Talk:Cargo cult

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


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

Context
which is widely used in discussions regarding this topic, probably should be included somewhere. There are genuine commonalities with regard to some of the "cargo cult" movements, and perhaps the current article goes to far in the "cargo cult is a meaningless term" direction. (Full disclosure, I wrote the lead as it currently stands). Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's hilarious the extent this article has been rewritten to ensure that no one can actually tell what a cargo cult was and how people use the term.
 * GPT-4o does a 50x better job:
 * A cargo cult is a social movement that arises when a less technologically advanced society encounters a more technologically advanced one and attempts to imitate the behaviors and practices of the latter, often in the belief that doing so will bring them similar material wealth ("cargo").
 * History of the Term:
 * The term originated during and after World War II in the South Pacific.
 * Indigenous Melanesian people observed the wealth and supplies (cargo) brought by Western military forces.
 * After the war, they tried to recreate the conditions they believed would bring back the cargo, building mock airstrips, planes, and military-style structures.
 * The term "cargo cult" was later used more broadly to describe any group or practice that imitates the outward form of something without understanding its underlying principles. 207.96.123.224 (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you want bullshit-bot regurgitation of third-hand just-so-stories 'cargo-cult' narratives paraphrased from ill-informed mass media, ChatGPT will do a splendid job. Wikipedia however has a policy against using factually incorrect computer-generated garbage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The term "cargo cult" hasn't been erased, but if it has, that's good, because as the article makes clear, the science says it should be erased. 2600:8801:BE12:6E00:306F:B513:EEE6:AB93 (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with criticizing how the term is commonly used, but this common definition needs to be provided before it can be criticized. The current article fails to do that. 73.186.114.128 (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With respect, the current article reads like a GTP prompt, just a different one. It is sorely lacking in context.  It seems you are emphasizing the inappropriateness of the "traditional" explanation/description of cargo cults.  The literature offered in support of the article is consistent with this position, so it seems to be the  best current understanding.  However, the term itself is relevant because it reflect the chauvinistic misunderstanding, and therefore it is important that the underlying reality is, in fact, distinct from that term.  The term doesn't suddenly become a discrete and reified entity just because researchers have learned earlier understandings were wrong.  The first line of the article "Caucasian race" is "The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, Europid, or Europoid) is an obsolete racial classification of humans based on a now-disproven theory of biological race."  The article doesn't discuss only population demography based on current understanding; it acknowledges the problematic origin of the term.  I'm not suggesting something similar for this article, but it seems the inclusion of some discussion of the analogous problematic history merits acknowledgment. Kenton M (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be all for rewriting the article to cover this newer approach, but we need sources which cover those things, and that's what has been lacking so far. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I really wish this article was just a redirect to the excellent Open encyclopedia of anthropology article on the topic, which is really balanced about describing what "cargo cults" actually are. Ideally the article should be reworked to be closer to that article, though not to the point of basically just rephrasing it entirely. I think Peter Worsley's 1957 definition of cargo cults: "strange religious movements in the South Pacific [that appeared] during the last few decades. In these movements, a prophet announces the imminence of the end of the world in a cataclysm which will destroy everything. Then the ancestors will return, or God, or some other liberating power, will appear, bringing all the goods the people desire, and ushering in a reign of eternal bliss"
 * I think the problem that I and a lot of other people have with the article is that if you're having a conversation with someone and they mention the term "cargo cult", and you go to Wikipedia to try to learn what they mean by that, you'll be completely lost. I totally understand that the actual social/religious movements are more complicated than the layperson's understanding, but I think there's room for expansion here.
 * Adding a sentence like "the term is based on the now-debunked theory that the departure of major powers from the Pacific theater after World War II led the native Melanesians to ritually mimic the actions of soldiers in an attempt to lure back the planes and ships carrying 'cargo' to the islands." could give the common definition while also noting that it's not accurate to our current understanding. Jokertyf (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The 'theory' didn't need debunking. It wasn't even a theory. It was nothing but pop-cult facts-wrong story-telling. In this regard, our 'current understanding' differs in nuance only from that of the anthroplogists who first document these events (starting many decades earlier, it should be noted). At no time did academic sources support the patronising, and frankly sometimes racist, metaphor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay fine, "mistaken idea" instead of "now-debunked theory". The point I'm trying to make is, this article needs something in the intro saying how the term is used in common parlance. It may be an incorrect understanding, but when the common meaning differs from the academic one, that is something that absolutely belongs in the article. Jokertyf (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For that, we need a source. One that doesn't merely repeat the 'mistaken idea' as truthful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * look, you wrote that it's understood to mean something it is not. Not only is that a lie, it's not supported by sources Demigord (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If the point of the article is to avoid describing the "mistaken" pop-culture version of the term as fact, it does a bad job of this considering that the Postwar developments section refers explicitly to islanders "mimicking the day-to-day activities" of soldiers and building "life-size replicas of airplanes out of straw," etc, citing sources from the 50s-60s. PenguiN42 (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @AndyTheGrump
 * Dude if you want to clear up a misconception, EXPLAIN the misconception.
 * Explain the popular reference. Why its wrong etc.  Thats fine.  Be CLEAR. SIMPLE. CONCISE.
 * This is not academic writing. It's painfully obvious that people are trying to imitate academic writing.  Journals turn away papers that obfuscate like this. Carllottery (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll echo @Kenton M. It reads just like a GPT with a "but make it sound like a grad student wrote it".
