Talk:Cult of personality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Media (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics / Oligarchy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Oligarchy task force.

article should be split in modern/past sections[edit]

The layout is currently pretty scrambled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

==Nazi Germany==

How is Hitler not on here? Mhoppmann (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan...the hero of the Republicans[edit]

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 (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

yeah, Obama[edit]

The US in general just gets completely skipped over. Don't need to be a genius to see there's something funny with that. There's enough speculation on Obama's cult of personality to warrant a mention, just as much speculation as some of the other names which haven't been deleted. Is the article trying to say the most powerful country in the world has never had a cult of personality around someone in its entire history? Some 18th century British lord who liked seeing his name in the paper gets a mention yet there's no one worthy of mention in the entire history of the USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think its a huge leap from having favorable, at times fawning, media coverage of Barack Obama to a full-scale "cult of personality." Now look at John F. Kennedy, who was placed on coinage, had a major airport, numerous sites (such as the space center), schools and colleges, and other facilities named for him. Who's portraits were once common in schools and many homes. Who has an eternal flame at his gravesite. That is more on the level of a Cult of Personality, even though it was prompted by the sudden assassination. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Obama =[edit]

I feel that if he's going to be in here there need to be information on how he as a cult of personality like following

Third person usage[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section about the use of other people's image in order to further one's ownself? For example, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez frequently relates his policies and achievements to Simon Bolivar and promotes himself as the modern successor to Bolivar. The same is true for Fidel Castro using the image and personality of Che Guevarra.

Obama Pic[edit]

I know this has probably been beaten to death, but my opinion is that Obama absolutely belongs on this page, particularly given the ample information available showing that there are outlets, both official and third party, which actually are (figuratively) trying to deify him. Add in to the mix the evidence of attempted overreach, including the recent push to instal administration oversight in news media outlets, among other things, I feel that the CoP push is being renewed under order of the administration, whether by Obama's own command or not.

That being said, in American culture, we have a history of deifying our national heroes post mortem. Look at how Washington and Franklin and Revere and many of our revolutionary war era political figures are portrayed in government sanctioned in history books. Look at Grant and Lincoln. Look at MacArthur and Patton and Puller. Look at FDR, JFK, MLK, and more. Hell, look at how we portray Mandela in the media, when he was really just a man. And exceptional man, but a very flawed man. We mention his fights against apartheid, but not his violent responses and politics pre-Madiba.

I think at the very least that we can afford to add a subsection exploring the American tendency to glorify figures of the past, while mentioning propaganda campaigns which might equate to, at the very least, a fledgling CoP.

 JAGUITAR  (Rawr) 00:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Barack Obama Hope poster.svg
(I'm assuming that this is the sort of picture everyone's fired-up about on this talk page section) --From User Cramyourspam (talk 04:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)CramYourSpam)]]

I don't know who the POV protector is, but how is a picture of a person who is mentioned in the article not notable?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

He's barely even mentioned in the article, the article is not about him, he isn't even a real example of a Cult of Personality. Are we going to have an irrelevant picture of every goddamn thing mentioned in the article? Push your PoV elsewhere. -R. fiend (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama is certainly an example of a Cult of Personality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your attitude is unappreciated, your reversions are unappreciated, and your accusations are completly without merit. You have revealed yourself fully. Your protection of the picture is baseless. You have never come up with a good reason to revert. I don't care for the way you carry yourself. I have no time to waste on editors who won't even discuss before reverting. Your tactless reversions have been noted. Good day.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me guess, you added Reagan just to see if I'd remove a picture of a Republican as well as that of a Democrat. Well, I will. The inclusion of any of these figures is very tenuous and shaky at best, trying to use them as illustrations of something they have so little to do with is detrimental to the article. Pictures and illustrations in articles should have strong, direct connections with the subject, otherwise we're just littering articles with images, often creating the illusion of a real connection that isn't there. I'm not really convinced any of these Presidents belong, as they're not very well sourced, and peripherally connected, but I won't remove them without significant discussion. The pictures, on the other hand, add nothing. -R. fiend (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
You can guess all you want. As usual you are way off base. You have been outed as a POV protector.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The creator of this Cult of Personality page is obviously slanted towards Obama and will not allow any sort of potential critical attention to be drawn to his beloved leader. Fact remains that history will validate that the Obama phenomenon was indeed a prime example of cult of personality.

Barack Obama's name doest last 24 hours on this article... By deleting his name you are proving he belongs here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How long does Ronald Reagen's name last in here? Same amount of time, so shut it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

People. One final time. This is my final polite warning ... there will not be another.

My personal and political opinions do not belong on Wikipedia ... and neither do yours.

You will either conduct yourselves to the level of a Wikipedian, or you will leave. How it is done is up to you. Our goal is to remain neutral. Period.

