Talk:Cult of personality/Archive 3

Barack Obama?
How can he not be included? Seems racist. When are we going to get past these baseless racial prejudices?216.222.254.1 (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I wouldn't call anything racist about it, I was walso wonder at what point Obama would be included in the list. This article's opening sentence says;


 * "A cult of personality arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.


 * Obama seems to fit the bill. Invmog (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed he does. Provided you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. -R. fiend (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But every politician hopes to cultivate a favorable image! This calls for a more rigorous definition of the term.Kurzon (talk)


 * Are portraits of Obama prominantly displayed in every town centre? Does his image appear on postage stamps and currency? Have the days of the week been renamed in his honour? Do schoolchildren halfway around the world begin each day with a blasphemous prayer to him, as they did for Petain ("Our father, who art in Vichy...")? No? Than how can you begin to claim that a personality cult exists? Just because one blogger who badly misunderstood the concept decided to stretch the definition, why must we regurgitate the swill? There is quite a bit that could stand to be added to this article (Petain, Eyadema, etc.), why is this dumb name-calling what we're actually filling it with? I am very tempted to remove the "Examples in a democratic society" section altogether, and likely will if there are no serious objections. Heather (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think including Obama would be presentism, at the least. Of course Barack Obama will receive more website hits, current citations, and references to a "cult of personality." He is a current historical figure. If his supposed "cult" extends after his term ends, then we will have something to add. 24.167.52.195 (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

New Zealand
Is adding John Key notable enough? He has gained a huge cult of personality in New Zealand, so much so that people vote just because of him and not because of his parties policies. The majority of voters support him without knowing any of his intentions, they just support the sensationalised view of him doctored by the media and his spin-doctors.

139.80.123.44 (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2014
The conspicuously short part on Russia demands editing and preferably fast. As a Russian myself I was expecting to read on Stalin's personality cult or the like but instead the section merely says "One-fourth of the Russian population believes that a cult of personality has developed around Vladimir Putin." and leaves it at that, while linking to a different page (Putinism) and the page it links to what it describes as a "The term occurs, often with negative connotations" and goes on to discuss the criticism used when using that connotation. The "Putinism" page is good, it rounds up the criticism used under that banner. I reiterate, it's a good page, dealing with a series of criticisms of the Putin administration. However if we put Russia in "Cult of Personality" and link it to the "Putinism" page instead of the more aptly named "Public image of Vladimir Putin" page (which is way more balanced, but in fact does not mention "cult of personality") we sort of do a disservice to article neutrality. And this is occurring at a time July 2014 when Russia-related topics are very heated due to the Crisis in Ukraine with information of dubious quality used by both sides and adding the section "Russia" to "Cult of Personality" with one unexpanded paragraph linking to a "Putinism" page which deals with criticism...seems a bit too non-neutral and being used matter-of-factly while "one-fourth" or 25% of one poll are to be noted, but probably as "cult of personality" section of "Public image of Vladimir Putin" rather than a blunt "Russia" in "Cult of personality". This just proves to be a one-sided "Russia has a cult of personality" by keeping the article in its current form = non-neutral. I presume the article itself is protected precisely to avoid non-neutral or dubious information. My suggestion: Delete Russia section from "Cult of Personality" and instead leave that as part of "Putinism" or add it to "Public image of Vladimir Putin".

P.S.: As a Russian, I find this quite laughable. While there is indeed a PR campaign in Russia working on the President's image it the same amount of PR any presidential image gets. So "Russia" being on the "Cult of Personality" with such a dry article sourced to a page discussing criticism (Putinism), rather than a page of the actual image (Public image of Vladimir Putin) which should discuss both sides, including criticism, to be just in poor taste. Especially considering the volatile situation around Russia's reputation due to current events. P.P.S You'd think a cult of personality would be more easily identifiable as is in the other examples of the article so that a single poll of 25% respondents saying there is one is not indicative of there being one.