 * It really does read like an academic *in training* wrote it. Even if you're writing for a journal, you still want to make it clear, simple, and concise.
 * Get to the origin of the term immediately. Then jump off from there, debate the relevance etc later. Carllottery (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * the Wikipedia gods abhor anyone interested in editing the article “cargo cult” and have devised a severe punishment: editing the article “cargo cult” 2605:A601:A862:A200:3026:C662:9564:8EEC (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m sure we can all dial it back. Why doesn’t someone try rewriting the lead? ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 20:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The term "cargo cult" is vague and confusing. That's the whole locus of this dispute. There's no way write about cargo cults that doesn't get at the fact that the term is poorly defined. The confusion draws from the fundamental issues of the term, not the way the lead section of this article is written. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No the lead is garbage. World-class awful attempt at imitation academic writing.
 * This is one sentence:
 * Although anthropologists have reported several groups desiring Western material goods, which were conceived by the villagers as being produced by ancestral spirits, the term "Cargo cult" has been used by anthropologists to "label almost any sort of organised, village-based social movement with religious and political aspirations" in Melanesia, regardless of whether they desired material goods or not. Carllottery (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because you will be reverted Demigord (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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


 * It is simple, certainly. As in so simplified as to be grossly misleading, where it isn't simply wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump you do not seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia. It’s to inform people. Not for you to be a pedantic show off. 2603:8001:7800:23C3:912D:DB61:A20:25E2 (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform people. Not to misinform them, as the simple Wikipedia article does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Simple Wikipedia is just repeating the way cargo cults are poorly understood by the general public. Wikipedia should be trying to reflect what the recent anthopological literature is saying about cargo cults (e.g. ). Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Recent anthropology is bullshit though 47.153.19.44 (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That sentence is enough to tell that your opinions are competely and utterly worthless. Wikipedia is not an anti-intellectual encyclopedia. Perhaps you should consider editing Conservapedia instead? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have more time and resources than you and will be re-editing this article infinite times per day until you and Andy are defeated. 47.153.19.44 (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Note, the article has now been semi-protected, making the above threat to edit-war factually incorrect material into Wikipedia null. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * The problem is that the term "cargo cult" is by definition very vague. As The Open Encyclopedia of Anthropology entry on Cargo Cults notes, the term is basically used for any sort of organised, village-based social movement with religious and political aspirations. Trying to write something coherent about collectively about what is ultimately, a bunch of quite different local spiritual/political movements is no easy task. I've tried to rewrite the article lead to something more understandable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Academic encyclopedia's should not be used ahead of more traditional tertiary sources. They are certainly appropriate for a section dealing with the anthropological background of the topic, but using academic sources above general sources is a red flag. TheMissingMuse (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Where the heck did you get the idea that "using academic sources above general sources is a red flag"? That is completely and utterly at odds with what WP:RS says. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Come on, this isn't that hard. From WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously trying to suggest that academics who have actually studied a topic in depth are less reliable than tertiary sources written by non-experts? And which 'viewpoints' are you referring to anyway? You seem to be suggesting there is some sort of serious debate over the 'cults'. Where is this debate occurring? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm just quoting and applying policy. When determining how much weight to afford a particular framing of a topic, the best place to look is more general sources. What I'm seeing here is an assertion that some narrow academic sources be used instead of having the article represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What viewpoints? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, you are misinterpreting policy. When discussing an academic topic, academic sources are the best way to find cites.
 * If you're arguing to expand this article's focus beyond the academic, then that's whole different conversation. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the circular argument. "This is a purely academic topic because purely academic source are academic." Well played. TheMissingMuse (talk) 04:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that if anybody on this talk page was willing to just say what the hell they actually thought instead of scoring epic dunks we might run some >1% risk of figuring out what to do about the article within the next hundred thousand words. jp×g🗯️ 06:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like every time I get a ping on this talk page, I lose brain cells. Okay, so here's my deal: look at the article Lemming. This is to all of you -- . Do we all see how this article is structured? It mentions the very pervasive myth, to which "lemming" in colloquial usage nearly always refers, and then it mentions that this is not really the case. Is this something we could do here? Yes? No? jp×g</b>🗯️</b> 06:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've no objection to that, though it needs to be properly sourced, and unambiguous. And not presenting the popcult myth as anything more than it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Certainly. As noted, I'll be editing the article in due course. Right now there's just too much activity from an over-invested editor to make it worth my time to try and improve things. At some point we'll be able to steer the article away from an overly jargon laden academic thesis review to an actual encyclopedic article. TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do not misinterpret my comment above as agreement with anything you have proposed. I was replying to JPxG, who understands the purpose and policies of Wikipedia, rather than to you, who appear not to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As illustrated several times in the discussion above, you're the one advocating against policy, not me. TheMissingMuse (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The lede doesn't mean anything much at all
whoop whoop why does it try to obfuscate what a cargo cult is. Don't they worship Prince Phillip in one of those or something? Some dunce (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * it doesn't <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 09:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ok. read it, then use that to tell me what they did Demigord (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

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


 * can you say where it does this and what it should say instead? this is the talk page not the vague page <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 09:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * can I say where it says nothing? lol. Obviously that includes it all
 * It should honestly define the concept instead of waving vaguely at spiritual practices
