Talk:Cult of personality

Is it easier to isolate a population today?

I agree with Whaledancer, I would have thought it easier to restrict information pre-internet, as there were few other ways to access information aside from official channels. While media consolidation has indeed given the mainstream media significant control over people's thoughts, it is accomplished via the complicity of the people themselves, and their desire to seek the path of least resistance. Contrary information to any media narrative remains available for those with the motivation to seek it out. The technically savvy can get around content bans, and still access information if they are determined to do so. Had the media had its way, Americans would have viewed Trump as a criminal Russian agent who led an insurrection against the USA. Instead, the majority of voters cast their ballot for his presidency. Therefore, they were unsuccessful in their efforts. Despite an overwhelming stranglehold on the mainstream narrative, the majority waived them off, sought, and discovered, information which ran contrary to the narrative.

In fact, as soon as I started reading this article, I was aware that there would be a prominent reference to Trump, despite the fact that the media overwhelmingly opposed him, and better examples would have been near-past presidents who were media darlings. Despite being rather soundly rejected, efforts by the mainstream continue to try and shift public opinion, but there's no evidence that it's having it's intended effect. Had 2024 instead been 1954, Trump would not have been electable with such an overwhelming level of mainstream media opposition. There would simply have been an absence of easily-available conflicting points of view.

Mr. Moral Panic (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems nonsensical

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

"Cult of personality" is shallow political analysis, but plenty of sources use and analyze this not-very-useful term such that the article will surely continue to exist.
An attempt to address the issues you raise might be to add a "Criticism of terminology" heading (I suspect you would find more sources like this one). Or simply to address other personality cults like that of Queen Elizabeth II (providing sufficient reliable sources exist). JArthur1984 (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon

Shouldn't Napoleonic France be listed under examples of a cult of personality? 130.156.22.253 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image gallery concerning presidents of the United States with their own cults of personality depicts 8 prominent examples. But there is someone missing from the group. The text states that the "supreme champion of the American personality cult" is the master propagandist from the American Civil War: Abraham Lincoln. Why is Lincoln not part of the image gallery? Dimadick (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page needs to be reorganized

Why does the "States and systems with personality cults" go into so much detail, even for tiny countries like the Dominican Republic and Turkmenistan, when List of cults of personality exists as a separate article? Wouldn't the "Purpose" section make more sense as a sub-section within the "Background" section? The page needs to be reorganized a lot. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 08:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cult_of_personality