Consensus: delete Russia section

RussianDude00 (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Aside from the remove the Russian section from the article, I have absolutely no idea what I'm supposed to change.  Also there are no reliable sources.  Please provide the edit request in a change X to Y format, with reliable sources and a consensus if you want something to be removed from the article.— cyberpower ChatOnline 07:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

United States.
Perhaps the users who are removing the referenced content would like to explain why here. Zambelo ; talk 05:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Below are the references used.


 * Corsi, J.R. 2008. The Obama Nation: Threshold Editions. Healy, G. 2009. The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power: Cato Institute.  Frazier, M. 2011. The Secret Life of Barack Hussein Obama: Threshold Editions.  Smith, R.C. 2013. John F. Kennedy, Barack Obama, and the Politics of Ethnic Incorporation and Avoidance: State University of New York Press.  Geller, P., R. Spencer and J. Bolton. 2010. The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America: Threshold Editions.  Edge, T. (2010). Southern Strategy 2.0 Conservatives, White Voters, and the Election of Barack Obama. Journal of Black Studies, 40(3), 426-444.  Berlet, Chip. "The roots of Anti-Obama rhetoric." Research in Race and Ethnic Relations 16 (2010): 301-319.  Healy, G. (2012). False Idol: Barack Obama and the Continuing Cult of the Presidency. Cato Institute.


 * No, as discussed above at length, it's obviously a fringe POV and extremely undue weight. That makes an entry for Obama a BLP violation. So no. Dave Dial (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

How is it fringe and undue weight? This article lists people who have been described as having a cult of personality, which Obama has, by multiple people, in published and in peer-reviewed sources. What are the inclusion criteria for this article? You appear to be making them up as you go along. If you have an issue with referenced content, you really need to a) Address the references you have an issue with and/or b) File a request for external comment.


 * This is also relevant.

Zambelo ; talk 06:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * How fringe? Somewhere between the cray cray, some kind of satire, a partisan political issue, and the just plain nuts. The weird meme that Americans who support or at least do not actively oppose their current head of state are a brainwashed cult that worship him as a supreme leader is as absurd as it comes. Apart from all the other issues of sourcing, POV, and weight, it does not help the reader's understanding of the subject of this article, cult of personality, to confuse the subject with a bizarre partisan political message like that. Incidentally, citing The Obama Nation and most of these others as sources strains the distinction between assuming good faith and assuming competence. Please don't come to a serious Wikipedia discussion citing ridiculous screeds like that as reliable sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not for you to decide though. The fact is, Obama has been described as having a cult of personality, by numerous sources, including scholarly ones. Have you looked at any of the sources? Because it doesn't sound like you have. Zambelo ; talk 10:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The point is, Obama has been described as such by the fringe tinfoil hattery that is found at the extreme right-wing of the conservative movement. Jerome Corsi of Swiftboat Veterans for Truth fame is neither an objective source nor a reliable, useful source for anything other than his own vainglorious opinion. Go plug his book and his opinions at Jerome Corsi, as they will not be appearing anywhere else in this project. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you've addressed one source. Continue. Zambelo ; talk 22:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Right-wing think tanks, obscure authors, and...egads, John flippin' Bolton of all people. Here's a slice of insight for you; people on one side of the political spectrum espouse lots and lots of heated rhetoric about their political opposites. It is neither newsworthy nor notable to include such things in a neutral and take-no-sides encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I know I am not an active participant in this conversation, I just happened to stumble across it, but this is ridiculous, and Tarc hit the nail on the head. Not to mention any mention of Barack Obama may infringe upon BLP. Chambr (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted User:RightCowLeftCoast's addition of these "Obama personality cult" claims per WP:BRD and this previous discussion. It is obvious that there is no consensus this material is sufficiently sourced or appropriate in this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop following me. The content removed, was reliably sourced to a multitude of reliable sources. If a single quote from the son of Ronald Reagan is included, and the multitude of published sources about Barack Obama is excluded does that not violate WP:NEU?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The references need to be revisited and certain un-notable ones removed - however there are plenty of sources describing the Obama administration as a cult of personality - these is a clear US-centric bias going on here, as well as possible article ownership happening. Content should remain, regular contributors to this article should abstain from editing it, and should seek consensus from the community. Zambelo ; talk 22:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like either the Reagan or Obama inclusion. I suggest an RFC on the matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither. There will always be partisans on both sides, and this article should not be used for hashing out these disputes. I don't think an RFC is needed. (I am not involved in this article, came here via a post at WP:AN/) -   Cwobeel   (talk)  00:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We have a situation here where there are well-established, broadly-accepted statements about well-known dictators such as Kim-Jong Il, and then there are fringe accusations leveled only by extremist partisans. I don't think there's any widely-accepted view that any U.S. president has had anything resembling the "cult of personality" ideology expressed on this page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So is there any consensus to retain the remaining content of the U.S. section – a broad-based, vague indictment of the entire office of the president from the Koch brothers founded/funded Cato Institute? Or should that be deleted as well? 2600:1006:B120:5E5F:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's still fringe nonsense, of course, but it's not as objectionable as sniping at individual U.S. presidents. I'm sure a fair case could be made for many world leaders of the past 100 years, but this article should focus on those that are highlighted by mainstream academic thought.  If we simply must list of a bunch of examples (seriously, what's with the obsessive list-making on Wikipedia?), anything less is undue weight.  That means that Randy in Boise can't add his mayor merely because the local paper ran a critical editorial. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why emphasis that CATO has received funding from Koch Brothers? That matters nothing. That's like saying anything that has received funding from A. Huffington or Soros should be discounted as FRINGE. The sources that I had used came from various publishers, including SUNY and Random House, non-partistan sources. All that being said, I find it a good compromise that both Reagan and Obama were removed. To have one, and not the other, creates WP:UNDUE IMHO. My edit to add the single sentence regarding Obama, was not to say it exist, but to say that books have said it exist and the sources verify that books say it exist, not myself; it created a balance in the United States section (as Reagan was already included by a single source (compared by my multitude of sources)). Removing both restores balance by removing both left and right claims, leaving the one general claim (which probably could receive additional citations per WP:CITEBUNDLE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan...the hero of the Republicans
Reagan is quoted by Republicans and their FoxNews propaganda organization as a man who did no wrong. Yet, with all this manufactured hero-worship one can easily point out in things he said and did that made him a raving hypocrite. Yet the Reagan Cult of Personality refuses to die even though many in the GOP admin he would never be electable today and would widely be considered too liberal.