 * But they won't do that Demigord (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * wait, there is this: "The term Cargo cult typically refers to movements of Melanesian villagers revolving around a charismatic prophet figure who foretold a coming great change in society"
 * which is a flaming lie. Everyone here knows that's not what it typically refers to Demigord (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I ask how 'everyone knows' this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s true that that is not the typical concept referred to by the term "cargo cult". See Britannica and the Open Encyclopedia of Anthropology, which at least explain the typical and original meaning of the term. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 15:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, looking at the definition of "cargo cult" given in Worsley's classic 1957 monograph The trumpet shall sound: strange religious movements in the South Pacific [that appeared] during the last few decades. In these movements, a prophet announces the imminence of the end of the world in a cataclysm which will destroy everything. Then the ancestors will return, or God, or some other liberating power, will appear, bringing all the goods the people desire, and ushering in a reign of eternal bliss isn't far off from the definition currently in the intro is it? "a coming great change" is comparable to "imminence of the end of the world in a cataclysm which will destroy everything". Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The monograph would be a good source for the history of the term. It's more than 60 years later. Tertiary sources like Britannica and Open Encyclopedia are more appropriate for contextualizing the term in the modern day. TheMissingMuse (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Britannica online is just not a good source for academic topics like this (nor should we be relying on a general encyclopedia to write other general encyclopedias really). I've been trying to rewrite the intro based on the Open Encyclopedia of Anthropology for a while, but it's hard to write something concrete when the topic is vague. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are asserting this is an academic topic, exclusive of general interest. You'll need sources supporting that claim. The Britannica source refutes that claim, so you're going to need some strong sourcing to establish this topic as purely academic. TheMissingMuse (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read WP:RS? You appear not to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Many times. Have you read WP:UNDUE? What we are seeing in this article is a focus on a specific academic perspective of the topic, instead of a broader composite that integrates the various academic perspectives on the topic in a clear and direct manner. TheMissingMuse (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So, which other academic sources are you suggesting we cite, and what are you proposing we cite them for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The practical recommendation would be to cut the lead down from two massive paragraphs to a clean and clear single paragraph of 3-5 sentences. For example, much of the first paragraph devolves into esoteric details more suited to a history of the term, before even mentioning the social context under which the term developed. Most of the first paragraph should be chopped, with elaboration occurring in the article body. It's filled with misplaced academic jargon, trivia and political buzzwords like: "religiopolitical", "kago", "colonial oppression", "moral salvation", "existential respect", "anti-colonial desire", "Western colonization".
 * current: Cargo cult is an umbrella term used to denote various spiritual and political movements that arose among indigenous Melanesians following Western colonisation of the region in the late 19th century. The term Cargo cult typically described millenarian religiopolitical social movements of Melanesian villagers revolving around a charismatic prophet figure who sought to induce "ancestral spirits or other powerful beings" to provide them "cargo" through either reviving ancestral traditions or adopting new rituals, such as ecstatic dancing. Early accounts by anthropologists like Lucy Mair characterized these groups as motivated primarily by envy of Western material goods, although later researchers have tied them to pre-existing aspects of Melanesian culture, or to the disruption of local communities brought on by colonial oppression, or both. Cargo—kago in the Pidgin Englishes of the region—could therefore signify "moral salvation", "existential respect" or an "anti-colonial desire for political autonomy." Cargo cult as a term is now seldom used by anthropologists, although it has persisted in popular commentary and critique.
 * direct: Cargo cult is a term used to describe a belief system in which adherents develop ritualistic practices for the purpose of inducing supernatural forces to deliver 'cargo' to the believers.
 * TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This single sentence on its own is an inadequate summary of complex topic, if that's what you're planning to replace that entire paragraph with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't even a summary. It is a regurgitation of the popcult version, and as such unsupported by the sources we cite in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, as has been made clear multiple times, the sourcing being used is biased, and does not represent the broader cultural meaning of the word. The degree to which @Hemiauchenia is imposing WP:OWN on the article makes it a fools errand to try and improve the article without talk page consensus. Given that he's determined to impress his on WP:POV on the topic, with support from you, I don't see any consensus to cleaning up the mess any time soon. I'll go ahead and make some improving edits in the next week or three. TheMissingMuse (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Its pretty obvious that you've never tried to properly read any academic literature on cargo cults, and I really don't think you'll be able to do improve the article if you don't.
 * . I'm not trying to "impress [my] on [sic] WP:POV" on the topic, as you baselessly assert, but I am trying to reflect the complex, confusing reality of cargo cults in modern anthropological literature, rather than some inaccurate popular culture understanding of the topic. It's very funny that you bring up WP:OWN, because you seem to think that your opinion should override that of everybody else on this talkpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your heaping dose of lack of WP:AGF. Again, your attempt to WP:OWN this article is a major red flag for anyone wanting to contribute constructively here. TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow --       !!!!! <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 21:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are literally dozens of academic papers written about cargo cult groups. Obviously journalists and other non-academic writers wrote accounts of cargo cult groups, but these have problems with sensationalism. We should be looking to the academic literature to provide a truthful account of this topic. There is obviously a popular interest aspect about the way that "cargo cult" has become an idiom in wider western culture that is discussed in the Open Encyclopedia entry and should be discussed in this article, but that shouldn't distort the coverage of cargo cults as they actually existed in Melanesia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Quite right. The current lede distorts coverage of cargo cults as they actually existed in Melanesia. It's academic word salad that reads like freshmen level copy-pasta. TheMissingMuse (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, WP:SOFIXIT. Present the lede you'd prefer to see here and we can discuss it. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ...But only if you can provide the sources to back it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to comment on my proposed change above. TheMissingMuse (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked for sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * honestly: do you believe there is a 2% chance that if you asked someone what it meant and they had heard of it, what they would say is anything like the mush here?
