abraham Lincoln

It was removed by here but, where is the the policy or practice violation stated? Restored as invalid edit summary rationale. Mercy11 (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Rjrya395: You can explain why not here. Mercy11 (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • How is it hard for you to not understand why I've deleted the Lincoln picture? Nothing in the United States section mention the existence of a Lincoln cult of personality. You can't have a picture claiming that the Lincoln Memorial is a manifestation of a cult of personality without actually explaining how its a manifestation, or not even mentioning the person with the cult! Seriously, this caption is the only mention of Lincoln on this page. As of now, this image is random and have little to do with this page.Rjrya395 (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Rjrya395: Your edit is POV. The cite in the pic caption you have been deleting discusses the Lincoln COP. Have you read the cited work in its entirety? If no, don't remove it again until you have discussed its contents. It isn't very smart to be edit-warring over long-standing material without first discussing it. A pic having to have its own section is non-sense POV. Mercy11 (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm just asking for the picture to actually be relevant to the article! If the cited work discusses Lincoln COD, have it actually be in the article! You just can't have a caption be the only discussion of the COD surrounding Lincoln. Rjrya395 (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• The material there is sourced, quotes Lincoln's COP, and Lincoln was the leader of the country that the section is about, so it's perfectly relevant. Cite a WP policy to base your claim that a pic has to be discussed to be included? You need to stop edit-warring because the pic, its caption and what the cite says offends your political views. Mercy11 (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • What the...? When did I ever suggest that I was deleting the picture because I'm offended by the mere suggestion that Lincoln had a cult of personality? MY MAIN BEEF WITH THIS PICTURE IS THAT THERE IS NO MENTION OF LINCOLN IN THIS ARTICLE BESIDE THE CAPTION. WHAT ARE YOU NOT GETTING? Rjrya395 (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• My main beef is that the Image Policy doesn't require the type of relevancy you are alluding to. It states "the relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central", and this image does that. The section in question is about COPs in the USA and Lincoln was from the USA and is quoted as having a COP, so all that makes the pic very much relevant IMO. How is the image not relevant to the US section if Lincoln was a U.S. president (a CLEAR connection) and he is quoted as having a COP (a CENTRAL connection)? The policy says nothing about what you are pushing, that a specific section about Lincoln is needed for the pic to be included. That's your own idea, not Wikipedia's. Where is the WP mandate saying "pic must be discussed in an article in order to be included"? So far you have presented none. Present it here and we can take it from there. Mercy11 (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Image Policy also state "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." Again, not once is Lincoln or his cult of personality ever mention in this article besides a little caption that states that the Lincoln Memorial is a manifestation of it. The image is not relevant to the US section because the only people described as having a cult of personality is Barack Obama and Donald Trump. If the image was that Obama Hope poster, I would not delete it, because as much as I personally disagree with the idea that Obama has a cult of personality compared to everyone else on this list, the article does describe it and (more importantly) backs up with legitimate sources. Rjrya395 (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Please, don't be so naive wasting time re-writing a policy which I am well familiar with. Did you really think I hadn't read that already? Yeah, it says that also. And that's what the Lincoln image in there already does it "increases reader's understanding of the COP subject matter". Stop thinking the section is about Lincoln, it isn't; it's about COPs in the US. Your obfuscation with the Lincoln image is getting you to lose track of the big picture and leading you to misinterpret the image policy. If you have failed to understand that so far, I suggest you open a WP:RFC if you want to remove a years-old image that's been visited by 5,000 editors, proving that, yes, you are the only one upset about its presence that section. Mercy11 (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • How? How does it "increases reader's understanding of the COP subject matter" if you don't even have a sentence about Lincoln's cult of personality? I'm not asking the US section to be dedicated to Lincoln; I'm just asking for a paragraph! If you so hard-ass about keeping the Lincoln Memorial, then you could at least write a sentence or two describing about Lincoln! Rjrya395 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, looking at the your edits for this article, I can tell that you're the author of the United States section and had numerous edit wars because some anti-anti-Trump editors got really mad at the suggestion that Donald Trump has a cult of personality. Not only that, but you also added the Lincoln Memorial picture and the paragraph dedicated to Barack Obama in order to appease these editors. Screw that! There is only person with a cult of personality, and that's Donald J. Trump. Barack Obama's "COD" is manifested through an election poster of him with the word HOPE; Donald Trump's COD is manifested through a bizarre conspiracy theory within his supporters who thinks Tony Podesta runs a Satanic, child sex-ring from a pizzeria and literally hangs on to the words of an anonymous 4Chan troll. Rjrya395 (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• CHOMEINI.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The United States entry

Having the United States in this list weakens the article by unduly widening its scope. No American leaders as far as I know have littered the country with enormous equine statues of themselves in public squares or plastered their visages on the sides of entire skyscrapers as a routine endeavor outside of election time, when such promotional activities are more permissible. Widening this list to include figures like trump, basically stretches the definition to include "leaders who are very well known and make a public spectacle of themselves". Adding the term COP to people like this is a sort of smear tactic as we usually associate the term with leaders of vicious and misanthropic regimes. I'm not sure if that's what is being done here, but I think the above argument (About Trump/Obama etc.) is moot and the US entry should be removed from this list entirely.