I was thinking the same thing, this article would be a lot better if it was resdesigned to include such figures as Reagan. The cult of personality is definitely not just a totalitarian style of leadership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.213.252.73 (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo Section
That's just someone sniping at former US politician Clinton. It's got nothing to do with Kosovo itself, not any more than e.g., an airport being named Ronald Reagan, or a train station Woodrow Wilson (Prague's main station former name).

I'm going to remove it, but expect one of the myriad useless bots going around wikipedia to undo my edit, as I don't have (or want) a user name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.195.148.96 (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've re-removed the section, which had been re-added back in by User:Tobby72 . It clearly doesn't belong within the scope of what this article describes. Per the definition in the lede, cult of personality is "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". Nobody could seriously argue that the treatment of Clinton in Kosovo fits that definition (it would require Clinton himself to directly control the media in Kosovo with the explicit goal of creating this!), and the erection of a single poor-taste statue clearly rises nowhere near the level of the pattern the rest of the article is about, even if one commentator in one opinion piece in a newspaper once (rightly) remarked that it "smacks of" such traditions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Kosovo

 * trolling by banned user Wikinger removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the point of this post is, nor am I entirely sure that the IP editor is editing in good faith, but I will take the time to comment on this topic in order to forestall future debates. Comment is Free is a reader opinion blog hosted by The Guardian, and it is not reliably published.  We need much, much better sourcing for this to return to the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nikola Gruevski's Personality Cult
Addition of two instances of Nikola Gruevki's personality worship was reverted since, it would seem, blogs are considered unreliable reference. However, blog entries contained both a screenshot from a major news as well as video of the personality cult music spot. So what is the problem? The fact that there is no CNN on Time report on this doesn't make reference non-credible or hoaxed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.198.206 (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You got reverted by an automated program (a "bot") that removes citations to blogs. If you can cite the reliable sources directly, that would be better.  However, I think there are already too many irrelevant examples on this page.  Without solid academic sources, I really don't think we need any more examples.  This isn't a "hall of shame". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez
I allowed myself to reverse the term “former” to “late”. I was even given an edit warning. I am sorry in my books the term “late” is not a euphemism, but indicates to the fact that a person is no longer with us, kicked the bucket, dead, gone, not alive, passed away. The term “former” to my mind indicates that Hugo merely might have went on doing something else after he died. I regard the term “late” as an adjective. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be a native English speaker. Late is an euphemism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I am a native speaker. “late” indicates dead … “former” former in office. “late” as an adjective means dead. So when directed to Chavez as a person he is dead, or was there a former Hugo Chavez? Maybe there was but was there a former Hugo Chavez as president of Venezuela? --Catflap08 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)“late” in this context means DEAD. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can not believe that I have to do this. late.  Read it.  Please. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Even when taking into account that the title “president” bears more weight he is one in a row of late presidents of Venezuela. He is DEAD.--Catflap08 (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read the link? It clearly states that "late" is a euphemism.  Exactly as I have been repeatedly telling you.  If you want to call him dead, then call him dead.  Stop restoring a MOS violation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I read the link but it is the late Hugo Chavez not the former Hugo Chavez. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is insane. You're still not willing to admit that you're wrong?  "late" is a euphemism.  MOS:EUPHEMISM explicitly says not to use euphemisms.  You have edit warred to restore a MOS violation.  Do I really have to take this to ANI and call out your "I didn't hear that" behavior?  I don't care how you describe this person, but you have to stop restoring a MOS violation.  