 * Because I would happily bet at 50:1 odds they would not.
 * but I see the quote I was specifically referring to is gone Demigord (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a platform for the regurgitation of misinformation. The popcult version of 'cargo cults' is wrong. It has always been wrong. Just how difficult is that to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with TheMissingMuse and Demigord. 'academic jargon, trivia and political buzzwords like: "religiopolitical", "kago", "colonial oppression", "moral salvation", "existential respect", "anti-colonial desire", "Western colonization"' have ruined this article. Allegedly "Reliable Sources" of academics don't help if they are not describing the meaning of the term as understood by 99% of the population. --15:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please provide links to the Wikipedia policy that states that articles should contain misinformation just because '99% of the population' (or whatever imaginary statistics you can pull from your nether regions) believe it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me quote another editor from above: "There is nothing wrong with criticizing how the term is commonly used, but this common definition needs to be provided before it can be criticized. The current article fails to do that." 73.186.114.128 --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok then, citing the necessary sources, suggest an update to the article. One that doesn't mislead readers into thinking that this 'definition' was ever correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Judging from the history of the article, either you or Hemiauchenia will delete it, your protests notwithstanding. Writing takes time, deleting a small fraction of it. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's right, we remove unsourced/badly sourced misinformation, and replace it with content sourced to material reflecting the long-standing consensus of subject-matter experts. That is how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (He referring to his deletion of this example of a cargo cult from ) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Who is 'he'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because the very lengthy quote doesn't make sense in context. It's the opening section of a magazine article, and it is very vague. Who is this group exactly? It's never specified. It's not even clear if this is actually a real event rather than something imagined by the author. If we are going to have quotes about cargo cult practices, then they should be from the anthropological literature and about clearly identified groups. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The photo's are of the John Frum movement of Tanna, which started out as a 'cargo cult', back in 1940 (prior to the mass arrival of Allied forces on the island, it should be noted). As such, they weren't atypical in their early days, in that their millennialist activities revolved around a rejection of Western/colonial values, and Christianity in particular. A 'cargo cult' that seems at that point not to be particularly interested in 'cargo', though they were certainly concerned about fluctuating prices of copra, about low wages, and about more general inequalities with the 'whites'. What isn't typical is that a John Frum movement was still operating, 80-odd years later, as a mainstream part of the political/religious scene, and also available to be photographed and filmed by tourists etc (sometimes for a fee). It is grossly misreading to take this modern movement as representing what it was 80 years ago, never mind taking it as somehow representative of the cults as a whole. Which, needless to say, the piece cited isn't doing. It is making a general point about the meaningfulness of ritual to those that engage in it. Deprive the quote of its context, and you are left with the same old narrative about foolish 'natives'. You could do the same with Christians participating in the Eucharist, 'changing bread into their god through magic, and then consuming him'. Context, and an understanding of cultural context in particular, matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I kinda twigged that the quote was about John Frum, but thanks for clarifying. I agree the quote is problematic for a variety of reasons. This article obviously needs to discuss the John Frum movement and its practices in some detail given its prominence in cargo cult anthropological discourse, but this long block quote just isn' helpful and its presentation as a typical cargo cult ritual (if anything of the sort could be said to exist) is grossly misleading. I'm getting around to reading the the long chapter on the history of the John Frum movement in Lindstrom's 1991 book, so once I've done that I'll try to get around to writing a brief summary of the John Frum movement that doesn't overwhelm the rest of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The "cargo" in "cargo cult"
Having read the chapter Cargo cult culture in Lindstrom's 1991 book (freely accessible on JSTOR) and other anthropological literature on "cargo cults", the more confusing and ambiguous the term "cargo" seems. Obviously in early colonial and anthropological discourse, even predating the coining of the term during the 1930s and earlier, "cargo" is taken literally as Western material goods, with the individual desired items sometimes specified. Beginning in the late 1950s, some anthroplogists interpret the desire for "cargo" as instead representing a deeper desire for "equality, independence, salvation, identity, moral regeneration, and so on.", with some authors choosing to use the uppercase "Cargo" to refer to the whole complex of beliefs surrounding "cargo cults". Ultimately by the 1970s and 1980s it was increasingly being concluded that "cargo cults" weren't all that different from traditional Melanesian beliefs and social organisation. This is an incredibly tricky topic to write about given the widely differing interpretations of "Cargoism" in the anthropological literature, and I've been flip flopping on the emphasis and importance that should be placed on the idea that "cargo cults" desired literal "cargo" as Western material goods in the lede section. Feedback (from those actually willing to read the anthropological literature on this topic) would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There are maps in Peter Worsley's 1957 "The trumpet shall sound" showing documented occurrences of 'cults' within Melanesia. The maps indicate the multiple characteristics of each through symbols. The characteristics used for the classification are 'Myth of the return of the dead', 'Return to paganism, or transformation of traditional paganism', 'Use of various Christian elements', 'Myth of the cargo', 'Theme of cosmic cataclysm that will reverse the position of Whites and Blacks in the hierarchy of values', 'Messianic theme', 'Economic and political demands', 'Aggression and even violence toward European settlers, missionaries, and administrators', and 'Establishment of political unity transcending traditional divisions and linguistic differences'. I've not actually counted, but from a quick eyeballing, I'd say that well less than half of the 'cult' instances include the 'Myth of the cargo' element, and that the most common characteristic noted is 'Myth of the return of the dead'. Clearly this classification will have included an element of subjectivity, and no doubt it is incomplete, but it does indicate the complexity of the topic, as understood even back then.