Please ask yourselves if you truly wish to remain here. It's long past time for all of us ... myself included ... to put our attitudes away, as they do not belong here either. --Dr. Entropy (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama is without doubt one of the biggest cult of personality in all the times. Even this last two weeks the newsweek have thir editors saying that obama is like god, and that he is our professor and stands above all countries, and this is only a small bit. How is that not cult. Not gonna mention heś various pictures with thorn crown or the statue as Jesus on the top of a donkey.

see the newsweek:

also in the mainstream news sites:

or search on google news for :obama god

As the lack of replies based of the references above I believe all agree in including Obama in this article. Right? Echofloripa (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Echofloripa. I appreciate your comments and I do agree with them. I myself do believe that a CoP appears to have formed around President Obama. However, as stated earlier, opinion isn't enough. Let me state that again, opinion isn't enough. To get it included, there needs to be consensus, and that's just not there. It would also need verifiable sources and a neutral point of view. I'd edit it myself to add the section, but HTML and I do not get along. If there were some way to muck the page up and make it totally unreadable, I'd find it. Probably without trying.

Hope that helps! - Happy Trails!--Dr. Entropy (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's my stand. Obama has a Charismatic-base that surpasses other, previous candidates. But by the definition of the article, Obama is not a cult of personality, because he does not use mass media (as per the description of a 'cult of personality' as described by the article itself) to create a heroic image. The poster was created by some guy, and was part of the campaign- not part of some propaganda to turn Obama into a religion, such as with Kim Il-sung. If you want to include charismatic hero backgrounds, then you need to update the boundaries of this article by better explaining how CoP is not necessarily a totalitarian thing. As a whole, the article needs some serious work, and before you go up and add random people that you think belong here, spend some time making the article useful and accurate. Clean it up, and get some recent literature on CoP to do it with. 8472 (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The use of Obama's picture in this article is undue weight and a deviation from neutrality. Chillum 16:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
i agree. inclusion of obama in this article is accusatory at best. making arguments to include him without a consensus or even a majority opinion is an expression of opinion and we all know about opinions dont we? Dr. Clayton Forrestor (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it looks like this debate has been over for a while... Chillum 16:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
There is little doubt in my mind that Obama is a case of cult of personality. However - there is no way that labeling him as such is anywhere near neutral (especially when compared to Stalin or any other actual dictator). (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Although President Obama has many ardent supporters, he has not 'used the mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise," which is how this article defines "cult of personality." Because the United States has freedom of the press, President Obama does not have the power to 'use' the mass media for any purpose at all- he has no authority over the press. He is not treated in the mass media with unquestioning flattery and praise, but indeed is criticized by many prominent figures of the media, flattered and praised by a few others, and for the most part reported on neutrally by the mainstream news media. Any claim that President Obama is the center of a 'cult of personality' is not using the definition of that term that this article uses, and if another definition has become more accurate, we will need to start by accurately sourcing and revising that definition. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
the press in the united states is so polarized as to be nearly innocent of freedom. therefore the only free information in the US is internet derived (IMHO). Dr. Clayton Forrestor (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Whether Obama's picture should be here is a minor point, however, to exclude any mention of him from the article is bias by omission. Without dirtying our hands in partisan politics, consider this and this. A web search using Obama's name instead of Stalin or Castro actually nets roughly 10x the number of results, and as much as one may like to, objectively we can't ignore Corsi's book... By the mere existence of this many articles on the subject, the only reason I can see for keeping Obama's name out of this article is for defending POV. -- (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
While I can certainly see the viewpoint of some editors (as zealous as they may be...) on both sides, we need to face facts. Do a lot of people in the media and in political commentary think that there's a cult of personality surrounding Barack Obama? Yes. And, as such and as an encyclopedia, it's disingenuous to omit it and deny it by saying its not as pronounced as other CoP surrounding other leaders - most of which are infamous for good reason. Herein lies the problem: People against this notion are arguing that inclusion of Obama into this page means that wikipedian editors are equating him to infamous tyrants and claiming that people must worship him at gunpoint - which is absurd. A cult of personality does NOT have to be fanatical, nor does it HAVE to be forced. If a portion of the media or the politic body are in what some sources agree is a cult of personality... Report it in the article. This is an on-going problem with wikipedia. Yes, we NEED to be as neutral as possible, but ultimately, it's up to people to read sources and make up their own damn mind. In fact, I'd dare say that attempting to have a 100% non-biased page is near impossible and makes bias more possible. In a significant irony here, we potentially have wiki editors practicing bias by omission while they justify it as avoiding bias. Similarly, we have wiki editors trying to introduce bias on the claim of providing neutrality through uncensored information.
TL;DR version of this? You're all biased, whether you wish to admit it or not. So am I. So let's stop arguing on that, pronto. And, while inputting my two-cents, I say that SOME mention of the potential Barack Obama should be included. Does that mean that the article has to be skewed against President Barack Obama? No. NOR does it mean he should be protected. Some information needs to be put on the page, and let it be known that it's up to the reader to make up their own mind on the issue... as anyone with more than one brain cell should. (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello 67.212...boy does THAT sound strange! I wish you'd signed in. :(

Here's where I need to be very careful. Personally, I myself do believe that a CoP has formed around President Obama. That's my personal opinion. However, as I myself have written, opinions don't belong here ... period. Facts do, and one could source this: "Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said [White House Communications Director Anita ] Dunn.