I don't care if you call him "former", "dead", or "decaying".  Stop restoring a MOS violation.  Do I have to write this in a different language before you understand it? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to be on the safe side here. I do by no means defend Chavez. I keep my own opinion about him to myself. But what if there is a list of passed away former presidents? The link goes to him as person in the end. It would read the late or deceased Hugo Chavez.--Catflap08 (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC) I am just asking what bears more weight grammatically. Is it the president or the person which is linked? One would never say the former Hugo Chavez.--Catflap08 (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you talking about this? I don't care about that.  I propose the following text: "The now dead President".  Is this acceptable to you?  I just want this insanity to end. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Or "deceased". Yes.  You have finally found an English word that is not a euphemism.  That would be acceptable to me.  Is that acceptable to you? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I am asking myself if am going bonkers myself and consulted the Oxford dictionary. I am asking what bears more weight – the office – or the name linked? I have no sympathy for the views of Mr. Chavez held while alive. --Catflap08 (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Listen to me. I don't care.  Is "deceased" acceptable to you?  Yes or no. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, remember that the wiktionary is a wiki, and that means it is not a reliable source. This other dictionary does not list "late" as an euphemism. Cambalachero (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this for real? Our article on euphemism specifically lists "late" as an example.  Yes, it's a wiki.  But this is not a controversial example of a euphemism.  I can't believe I have to do this: The Dictionary of Euphemisms, by R. W. Holder, published by Oxford University Press.  Yes, that's Oxford University Press.  Are you two seriously going to argue with that? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Point taken. We should avoid the word "late", then. Cambalachero (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Cult of Personality vs Cult of The Individual
There seems to be a confusion lurking here between the Cult of Personality and the Cult of the Individual. Khruschev seems to have been talking about the former but used the latter term. Cult of the Individual appears to arise from Durkheim and refer to the construction of a faith around the notion of the rational individual. In that sense, it might relate to classical liberalism. Cult of Personality seems more like what Khruschev was talking about ... the tendency to hypostize the State in the personality of an individual. ThompNickSon (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Relationships Between; Media, Personality Cults, Pop Culture, Money, and Democracy
The use of personality cults in "Western Democratic" societies are being overlooked if not brushed over entirely: Western personality cults have done just as much if not more to shape and change public perceptions than many of the personalities cited in the main article. The role of the media is barely mentioned, which is odd because you cannot have one without the other. It should also be noted that most if not all personality cults are and were insanely rich. Some of the biggest personality cults not mentioned:Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Albert Einstein, Marilyn Monroe, Andy Warhol, Elvis, Obama, JFK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.62.177 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we need a reliable source for that. Also, keep in mind WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE.  This is not an article where you can soapbox about whatever is currently bothering you.  We need serious, academic research that identifies proposed additions as having a cult of personality.  I realize that this article is currently in terrible shape, and some day maybe I'll rewrite it.  Right now, it's pretty low on my list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Split
This article is starting to get pretty long. I think it's time that the examples section be spilt into separate article titled List of cults of personality. That way we could also add even more examples in the future. Charles Essie (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Would be better to just delete it. But a split would be alright. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a split would be good because then we could make the list even bigger. After all they're are other leaders who had personality cults who aren't mentioned here (such as Idi Amin, Jean-Bédel Bokassa, Habib Bourguiba, Abimael Guzmán, Ruhollah Khomeini, Vladimir Lenin (posthumously), Pol Pot, Josip Broz Tito, ect.). Charles Essie (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