 * Furthermore note that Worsley's classification is 'Myth of the Cargo'. Not 'Cargo'. The events he describes in his book absolutely do not support claims that the 'cults' saw the acquisition of Western material goods as a focus. Picking one at random, occurring in Milne Bay in 1893, Worsley notes (P52-54) how a Melanesian named Tokeriu had prophesised the coming of "a great storm", which would submerge the entire coast, and cause a new island to emerge. Tokeriu told his believers that to be saved, they had to discard the white mans goods, abandon their houses, and move inland. After the flood, the believers were told, "the the south-east wind, the wind of the pleasant harvest season, would blow continually. Then the land would prosper, and yams and taro multiply in the gardens. Besides these traditional attractions, a sail would be sighted on the horizon, heralding the coming of a huge ship with the spirits of the dead on board, and the faithful would then be reunited with their dead kinsmen. Tokeriu would form a government, and have at his disposal a steamer much larger than the government steamer, the Merrie England. Since food would be so abundant, all pigs were to be killed and eaten, and food in the gardens consumed. The people heeded his message..." There is a 'cargo' element here, certainly, but it is the cargo of the dead, a tale of abundance brought about (or returned to) through the rejection of 'white' rules, 'white' goods, and 'white' values. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to provide page numbers of the relevant maps? I might be able to access the book via the Internet Archive (though the borrowing only appear to last 1 hour). Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The pages don't seem to be numbered. I think they were in the front somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The internet archive edition doesn't seem to have the maps unfortunately. Would you be able to provide a photo of the maps? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's odd, since that was where I was looking at them. Try this link: They are at the end of the 'Introduction to the second edition", and can be found a few pages back from the 'preface to the first edition' which is numbered page 9. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah okay. For whatever reason the internet archive has both copies of the first edition (which I was looking at) and the second edition. The first edition seems to lack the maps. Thanks for pointing me to the version with the maps. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'd missed that. Shame it's only available an hour at a time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 18:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been able to instantly renew every time its expired so far, probably due to the lack of demand for the book. The bigger concern is that the Internet Archive's library is likely to go away in the near-future due to them losing Hachette v. Internet Archive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hemiauchenia my understanding of that case is that it means they can't loan a scan from one copy to more than one borrower at a time—am I wrong? ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 14:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I understand, the publishers are against the concept of controlled digital lending entirely, and it's already being forced to remove books . Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the article's lede should lay out the differing mainstream perspectives of the term, assuming the anthropological discussion of the meaning of "cargo" is a shorthand for the motives, goals and desires of these groups. As for cargo meaning "Western goods", Lindstrom's descriptions of two movements (Paliau and Mambu) in the Open Encyclopedia source do, on the surface level, show some focus on the acquisition of Western goods like tinned food, but its only one small aspect of broader social change; pages 180-185 of the book "Like Fire - The Paliau Movement and Millenarianism in Melanesia" detail a very drastic example of how cargo represented a much more radical vision of paradigm shifting transformation. Ohmsteader (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which 'differing mainstream perspectives'? Clearly there are debates within anthropology over analytical approaches, and over some of the details. There is also a debate as to whether a whole lot of different events are being lumped together under a single term. Beyond anthropology, there isn't any 'mainstream perspective' to speak of. There is a popcult morality tale supposedly about them, but nothing remotely resembling a reliable source for it. There can't be, since nobody but anthropologists have actually studied the 'cults'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I mean mainstream perspectives within the anthropological literature, and/or the evolution of such perspectives. I was thinking specifically about this line from the Open Encyclopedia entry, "Anthropologists offered a variety of explanations for cargo cult outbreaks, within the broader context of global social transformations that the War had caused. Simple greed and cupidity, fundamental Melanesian cultural and religious belief systems, or colonial inequality and oppression variously accounted for cult outbreaks." I feel the entire section under Cargo cult explanation is relevant to this point as well. The current lede does a good job laying this out, but I do understand it may be lengthy for some readers. Ohmsteader (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd missed the bit about 'simple greed and cupidity' as an explanation, and frankly it surprises me. To be sure, Melanesians are just as capable of greed and cupidity as the rest of us, but as an anthropological explanation it doesn't get very far. Not if you are trying to explain the specifics of why it manifested itself the way it did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverse Cargo Cults
THis article seems to be overly focused on Melanesian millennialist movements as they relate to cargo cults, rather than Cargo Cults themselves. Accordingly, I believe section discussing reverse cargo cults may be in order, and also may help clarify some of the problems we've been having with the article lately. Keep in mind, Richard Feynman gave a lecture years ago, discussing how cargo cults relate to primitives building airstrips and making control towers out of sticks and trees in an effort to attract airplanes, just as they had witnessed the US Army doing the same thing years ago. They were basically copying behavior they had observed earlier, in the hopes that it would result in aircraft bringing supplies. It's discussed in his book "Surely You're Joking Dr. Feynman!"