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters," said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama's chief campaign manager. " BUT there is also the News Corp exec praising Obama. Now, forgive me, but the job of a reporter is to report the facts without distortion or concealment. I read that in a manual somewhere. (source:

So here's what it comes down to: Personally, I believe that a CoP has formed around President Obama. And we all know where personal opinions and beliefs belong here: they don't.

I don't 'own' this page and neither does anybody else. Anything that is posted ... one way or the other ... must be competely verifiable and preferably shouldn't be a blog (although I have seen blogs sourced in other articles.)

Please remember ... and this is for everybody on both sides ... that this is a political minefield where the mines are on hair triggers.

I hope that helps! Happy Trails! Dr. Entropy (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think he belongs in the article because if there was such a massive cult of personality about him wouldn't he have won more than 53% or wouldn't his approval ratings be higher? And who exactly is his cult? Certainly not liberals, whom he has constantly annoyed. Liberals feel he hasn't delivered on his promises. Who is his cult then? I would agree than many people supported him based on what they thought he represented or his personality. That doesn't necessarily make it a "cult" of personality. The connotation is too negative for there to be a neutral section in this article based on him. Perhaps a new page could be made to include figures such as himself, Gandhi, M.L.K. Jr., Mother Teresa, Ronald Regan and the like. And don't get your panties in a wad, I'm not equating him necessarily to any of them but there are numerous people who would fall in a similar category without necessitating the connotation of the word "cult."--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

“A cult of personality arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image”

It seems to me there are two issues according to the definition being used. 1) Is Obama using the media, and 2) are they creating an idealized public image?

The book “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media” is evidence that some people believe this is so, and it may deserve a mention as an area of debate just from that fact alone.

The question of whether or not Obama is using the media is no longer a question anymore, ever since a conference call between his Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement (an office created by Obama), and arts and media bigwigs. Here’s some excerpts:

“I have been asked by folks in the White House and folks in the NEA about a month ago in a conversation that was had. We had the idea that I would help bring together the independent artists community around the country.”

“I think this it’s clear, and I heard somebody from Shepard Fairey’s team introduce themselves, and I think Shepard and the Hope poster obviously is a great example, but it’s clear as an independent art community as artists and thinkers and tastemakers and marketers and visionaries on this call, the role that we played during the campaign for the president and also during his first 200 some odd days of his presidency and the president has a clear arts agenda and has been very supportive of using art and supporting art in creative ways to talk about some of the issues that we face here in our country and also to engage people.”

“You are the thought leaders. You are the ones that, if you create a piece of art or promote a piece of art or create a campaign for a company, and tell our country and our young people sort of what to do and what to be in to; and what’s cool and what’s not cool.”

“And so I’m hoping that through this group and the goal of all this and the goal of this phone call, is through this group that we can create a stronger community amongst ourselves to get involved in things that we’re passionate about as we did during the campaign but continue to get involved in those things, to support some of the president’s initiatives, but also to do things that we are passionate about and to push the president and push his administration.”

“it’s like, yeah, I know change doesn’t come easy, but then now that I’m actually in the White House and working towards furthering this agenda, this very aggressive agenda, I’m really realizing that, and I’m also appreciative of the way in which we did win and the strategy that the campaign shows, which is really to engage people at a local level and to engage them in the process, because we need them and we need you, and we’re going to need your help, and we’re going to come at you with some specific asks here.”

“To a large degree, that’s how I saw the arts community to be so powerful in the campaign helping us to tell the story, telling their own story whether it was the Hope poster which made the whole — our whole mission instantly recognizable and relatable to people, or it was the video that circulated on the Internet but helping people to feel that they are part of a national movement and that their story, their private story, fits into this public space.”

The video:

The Hope poster:

Here’s the call transcript:

It’s clear that Obama is using the media and they are specifically asking for more productions like the hope poster and the “yes we can” video. So the remaining question is whether or not they’re portraying an idealized picture of Obama or not. The hope poster and “yes we can” video seem to suggest they are.

Also consider the Obama Superman picture, and the fact that Obama doesn’t allow people to photograph himself smoking.

An article from the beginning of this year actually questioned whether or not Obama has been crafting a too-perfect image. "Is Obama Too Perfect? Let’s be honest: Barack Obama is better than you are. He’s a better father - taking breaks from running the world to cheer on his daughters at soccer and basketball games. He’s a better husband - zipping his wife off for dinner in New York and Paris. He’s got a better diet - nibbling on vegetables from his homegrown garden to keep his love handles in check. And he’s got a terrific jump shot. You? Not so much."