FERDINAND MARCOS TOTALITARIAN?
WHAT ABOUT THE CURRENT PHILIPPINE PRESIDENT! WHY SHE DID NOT QUALIFY?

Makeover
I have started a make-over for the page as it wanders off into various views, such as Webber's sociology, when the term arose in precise political circumstances and our page should reflect that. I see that having links to similar concepts is also needed but, I feel, the page should concentrate on explaining its subject matter. Leutha (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Impartial Definition
it is beholden upon us as a 'hive mind' to establish and uphold an unbiased and criterion based definition of what we are talking about. what is a cult of personality in modern terms? the god-king criterion may no longer apply as we no longer have kings/queens as such, with the notable exceptions of Thailand, arabia, and Jordan. i would suggest a mark of indisputable leader, note i did not say undisputed. the former requires unquestioning faith, the later requires only a state of being unchallenged. nor do i claim the terms to be mutually exclusive.

our article begins stating "A cult of personality arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise." how do we define "uses"? how do we define "mass media? i should think that 'achieves goals through' would work for our use of "uses".  mass media can no longer be limited to monopolizing the fine arts.  the free press is the largest mass media entity to date (the internet is second at best, for now).  notice i said free press.  the checks and balances to a free press must include extra national sources.  e.g. ny times ->  berliner zeitung.  where would we be today if international policy had been based on pravda?  (not to say it was not based upon disbelief of pravda).  we must  also make distinctions between person and personality.  a person is a physical entity.  a personality is a power of presence.  whether or not the person is innocent of his/her image (see Washington) is of great importance.  posthumous grandeur is to be expected as we inoften speak ill of the dead unnecessarily.  i think we should limit our definition to persons living while their cult is in bloom (as apposed to Reagan). is the person using his/her personality to achieve goals? we could argue that anyone who did not would be mad. i would say they are merely humble. we must also consider the importance of pretension. did stalin have someone make up grandly named titles and honours and award them to him? did saddam hussein al-tekriti liken himself to Nebuchadnezzar? most historians would agree the answer is yes.

karl marx himself established a criterion with his antipathy toward "everything making for superstitious worship of authority". superstitious meaning: believing in, full of, or influenced by any blindly accepted belief or notion. when in the course of human events a community agrees to follow a HUMAN BEING without question or fail we call this community a cult, and rightly so. Dr. Clayton Forrestor (talk)

I believe that "cult of an individual" is a better translation of what Khrushchev said. Seadowns (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Add section, “In Modern-day USA: Trump
Isn’t he? Mxm191 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really - maybe in his own mind, and those of his acolytes, but not to any degree in the real world. Certainly there are no giant banners of Trump lining the streets of Washington, D.C., or statues of him in town squares throughout the US. Our coinage hasn't been altered to feature Trump's visage, and the US Government Printing Office has yet to put out Quotations from The Donald (a.k.a. "The Very, Very Little Gold Book").  In any case, we go by what reliable sources say.  Do you have a reliable source which says Trump has instituted a cult of personality? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed 'Jeremy Corbyn' from list of personality cults in totalitarian societies
Regardless of whether you take the heavily partial view that Jeremy Corbyn's supporters are a 'personality cult', the UK is not a totalitarian society.