Ive got a couple ideas in terms of sources, but wanted to get some feedback first. 99.48.35.129 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Richard Feynman was a physicist. He had absolutely no subject-matter expertise whatsoever regarding cargo cults, and nor did he at any point ever suggest that he did. We do not base article content on misinformed anecdotes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, but his book was a best-seller and I believe he was responsible for popular usage of the term. The WP article doesnt even discuss his contribution to the etymology. Also, the article is overly focused on recent academic anthropological literature which risks running afoul of WP:BIAS.  I am not discounting that there are perhaps some useable tidbits in the anthropology encyclopedia, but I don't believe it should be a source that we heavily rely on.  It's hurting the article. Someone who arrives here to find out what "cargo cult" means, is going to end up being confused or misinformed, as 99% of the general population probably thinks of the Feynman definition when they hear the term.  If the Feynman definition is wrong, no problem, but the article should discuss why it is wrong, rather than ignoring it entirely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.35.129 (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Feynman made absolutely no contribution to the etymology, since the term was already in use when he gave the lecture. As for 'bias', anthropologists are the only people with any expertise in the topic matter. Wikipedia bases article content on sources that know what they are writing about, not those that don't. And as a general principle, Wikipedia prefers more recent academic sources to older ones, for reasons that I would have hoped would be obvious.


 * If you wish to make a concrete proposal regarding article content, do so. But only after reading Reliable sources, and ensuring that you can provide the necessary sources to directly support your proposed text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * OK like I said, let's tell people about Feynman and then tell them why it is inaccurate. As I mentioned above, wikipedia users arrive at this article looking for information.  99% of them will only be familiar with the Feynman definition.  Don't we owe it to them to explain why his definition is incorrect???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.35.129 (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If you wish to make a proposal, do so. Citing the necessary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

So here are a couple of sources I found, but please feel free to add any that you may think are appropriate: https://netmind.net/en/the-opposite-of-agility-rituals-ceremonies-and-the-cargo-cult-en/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/life-after-facts-how-russian-state-media-defines-itself-through-negation/ Thank you for your help. I think if we can first explain the misconception about cargo cults, then we can go about dismantling that misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.35.129 (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The first source is worthless, since the author clearly has no subject-matter expertise regarding cargo cults. The second mentions so-called 'reverse cargo cults' in passing, and is of no use either. Wikipedia content can only contain content which is directly supported by the sources cited. Neither source says anything about misconceptions' regarding cargo cults, and accordingly could not be cited for any content regarding that subject. And that is all that needs to be said here, since this is not a forum, and contributors are under no obligation to repeat ourselves endlessly just because you fail to understand the purpose and policies of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Wonderful. How constructive.  So we will continue to confuse 99% of people who arrive at this article trying to determine what a cargo cult is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.35.129 (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Split the article?
I think the big debate here is between people who think Cargo cult is for academic anthropological discussion of a wide range of loosely-connected cults, versus people who think it should be about the metaphor that's in common use. And honestly, I think both of them are actually article-worthy. Academic analysis is certainly worthy, but common metaphors also frequently have pages of their own. I'd therefore propose that we make this a disambiguation page, where the current content is moved to (e.g.) Cargo cult (anthropology) and the @growing_daniel crowd gets Cargo cult (metaphor). That should neatly sidestep the edit wars, and avoid a sloppy half-and-half article, or one that simply omits one side of it or the other. Alsadius (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What sources are you proposing should be used for the 'metaphor' article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, you could probably just use the article as it stood two years ago in that spot. It had quite a few references, most of which seem fairly legit to my eyes.
 * I know you were the one to do most of the changes since then, so I expect you will oppose this suggestion (since I'm sure you changed it for reasons that you believed to be good and sufficient), but I think the core disagreement you had with the old article was that it was about the metaphor, not the anthropology. The article you pushed towards did a much better job with the anthropology, which is good to have covered, but I don't think the metaphor should be lost in that change. Alsadius (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, just no. What you are proposing is a WP:POVFORK, which is entirely contrary to core Wikipedia policy, and has never been permitted. The old article didn't discuss cargo cults as a metaphor, it instead made claims about the actual 'cults' that weren't in accord with what appropriate sources (i.e. those from anthropology, the only field to have actually studied the topic) had to say on them. Any article on a metaphor must, per both Wikipedia policy and common sense, discuss it as a metaphor, rather than treating the metaphor as if it were reality. For that, we need sources discussing the cult metaphor as a metaphor. And the only sources I'm aware of that do that in any real depth are the writings of Lamont Lindstrom: an anthropologist who has noted the continuing interaction between the metaphor (which has taken a life of its own) and Melanesian culture and politics. Working from that, it would be very difficult to justify splitting the article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I don't think this is actually a POV difference, I think it just looks like one. "What were the cults actually like?" and "What does pop culture mean when using the phrase?" are wildly different questions. Trying to put them in the same article is a fundamental error, and the POV disputes are about which of the questions to emphasize answering, not about any actual disagreements on the content of either answer. But it's still an actual metaphor in common use, which is separately WP:N from the anthropology.
 * And yes, I think the metaphor is popular enough to warrant an article. This isn't the kind of reference one would put into a finished article, but here's a Google Ngrams plot of the term against four other common metaphors (and the first four I thought to check, no cherry-picking). All four of the others have Wikipedia articles (1, 2, 3, 4). "Cargo cult" is currently close to "have your cake", and several times more popular than the other three.