"Call it the politics of personal perfection. The Barack Obama brand is as much about being a personal example to the nation as it is about being a political figure. But the danger of that frothy mix of glamour and domesticity is that President Obama could become in the public mind something he never sought to be: the Martha Stewart of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave."

"Says Republican media strategist Mark McKinnon, “President Obama and his team should be careful about trying to be perfect. Voters are suspicious of perfect. They actually prefer someone who is human. And has flaws. Like them.”"

My thoughts are that it should be added as an area of current debate or controversy, citing the evidences, and counter claims (I’m sure the Obama administration has denied this). Frankly though, the idea that a consensus can be reached that a currently popular politician has built up a cult of personality is ludicrous. You might as well say that we can’t post anything that can be viewed as negative about popular politicians. The facts however show that there is a current debate, which is worth noting in my opinion. Wiki3655 (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


There are much better substantiated and less-controversial examples like Kim Il-sung, Stalin, Idi Amin, and Fidel Castro that can be used instead. Let's sheath the partisan knives and get back to writing NPOV articles. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

General Mao could also be a good example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia as an example[edit]

This is notable. Googling "cult of personality" and Jimbo Wales gave over 3,000 hits, more than Ferdinand Marcos, Juan Peron, and Eva Peron combined. There are multiple references, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to omit.My cat's breath smells like catfood (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Google hits don't get us anywhere. Find some good sources for it and we can include it. But note that we don't include every individual who's been charged with having a cult of personalility. The burden of proof rests with the editor adding the material.   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It also seems stupid to single him out when I'm sure there are a plethora of non-political examples out there who would meet whatever criteria exactly Jimbo would. It's also unnecessarily self-referential; we'd only be mentioning it because we're Wikipedia and it deals with us. We should ask ourselves whether we'd include the founder of another encyclopedia, or whether another encyclopedia would mention this in their Cult of Personality article. If the answer is no, it would appear we'd be mentioning Wikipedia for Wikipedia's sake, and I suspect the answer to both would be no. -R. fiend (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
lololol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4EV1 (talkcontribs) 09:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Theory of religion[edit]

The article could maybe mention the notion found in the theory of religion that many archaic religions began as early personality cults. ADM (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)



A limited definition?[edit]

"But by the definition of the article, Obama is not a cult of personality, because he does not use mass media (as per the description of a 'cult of personality' as described by the article itself) to create a heroic image."

In passing, I will note that at the key times the mass media had no problems dominating its coverage with heroic images of Reagan or Obama or Eisenhower or Kennedy for that matter, and maintained that level of coverage for some years. I think the hidden assumption may be that mass media is the same as government-controlled media.

I say "in passing", because my real question is why the definition as cited in this article so clearly tries to exclude any example from secure western democracies. Even where democracies are mentioned in this context, they are only those close to coup or junta. Non-partisan core sources examining cults of personality make no such exclusion.

One way of avoiding any western democratic examples is to require a god association: but most cults of personality (even many listed here) require only the perception of significant achievement, usually associated with a revolutionising or hoped-for revolutionising of the society. Obama fits (see "Change"), as does Reagan (often given popular credit for the fall of communism), Kennedy ("Camelot"), and Eisenhower, first term post WWII. Another way of excluding is time limits, but most cited examples didn't last all that long either - and we can note from this discussion that Reagan's, at least, is still active nearly three decades later. Another objection might be that not all the populace shares the opinion; but again the article itself notes that not all the populace shares the opinion for many of the cited examples. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"You will experience an epiphany ... and vote for Obama"[edit]

"My job this morning is to be so persuasive…that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack." Barack Obama, Lebanon, NH, 7-JAN-2008

Just curious —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

M K Gandhi[edit]

I did not do a full reading of the article, but a Cntrl F search did not reveal Gandhi's name. The fact is that he is one of the best example of 'leader uses mass media to create a larger-than-life public image'. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

good times[edit]

the article itself actually speaks against obama's cult of personality enough to the extent that he no longer needs inclusion —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ruler of This Page is Biased[edit]

The ruler of this page is obviously editing it according to his personal political leanings. The fact that he refuses to allow any reference to Barack Obama on this page in spite of the fact the there is a strong cult of personality for Obama occurring in this country speaks for itself. So much for freedom of speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plitwin (talkcontribs) 16:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no 'ruler of this page,' and to think that there is suggests that you should read some more about Wikipedia and how it works. This article is about the concept, 'cult of personality.' You have not added any information about that topic; you have only added your personal opinions, supported with a youtube video (not, at Wikipedia, a reliable source. If you have factual information about President Obama that is missing from the article about him, you could discuss it at Talk:Barack Obama. If you have factual information about cults of personality that is missing from this article, you'll need to be more clear about the facts you think are missing and the reliable sources that confirm them. If you have strong opinions to share, Wikipedia is not the right place for that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Now that I've carefully read Cult of personality, it's clear that President Obama does not in any way meet the term as it is described here. Have you read this article? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I would say that the brand new account who is inserting a point of view and blanking the page perhaps may have a bias. I see nobody attempting to rule or own this page. Chillum 16:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Since this user is using at least two different ips, I've taken the liberty of semiprotecting this article for a little while. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are all references to Barack Obama deleted?[edit]

As PAUL KRUGMAN, of the New York times states in his OpEd piece, "I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality."