Inclusion of DPRK in the lead
Hi, an IP editor and I have been disagreeing about what to include in the lead and I don't want to start an edit war! I originally removed the inclusion of the Kim Family in the lead of the article because they are not mentioned in the body. Thus, there is no cited information regarding their cult status or lack thereof. It's my understanding that independent research and synthesis are not a basis for including something in an article. Along these lines, I also removed the inclusion of Turkmenistan in the lead for the same reason. I am very open to being wrong, so let's talk about it! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleChongsto (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism report.
Pay attention to edits made by 2600:1700:5CC0:3060:65BE:3C6E:9CA:E294 (talk). This individual has consciously changed my statements on this discussion page (proof here https://i.imgur.com/4BNzjc7.png). Whether anyone agrees with me or not, this behaviour is inexcusable. Writing things above my signature that I did not say is clearly a massive violation, is it not? --RiddleSnowcraft (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

A couple other aspects
Not sure if this would want to add other aspects about the term...

here Britannica echoes WP as meaning the Soviet criticism of treatments for Stalin and Mao.

But there is the grammatical meaning that came from -- of simply identifying what kind of Cult. Cults being of either beliefs, goals, objects, or personalities. So the term was applied for Pythagoras or John Lenon,

I also see it for rulers of the ancient world, such as in text Leadership And Cult of Personality in a meaning of idolization and the divine right of kings or divinity of Egyptian rulers.

So - should some of this be said ?

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Mount Rushmore
Is this inclusion appropriate? All of the presidents who were sculpted in Mount Rushmore were dead when it was created; isn't it a requirement of a personality cult that its subjects be living? We should require a reliable source before including this image in the gallery. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cults of personality frequently outlast the personalities at the center of them. Think of the time between Stalin's death and Khrushchev's taking him down, or Mao, think of the many people who still worship Hitler, consider Peronism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cults of personality are normally originated during the leader's lifetime, though. And instigated intentionally by the leader. Celebration of long-dead leaders after the fact is something different from a cult of personality. Even if that celebration evolves (or perhaps degenerates is a better word?) into a similarly cultish reverence, that's still not the same thing as a leader deliberately crafting his own personality cult. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Where are CoPs most common?
Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government

This is the common perception, but how accurate is it really? It would be nice if we could cite a research paper that examines all of history with a clear definition of what a cult of personality actually is.Kurzon (talk)

Western bias?
I noticed that this article only lists examples of cults of personality in countries the west doesn’t like (Russia, China, etc.) and any attempts to add western cults of personality like trump, reagan or thatcher are removed. What’s up with that? These three I listed definitely have cults of personality around them, don’t act like the west is all sunshine and rainbows 2.100.192.236 (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee and Queen Elizabeth
These should go without saying. 89.253.73.146 (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Lee, perhaps, (ex post facto) but Elizabeth, absolutely not. Beyond My Ken (talk)