 * And those articles actually give good guidance on how one could write it, if you wanted to do a cleanup at the time of the fork. Boiling frog, for example, has a section on experimental evidence, concluding that it's not a real phenomenon. And by all means, include a "Modern scholarly consensus is that the metaphor is a misunderstanding of the cults" note on the metaphor article. But Boiling Frog still gets an "as a metaphor" section, with examples from mass literature and pop culture. Remember, the metaphor article should not be written from an academic POV, because other Wikipedia articles about metaphors are not written from an academic POV. That perspective is fitting for an article about an academic theory, but not for an article about an idiom. As such, your proper references for such an articles would be mostly mass-media references, not academic ones - there's no shortage of those. The Feynman example given above would actually be a valid reference in a section like that, for example, because it's a popular and influential work that explains and uses the metaphor. Alsadius (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What you are proposing would violate No original research. We can't do our own analysis of say Feynman, giving it as an example of 'cargo cults as a metaphor'. We need secondary sources that analyse Feynman's speech that way - as metaphor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's the relevant bit from the nutshell of that policy: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.
 * I don't have a copy of the book handy, but here's a speech he gave on the topic, and the book's version is adapted from that speech: I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call Cargo Cult Science. In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people.  During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now.  So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land.  They’re doing everything right.  The form is perfect.  It looks exactly the way it looked before.  But it doesn’t work.  No airplanes land.  So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.
 * He's clearly stating it to be a metaphor. If you want me to dig up someone else quoting him and doing that analysis, that can be arranged (there's a reference of this sort in the book's article, for example), but I don't think that's actually what NOR demands here. Judging by the structure of similar pages, simply giving examples of the metaphor in common usage is fine, no meta-textual analysis needed. Again, see the various links to other WP pages which I gave above. Alsadius (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know what Feynman said. And no, he isn't stating that cargo cults are a metaphor. He's using what he thinks he knows about cargo cults as a metaphor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But that's my whole point! The metaphor stands apart from the reality of the cults, much like how the boiling frog metaphor stands apart from the reality of frogs actually jumping out of the pot. People still use the metaphor, whether it's accurate or not, and that usage is noteworthy in its own right. This is exactly why I'm saying that there's two completely different articles here. One's about actual beliefs among South Pacific islanders, and the other is a figure of speech people use to discuss those who ape the form of something without understanding the content. Alsadius (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Articles need sources. Sources directly discussing the article topic. Not sources we can select our own examples from. This is how Wikipedia does things. Per policy. Per WP:NOR. Per WP:RS. Per WP:NPOV. Find the sources. Sources discussing 'cargo cults as a metaphor'. Or 'cargo cults as a figure of speech'. Not sources using metaphors. Sources analysing them as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So can I expect to see you in Talk:Boiling frog arguing that they need to remove the "as a metaphor" section, and just leave it as an animal behaviour article? Remove the joke that started Spherical cow, and also the pop culture references, and leave it as "This was the name of a Linux distribution from 2013"? I don't see how those articles are distinguishable from this one, according to the rules you're suggesting here. And if a large number of long-established articles aren't following your rules, then I'd suggest you misunderstand the rules.
 * Can you find me even a single example of an article about a metaphor that follows the rules as you're outlining them here? I just went through a dozen more to double-check myself here, and none of the ones I looked at came close - several discuss the underlying fact pattern in varying levels of detail, but and a couple with single references to works of literary analysis, but none do the meta-textual analysis as the core of the article, or the most common category of references. All of the articles on metaphors have far more pop culture references than analytical ones. Alsadius (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So far you have failed to provide any analytical sources at all. And please read WP:OTHERCONTENT. Not that the other articles are really comparable anyway, given that boiling frogs, slippery slopes etc are immediately recognised as metaphors, used in common parlance in contexts where nobody can take them literally. This plainly isn't the case with cargo cults, where it is readily apparent that a significant number of people aren't treating the PopCult version as a metaphor at all - they clearly believe it to be historical fact, around which they can then construct metaphors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're genuinely interested in writing about "cargo cults as metaphor", then the book Cargo Cult: Strange Stories of Desire from Melanesia and Beyond (freely accessible on JSTOR) is a good place to start, though perhaps somewhat heavy-going for the non-anthropologically inclined. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, okay, to kind of bring things back around, here is where we are at.
 * There is a popular and widely-used idiom referring to a phenomenon believed to happen in this region.
 * This figure of speech comes from the mid-20th century, and is based on a somewhat simplistic and reductionist understanding of cultural practices.
 * These cultural practices are in fact pretty detailed and complicated and they go far beyond the thing referred to by the idiom.
 * The guys who threw up a viral Twitter post to piss and moan that this article was obtusely stuffed full of academic mumbo-jumbo for the sake of political grandstanding were mostly correct.
 * The guy who threw up a Wikipediocracy thread to piss and moan that those guys were saying a bunch of whiny shit about the wokies for the sake of political grandstanding was mostly correct.