It seems rather Orwellian to systematically remove all references to Barack Hussein Obama in this entry, when he is clearly a contemporary example of a Cult of Personality. You almost can't find a recent reference to Cult of Personality that does not mention Barack Obama.

Is it the case that POV is not allowed, or that only Liberal POV's are tolerated?

It is very likely that those researching the term Cult of Personality are doing so because they have recently heard the term associated with Barack Obama. It is ridiculous to not acknowledge that association in this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop using multiple IPs to sock puppet this page. Chillum 03:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
May I point out that the source you are citing does not say that Barack Obama actually is a cult of personality, but only that the author is concerned that he will become one? The purpose of this article is to explain what a cult of personality is- that means using the best examples, the clear, unambiguous ones- not the examples that might score a political point for individual users. An article that scores a political point while making it more difficult to understand the concept would not be a good article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I also saw the name of Ronald Reagan appear as an example of a perpetrator of a cult of personality (I deleted it), and I believe it appropriate to discuss both him and Barack Obama.

Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama share much the same political skills and are similarly polarizing figures. Both encouraged flattering images of themselves -- but what President of the United States has not sought to create a flattering image of himself? But note well that neither had their books or speeches introduced into school classrooms as mandatory objects of study. Neither ordered the commissioning of monuments to themselves, and neither required that stylized images of themselves appear in court houses or school rooms. We Americans generally recognize it poor form to put anyone on the same plane as either George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who proved indispensable to saving Western civilization from its own worst tendencies, does not ordinarily appear in iconic images in a courtroom in America.

A cult of personality implies that views of the world that do not imply the glorification of a current Leader are are invalid, and that those who express such views can expect imprisonment, obligatory exile, personal violence, or death. People could criticize or ridicule either President and experience no bad consequences.

This is the wrong area in which to predict how a politician will act. We can't predict the future well here. Sure, President Obama can still establish a personality cult -- but so could his predecessor at an analogous time. So until President Obama really does establish a personality cult, let us not even discuss one involving him just as we do not predict where a tornado will strike.Pbrower2a (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Impartial Definition[edit]

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)

Mount Rushmore photo[edit]

Is there any particular reason related to this article that this photo was used? Its inclusion gives the impression that Mount Rushmore has something to do with a cult of personality. Seregain (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Seregain! It appears as though the text in question was copied verbatim from the George Washington article.

Although I didn't post the photograph, I would hazard to guess that the photograph wasn't to give the impression of Mount Rushmore as a 'cult' or of having a 'cult,' but that its inclusion is due to Ms Tumarkin's book in which she states that Mr Washington had such a cult around him.

Interestingly enough, there is evidence to support this: "The contemplated monument shall be like him in whose honor it is to be constructed, unparalleled in the world. . . . [It] should blend stupendousness with elegance, and be of such magnitude and beauty as to be an object of pride to the American people, and of all who see it. -- Design objectives for the Washington Monument, 1832" Source:

Hope that helps. Happy Trails!! Dr. Entropy (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama?[edit]

How can he not be included? Seems racist. When are we going to get past these baseless racial prejudices? (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. (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Western Bias[edit]

It seems all the examples given include South American and Asian countries but England, France, Spain, and other Western countries that followed similar principles are not mentioned at all. This seems to illustrate a Western bias.

On Obama ... he did not use a dictatorship to create a "cult of personality" and the very suggestion that he did illustrates a total lack of understanding of the term. He had no control over mass media in the sense the article suggests is necessary for the creation of a cult of personality, e.g. the level of control afforded by genuine dictators. Hardly an issue of race rather an issue of facts. While the phenomenon might be interesting and even irksome to some that is where the real racism comes in. The suggestion that a person of mixed race can't enjoy popularity without a cult of personality is in and of itself racist. While a democratically created popular image in the media did exist for a while the fact of the matter is Obama had little to do with actual broadcasts, publications, etc. that drove people to support him and therefore by the definition given in this article Obama's popularity might be more appropriately termed "hero worship". As I mentioned above suggesting otherwise indicates a lack of comprehension of the term given the definitions put forth in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

But in the first part of the article it says, not all personality cults are dictatorships. No control over mass media? What about the billions funded by big business he used to get into power, was none of that spent on marketing? I don't think anyone is suggesting he is a personality cult because he is black. The same people here have suggested Bush used a cult of personality so I think you are bringing in racism where there is no suggestion of it. Nibinaear (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Where are CoPs most common?[edit]

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)

Modern Use of the Term "Cult of Personality"[edit]

The modern usage of the term "Cult of Personality" has been completely ignored in this article. I did a Google News search for articles this month with the phrase 'cult of personality' (no quotations). The subjects of the first few articles returned were:

Elmo, radio hosts and their cult of personality, celebrities in general, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, Brittney Griner and Pope Benedict XVI.