No mention of religous suppression
The USSR made relgion illegal and emptied out the churches and filled them with banners and wall murals of the members of the party, how does that always get skipped over? 67.80.64.41 (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The information is not pertinent to an article about the concept of the cult of personality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How is removing pastors priest not relevant to seeing the cult leaders image everywhere in a dance club that used to be a church? 67.80.64.41 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A "cult of personality" is not the same thing as a religious cult - you seem to have confused the two. Whatever else you want to say about it, the Communist Party of the USSR was not a "cult". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What do these policies have to do with the article topic? Dimadick (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They killed thousands of priest in 1937 and they arrested people for speaking too fondly of communism and not the state and they arrested people for speaking too fondly of the state and not of communism.
 * Everything they did is considered a cult, they'd deport you and your entire family to Siberia for not being in line with the cult, a cult of personality is just a reference to the figure head of the cult, which was Stalin at the time.
 * They made it illegal to have christmas trees so the people had to rename them as "new years trees." You're saying they aren't a cult when they forced people to do things after outlawing non-essential ideas that would never be illegal in a free society.
 * China did the same thing, they made men and women dress similar and outlawed Buddism, that's why people in Tibet aren't allowed to freely travel. 67.80.64.41 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * These things are general complaints about the states involved, and have nothing to do with the subject of this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, removing people and property from churches and replacing them with wall murals and portraits of government leaders constitutes propaganda and idolatry. 67.80.64.41 (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Donald Trump
Those who wish to see the addition of Donald Trump: where are the WP:DUE sources? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely impossible because a Cult of Personality is something you can never have a "neutral point of view" about, for the sole reason that it is a negatively-connotated characteristic, only ever noticed by people who are not in the cult of personality itself.
 * Both Trump and Biden's current campaigns check all the marks of a "cult of personality", but whenever anyone tries to add one, the other side will cry "neutral!!!". RiddleSnowcraft (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Biden?!?! Pull the other one.  Biden is as far from being the center of a "cult of personality" as it's possible for anyone in American national politics to be. In point of fact, he was elected because he was the anti-Trump in every respect, including that one.  You're wildly off the mark. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Biden. As with any politician whose speeches are greeted by overemotional reactions and a show of lights, fireworks and media outlets making sure everybody knows how "great" and "ideal" he is, with little to zero concern to what he actually can or will do in the job. That's the definition of a cult of personality, as elaborated in the page itself. Him being elected as an anti-Trump is itself another characteristic of a cult of personality, the former president's wrongdoings do not discharacterize the current one's romanticized public image. --RiddleSnowcraft (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Speeches with lights = Cult of Personality. An interesting hypothesis. Anyway, since you just described just about any politician I don't think it's going to hold a lot of water. Trump is the closest thing to s Cult of Personality this country has seen in ages (the fact that so many put loyalty to him personally over to their country, yet still call themselves "patriots," is evidence of that), but even so we'd need a lot of good sources if we wanted to include him here. This shouldn't be a list of examples anyway; that's how the article used to be and it was a mess. Besides, including Trump would imply he has a personality, which isn't backed up by any evidence. -R. fiend (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Trump clearly belongs here based not on evidence of his behavior but on evidence of those who blindly violate the most fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution at his behest. Regardless of whether he desired it, a mob of brainwashed lemmings coalesced around him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C3:4001:9220:78A8:525E:A4C6:9D23 (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How can anyone say that Trump does not have a Cult of Personality? His supporters had stormed the Capitol following his speech deriding the election as "Stopping the Steal", and 86% of his party in the Senate acquitted him in the second impeachment trial, even after indisputable evidence to his actions and inactions -- further dereliction of duty -- during the assault on the Capitol. Even McCarthy's phone call pleading with Trump to call off the attackers, while Trump did nothing, was entered into the record. The fact that Trump waited several hours to deploy the National Guard and call off his supporters with the infamous "You're loved, and very special" message, yet was still acquitted by his party -- in a case where there was no justifiable defense, only cements that Trump does have a Cult of Personality, or at least, has turned the Republican Party (or the majority of it) into a so-called Trump Party. The user citing that Biden has a cult is just delusional. If Biden had committed any of the crimes or scandals witnessed the last five years, he would have been swiftly relieved of office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5CC0:3060:65BE:3C6E:9CA:E294 (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're delusional. His speech wasn't the cause of the riot. You're forgetting all the other more terrible things the left, for example, has done - yes including Joe Biden. I don't see how continuing to add fuel to the fire helps - and that's what created Trump. People would follow anyone. And how many more million will miss the point and play the blame game? Gosh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:6594:3843:DA62:C33E (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Stop defending Trump's insurrection. 76.250.174.121 (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this all just the flapping of gums. Anyone who wants Trump to be included needs to start a formal consensus discussion, preferably in the form of an RfC.  The issue has already been discussed here, and the consensus was not to include him, so you'll need to overcome that with a new consensus.  After all, WP:Consensus can change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say there's ample coverage in a wide range of sources describing Trump's cult of personality. Wikipedia's articles are supposed to reflect what the reliable sources say, not what we wish was true. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

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