While I'm sure it is possible to source RS as political commentators have used the term disparagingly about US leaders, the weight of sources which characterize Trump or Obama as having a COP are minuscule when compared to those which discuss North Korea, etc. Its this relative weight which should be the deciding factor in determining whether an entry is due on this list. Edaham (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• If Donald Trump doesn't have a cult of personality, then explain QAnon. Rjrya395 (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No. what I might do though is ask for a demonstration of the number of independent sources which actually apply the term to him and his administration, in talking about the activities of the administration directly - not in discussing its supporters or their peculiar hobbies. Edaham (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Are you going to do the same thing with Lula and Berlusconi? Or is Trump the only person you have a problem with? Rjrya395 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know. I haven’t looked into their entries yet. My attention was drawn to the US entry by the protracted debate ensuing above Edaham (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I’ve started a discussion on this at the npov notice board Edaham (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I’ve removed the US entry per the above discussion with the reasonable suggestion that the subject of COP be first brought up on the subject’s main article and notability/due weight established there before reinclusion on this list. Edaham (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I've restored it until there is a sufficient consensus on this specific talk page to delete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the inclusion of the United States section and Trump’s entry therein

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.

---

Should this article contain a section on the US? Should that section contain an entry on Donald trump? Edaham (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Poll

• RfC starter. No. To my knowledge it is undue to call Trump’s government a COP based on the relative weight of sources describing the nature of the other entries on this list. Entries on this list should be unambiguous, lasting and not used to relay political slurs in ongoing political contests. Shoehorning an entry to fit the definition of a COP gives this article almost unlimited scope and muddies the validity of the other entries. Edaham (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes It is clear that many RS have said there is a cult of personality around Donny, and as he was a reality TV star hardly a surprise. As to other entries of the list, some of them are far less well supported (with one, or even no sources). Moreover Donny is not alone in being a modern democratically elected leader (indeed president) against whom the accusation has been leveled (and repeated here). The section should be expanded to include other presidents who have had this said about them, and the section on Donnny reduced.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - We roll the way the sources roll, and there are clearly reliable sources which discuss the existence of a Trump CoP. That the issue is controversial should not prevent it from being discussed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - The problem isn't with the US section, but with the sections for the other countries because they aren't sourced to scholarly articles/books. And, if Obama and Lincoln are properly sourced too, as they were HERE, they too should stay the article. Mercy11 (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• They were not reliably sourced and should not be restored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Separate issue, but I agree if you can find RS that say it then we should include it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• If the RS in question do not use the phrase cult of personality the way our article defines it then we have a problem. It seems clear to me that some major equivocation is going on here. 216.8.184.122 (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments

This subject has been discussed at npov notice board and is awaiting consensus on this talk page. Edaham (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2018 (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.

Churchill

An editor wants to add Churchill as having a cult of personality, but I think popularity is being confused with a cult. In any case the sources given - a book by Pat Buchanan and an article by a "writer, journalist and historian of India" -- do not seem authoritative enough to support this notion. If we're going to list Churchill as having a cult, I think we need citation from mainstream historians of the UK or of WWII, or biographers of Churchill, in order to establish that. A bold claim such as that about a world-historical figure requires that referencing be completely buttoned down. I have reverted the material, and ask that it not be restored until it is more concretely sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Li Ying is being idolised by multiple girls and she indoctrinates/brainwashes them to imitate her

File:Yu Liying Cult of Personality.jpg

Li Ying cult picture, 2019

One of the people who should qualify for cult of personality status is Li Ying (1998-), a Chinese extremist who indoctrinated many of my female classmates from China to copy her and imitate her actions/movements. The most affected by this extreme cult is my cousin <redacted> as she was brainwashed by Ying Li to use the Snapchat variant of the hearts filter on several of her pictures, attend the same college, take the same major, date the same type of person, and complete the same things as the far right Ying Li. So many people were brainwashed by Li Ying that many houses hang portraits of her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EasternAlly2000 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 February 2021 (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:

• Het grootste standbeeld van Turkmenbashi (3406778102).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The Lubavitcher Rebbe??

He wasn't a political leader anywhere and never set foot in Israel. Why is he listed here? Isn't this for cults of personality around leader of countries? He wasn't that, and he also lived in Brooklyn. Listing him seems completely off topic. I'm new here so not just deleting, but he shouldn't be here at all, and was never in Israel, wasn't a citizen of Israel, let alone in political leadership. This thread isn't about cults of personality around religious leaders, right?

I'm new here, and didn't want to just delete without warning, but that's a strange addition here.