None of these results have anything to do with totalitarian regimes. I propose beginning a "Modern Use" section so that users will not mistake current use of the term for it's antecedent. Obviously the modern use of this phrase is different from the more academic usage currently put forth. Ryan (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish this section would be expanded. Nowadays, personality cult is obviously prevalent in the entertainment and sports world. More people know the names of actors, musicians and athletes than the ones of politicians. (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Eyadema, Petain, and Obama[edit]

Okay. Damnit. Seven years after the lack of references to Eyadema and Petain started bugging me, I've added them, with refs. And people are still complaining on the Talk Page about lack of references to Obama, even long after the Obama section that once existed on this Talk Page (possibly improperly) ceased to exist. (Unsurprisingly, two similar sections came into existence to fill the void.) Nobody other than me seems to think that these two obvious personality cultists, described as such by obviously reliable sources and meeting the definition easily in anyone's eyes, are worthy of inclusion, yet we somehow must stretch the definition to include, what, any popular leader that some people dislike? Seriously, if including Obama on this page is a concern to the community but including Petain and Eyadema are not, I really must ask, what is the definition of a personality cult? Is it simply being popular? Or is it a situation where a leader is deified and the populace forced into worship, quite literally, in the form of blasphemous prayers, as occurred with Eyadema and Petain? Where are the Barak Obama postage stamps? Why is his image not on currency, and why is there no statue of him in every town square? Why is his image not hung on one wall of every room, as with the Kims, if we are so certain that a personality cult exists? Hell, last I looked, Obama wasn't even doing that well in the polls. Heather (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


It's as simple as this and I don't want to hear any debate: I am in Turkey. There is an obvious, widespread and government supported cult of personality for Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. People are free to criticise and not like him and many people do, but it's still a cult of personality. But Mustafa Kemal is not in this article. Why? Because he didn't "use the media" to create this (his successors did). Obama's cult of personality cannot be said to be as bad as Mustafa Kemal's by anyone who has visited both countries and consumed both their medias and talked to citizens of both. So let's be clear about this:

-This article includes NEITHER because NEITHER seized control of all media in their country and used it to turn themselves into living gods. This is the definition this article uses. This definition is independent of Obama, as evidenced by Mustafa Kemal's omission.
-There are people in BOTH countries who believe they are gods/prophets.
-The Turkish state and much Turkish media (including the Turkish version of Fox, by the way) use their resources to further such opinions about Mustafa Kemal MUCH more than the mainstream media or the government in the United States does.
-And yet Mustafa Kemal is not in this article.
-So if you want Obama in this article (and frankly, I couldn't care less, I hate Obama almost as much as I hate Glenn Beck) just get Atatürk in first and make sure everyone agrees that's legit. Then you can work on Obama.

PS: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess Atatürk is not here because the Kemalists delete it. Otherwise he had the full control over the mass-media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? Do not flame the mythical "Kemalists" for some POV issue. ĶŞĶ-ŴĀŘ (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Kemalism based itself on a personality cult molded around Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. (Ahmet T. Kuru,Alfred C. Stepan, Democracy, Islam, and Secularism in Turkey, Columbia University Press, p. 56.)
  • On images, representations on currency and stamps, and the Ataturk "personality cult, (Robert I. Rotberg, Transformative Political Leadership: Making a Difference in the Developing World, University of Chicago Press, p. 199.)

Takabeg (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Remove Ataturk From This Article[edit]

Atatürk should not be here because he is not a cult of personality. Was Ataturk a cult of personality? How? He is less of a cult of personality then Napoleon or Washington or Gandhi... How can you compared him to other charaters in this article? Let's be honest on this. Ataturk was not a cult of personality. He is the founder of a state, a successful commander, a writer, a leader, and a human. If some people, or many people praise him, that doesnt make him a cult of personality.

There is a POV problem here. Ataturk does not possess the required qualities to be a cult of personality. But if wikipedia is a weapon to hurt some historical character's fame, then let it be. Otherwise it's wrong to have his name in this article.

So let's put it straight. If someone is a beloved person and/or widely recognised national hero, does that make him/her a cult of personality? Ataturk is a national hero for Turkey. His character isn't a taboo, his biography isn't a taboo. He is just a historical personality, recognised by some as a hero. It's wrong to have his name in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia shall be NPOV. Of course Atatürk is not a Cult of Personality. This article needs to be reviewed to be NPOV, and this can be started by removed Atatürk from this article. ĶŞĶ-ŴĀŘ (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - User:KSK-War removed Mustafa Kemal and added Kenan Evren. Kenan Evren had never become a cult personality. I oppose to such fabrications. Takabeg (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So, you're supporting Ataturk being in this article, but not some other guy because it would be a "fabrication"? Oh, the irony is so large it's actually phsyically hurting me. -- Another n00b (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Accordingto the head of article, "A cult of personality is similar to hero worship, except that it is established by mass media and propaganda." Ataturk's charisma was not built by those. He became a "national hero" because he led an independence war, and won it. "Ataturk" item removed from article. ĶŞĶ-ŴĀŘ (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No. The "head of the article" has nothing to do with the cult of personality of Ataturk. We go by the reliable sources which call it "a cult of personality". End of story. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