 * I understand it's annoying when dumbasses are racist online, and to have to listen to people say "Did you know that there's this island where people are so dumb they made headphones out of bamboo to make planes drop supplies there" (based on, evidently based on the sources, a cheap gonzo documentray from Italy in 1970 where everything else in it was obviously made-up??) and that it is fun to tell people "Actually did you know that if you boiled a real frog it would just jump out of the pot?", but I feel like once the "unsubtly bragging about having JSTOR access" Rubicon has been crossed, it's time to get on with it. Is there an actual, serious reason not to just split the article? There is a set of religious practices in Melanesia, and then there is a term used in colloquial English to refer to doing dumb shit by rote due to inadequate understanding of complex systems. The first source from this article, which has 15 citations, even says this outright:
 * "Anthropologists have invented or cultivated a number of important keywords, including ‘culture’, ‘ethnicity’, ‘worldview’, ‘socialization’, ‘ethnography’, and ‘rite of passage’. Among these terms is ‘cargo cult’ which, although more particular in scope, has enjoyed surprising popularity both inside the discipline and beyond. Peter Worsley, who compiled an early overview of cargo cults in The trumpet shall sound (1957), offered what had already become the standard definition. Cargo cults are: 'strange religious movements in the South Pacific [that appeared] during the last few decades. In these movements, a prophet announces the imminence of the end of the world in a cataclysm which will destroy everything. Then the ancestors will return, or God, or some other liberating power, will appear, bringing all the goods the people desire, and ushering in a reign of eternal bliss (1957: 11).' In the Melanesian islands of the southwest Pacific, ‘cargo cult’ provided a handy label which could encompass a variety of forms of social unrest that ethnographers elsewhere tagged millenarian, messianic, nativistic, vitalistic, revivalistic, or culture-contact or adjustment movements. After the Second World War, anthropological attention (including Worsley’s) had shifted from functionalist accounts of simpler social systems to issues of social change, and how to describe and explain that change. The label presumed that these Melanesian movements typically focused on the acquisition of ‘cargo’ or kago (supplies, goods) in the Pidgin Englishes of Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu (then the New Hebrides). Anthropologists offered a variety of explanations for cargo cult outbreaks, within the broader context of global social transformations that the War had caused. Simple greed and cupidity, fundamental Melanesian cultural and religious belief systems, or colonial inequality and oppression variously accounted for cult outbreaks. The term fell out of anthropological favor by the 1970s when Melanesian colonies obtained national independence (Fiji in 1970; Papua New Guinea in 1975; Solomon Islands in 1978; and Vanuatu in 1980). Active social movements continue, however, in colonised West Papua, the western half of New Guinea that Indonesia annexed in 1962. Some have tagged these anti-Indonesian liberation movements as cargoistic (e.g., Giay & Godschalk 1993; Timmer 2000), but caution is warranted insofar as the label undercuts the political gravity and legitimacy of organised liberation efforts. Although most anthropologists have abandoned ‘cargo cult’ as misleading, and even embarrassing (although, see Otto 2009 and Tabani 2013, who defend the label’s merits), the term enjoys a post-ethnographic afterlife and continues to pop up frequently in popular commentary and critique."
 * Like, the very first source here explicitly says that "most anthropologists have abandoned" the term as misleading -- is this untrue? This one says that there's a "strong tendency in recent studies of Melanesian religious and political movements that want to discard the term 'cargo cult' for reasons of analytical—and ethical—inadequacy". If this is true, it sounds to me like a pretty darn good reason to write about Melanesian religious movements at an article about Melanesian religious movements, rather than shoehorning them into a different article, under a name that apparently is not used by the field, and instead let that one be about the idea of a "cargo cult" at the article about the phrase "cargo cult". I realize this offers fewer opportunities for point-scoring, but I really do think it would result in a better article. In fact, two of them. Yes? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 22:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I (and Andy) have previously said, the idea of "cargo cult" and "cargo cult as metaphor" are really intimately connected to the point that I don't think they are really separable into two distinct articles, and readers are probably looking for both in the same article. Probably the best source for "cargo cult as metaphor" I've found so far is probably Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it makes sense to cover "cargo cult as popular metaphor" in the current "cargo cult" article, as the two topics are intimately connected. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, provided it is properly sourced. Which is the issue really. As I've noted, nobody beyond Lindstrom and maybe a few other anthropologists seem to have said much of consequence on the PopCult metaphor as a metaphor. Beyond that, it just gets used - generally by people who seem to take it as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not averse to that solution, if the article can be written well. It seems like the more difficult path of the two (which is why I suggested the split), but if you think they need to be taken as a pair, then the one-article solution might be the better option overall. Alsadius (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not averse to that solution, if the article can be written well. It seems like the more difficult path of the two (which is why I suggested the split), but if you think they need to be taken as a pair, then the one-article solution might be the better option overall. Alsadius (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Article still a hot mess
Currently, the article is still a hot mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, with extensive misuse of sourcing. I don't expect that to change until the editor that's deeply invested in the article steps back. Reviewing the sourcing for the sentence: "Anthropologists have described cargo cults as rooted in pre-existing aspects of Melanesian society, as a reaction to colonial oppression and inequality disrupting traditional village life, or both", it's clear that context has been stripped from the original article which attributes that characterization to "Those with a more critical perspective ...". There is no reason to represent a critical cohort of anthropologists as representative of the field in the lede of the article. Twisting sources like this suggest there is some WP:POV laundering going on. I could go into deeper detail for most of the other changes to the article, but for now it's clear that trying to move the article to a more neutral place isn't worth the effort right now. TheMissingMuse (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Confusing definition
So based on this article, a Cargo Cult is "just like any other cult, but located in Melanesia". I'm having a hard time finding anything in the article that explains why a different terminology is warranted for Melanesian cults specifically, when the definition could apply to any other cults operating anywhere else on the planet, aside from "this term has been used to refer to one very specific but nebulously defined phenomenon connected to Melanesia, so this now just the name for cults that pop up in that area". Am I missing something? 46.97.170.182 (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)