Why is this article part of Project Religion? Religion is hardly mentioned in the article. Wolfview (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Should this page be locked?[edit]

There's a lot of heated discussion around here. Mind you, I haven't seen the actual page history, so I don't know if there's an actual edit-war going on, but I figured it would keep the vandalism down--assuming there is any. -- (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Modern ones[edit]

Why can't we make a list of leaders who have a cult of personality today I mean everyone is focused on stalin mao and hitler they're dead an although they had huge personality cults they're are new ones not mentioned in this article. They're also more then just the Turkmen and North Korean personality cults I mean it could be said a lot of leaders have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This article seems highly skewed to an conservative viewpoint. Historical examples of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and modern examples such as Sarah Palin or George Bush or Barack Obama are all easily made. There should be a section about the pejorative nature of the term. Honestly, this page reads like anti-communist propaganda. How about some depth in the rhetoric? --Johnnybgoode409 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Monarchies and others[edit]

I agree that the article has a very western, anti-communist bias.

Examples of cult of personality would include most monarchs ("god save the queen", etc.), Francisco Franco of Spain, as well as George Washington (he was painted as transforming into a God...), so, saying Obama is "the first" USA president to have a cult of personality is a plain lie. Also, Bush had quite a personality cult. He even painted himself as a messiah-like figure by saying he had spoke directly to God, and He told him to invade Iraq. Etc. If you want to go on about the communist you could as well add Fidel Castro, but Breznev is hardly an example. Just because he was narcissistic and liked to hang himself many medals doesn't mean he built a personality cult. -- (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Political only ?[edit]

The cult of personality applies to any kind of worshipping... And this doesn't necessarily comes from a authoritarian state, it may comes from the crowd as well.
I really don't know why you're not talking about the actors, musicians, sportsmen, so much loved that people live and die for them. Books and movies are made about them; fans wear the same clothes, they buy everything about them... If it's not cult of personality, I don't know what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. It is defined as 'intense devotion to a particular person', and never is strictly applied to socialist and communist regimes. One could argue that Steve Jobs, Al Gore, Obama, Reagan, Elvis, Bruce Lee, Rush Limbaugh, and countless others fit the bill. It's time for a new section. Logical fact (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. While there are fanatical followers of cultural figures, none of those are supported by the state propaganda in the same way that people like Lenin or Hitler were officially adulated.   Will Beback  talk  16:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought some of those figures should have been in here as well. Obama is obvious, but Steve Jobs would probably fit the bill as well.--JOJ Hutton 17:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
They are not even close to the actual subjects of cults of personality. But if you can find serious sources (not just hyperbolic editorials) which say they were, then they'd be suitable for inclusion.   Will Beback  talk  17:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
i am right here with you on this discussion -- well, torn about it, i mean. does it apply to "normal" celebrities? uber-celebrities? this is particularly relevant to me right now as i just removed steve jobs from the "see also" section. and believe me, i am gobsmacked by the insane (imho!) reaction to his death -- so i see the parallel. however, i felt it was too much to have him in see also -- and MAYBE too much to have him even as an example within the article.  ??? Jon Lon Sito (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The attention paid to people like Steve Jobs or Elvis Presley is more like hero worship or Apotheosis. "Cult of personality" refers to those cases where the appreciation is broadcast through propaganda by the state. In other words, it is imposed rather than being spontaneous, such as with Jobs or Presley.   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Imperial Presidency[edit]

I think some of the people arguing that Obama is the center of a cult of personality are confusing his status with the Imperial Presidency, the Schlesinger concept as outlined in The Imperial Presidency. Obama also has a measure of charismatic authority, as do many political leaders. I would argue that if we want to look for sources showing cults of personality around US political leaders, we would need to focus on Huey Long, maybe Franklin Roosevelt, whose presidency had elements of this, as did churchills time as prime minister. Reagan's cult of personality is more about his leadership of the Republican party as a figurehead and touchstone (increasing AFTER his terms in office), not so much having authoritarian control of the media during his administration. I really dont think any of these qualify as true cults of personality, but there may be references which mention elements some of these leaders had in common with this concept. but, if we do that, we would need to in fairness mention all the other political leaders who have used elements of this idea in their rule, which would be nearly all of them. I will add this article as a See also link here, seems fairly noncontroversial. As for other, nonpolitical "cults of personality", thats not generally the meaning of this phrase, i believe. those are mostly instances of hero worship, per Will Beback. the list of all people who significant numbers of people idolize is rather long, and would be out of place here. If you include all the names mentioned in this talk page, you would also have to include jesus, buddha, mohammed, all the way down to figures like charles manson and ted bundy, both of whom have, of course, a "following" of morbid fascination. This article is best kept focussed on the meaning in the lede.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Where's Ron Paul?[edit]

If any current US politician has a cult of personality, it would be Ron Paul. Some of his supporters view him as very much a god, and support giving unlimited power to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources? Fat&Happy (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The superPAC established for Ron Paul is called "revolution PAC", which is itself a bit of a starting point on the demonstration of Ron Paul's cult of personality. While other candidates have PAC's proclaiming them to be the best candidate for X, Y, or Z, only Ron Paul's supporters call their work a "revolution". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a section, Cult of personality#United States, with many sources. Anarcham (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

And I just undid it. The logic you used to include Ron Paul would include every other politician in the U.S. Frappyjohn (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Not every other politician has numerous references to their cults of personality. Ron Paul does. It was referenced so what valid criteria did you use to remove it? Anarcham (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
A quick exercise with Google should prove my point: Three Google searches, each for "cult of personality" and (1) "Ron Paul" (2) "Roosevelt" and (3) "Obama" : The results: Ron Paul: 32,000 results, Roosevelt: 77,000, Obama: 355,000. And yet arguably none of these fits the description of persons with cults of personality. (Mao ZeDong: 656,000 results). You are confusing branding with personality cults. Frappyjohn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not confusing branding with personality cults. For what it is worth, I got 52,300 hits for "Ron Paul" "Cult of Personality" see here and 122,000 without the use of quotes, see here not that google hits proves anything at all. Each source I provided explicitly called his followers a cult. That is how this works, we report what is said whether or not you like what is said. Anarcham (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Source for definition does not contain definition.[edit]

The cited source for our definition of Cult of Personality does not actually contain our definition, or, for that matter, any relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Mao probably needs inclusion[edit]

That's it, someone ought to include the cult of personality surrounding Mao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya think [1]???? Instead we have some irrelevant stuff about Sun Yat Sen and goofy stuff about Muslims. Somebody's been POV pushing here I believe.VolunteerMarek 22:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I recommend to add a section on Iran's leaders in 20 and 21 century[edit]

Cult of personality always has been an important ingredient of Iran's social and political movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Vladamir Putin[edit]

He is the clearest example of this in modern time, second only to Kim Jong Il. Plenty of examples of this observation exist even in an impressive collection of articles pointing it out. I'm honestly afraid to add a section due to the "Thou shalt not" attitudes of the people removing anything even slightly controversial.

I also want to speak to the ridiculous attitudes of the people removing "political opinions" from the article. Cult of personality exists as a tool of politics. To remove political influences from the article is to remove the article. If the approaches of removing "political opinion" were to be followed ad obsurdium, all entries would be removed as they clearly slant in an anti-totalitarian direction.

Ronald Reagan, JFK, and most politicians in the 20th and 21st century have been brought to an unfair standard of perfection due to the influence of modern media in the election process. Every candidate must be presented, through propaganda, as perfect and representing an ideal of family values and personal ethics. Pretending that Obama or Reagan somehow don't belong in this category is absurd and politically slanted. If their presence were presented by general assumption due to the nature of modern media elections, then that's fine. However this logical backflip that the reaction to (removal of content) what is deemed a politically motivated action (adding of content) is not also politically motivated is insane. That cannot be the reason for removal. I think that Obama and Reagan both belong as examples of what modern elections look like. Cabbruzz (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are the needed sources: here, here, here, here, and here. Mhoppmann (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Old talk in limbo[edit]

Someone just noticed this old edit of mine [2], where I attempted to archive this page. The spam blacklist is blocking a link to site called "assosciated content" that is somewhere ion all that talk, so the page can't be saved until it is found and removed or a some sort of spam exemption is granted. I can't seem to find that link and so the old talk remains in limbo, it can't be restored here otr saved on a new page. Those wiahing to view the old talk may do so by following that link or looking oin the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

...Amnd now it's been fixed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


It doesn't necessarily have to form around an individual. In America the president is worshiped like a god whoever is eventually elected. So why talk in terms of Obama or Bush? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggested change to the page currently called "Cult of personality"[edit]

i spent 12.5 years in a serious "personality cult" without having any idea what i was doing. Being a basically honest person, when i had finally gotten to the point that i realized i no longer believed the teachings of the group, all i could do was leave. It was the most difficult decision of my life. When i came to Wikipedia to look at the def. of a 'personality cult' i was immediately redirected to the "Cult of personality" a completely different thing; something which is made by the use of mass media and propaganda etc etc etc. How about having a page for the simple "Personality cult"; i.e. a group which often forms around the life of a man who was very abused in childhood, then, as he grows into maturity, as a natural part of his developing personality finds that he has natural leadership abilities, and some people are simply drawn into his 'fold' due to inadequacies in their own lives. Mine stemmed from growing up without a father which left me with 'a longing to be told what to do'. Millions of young men are growing up w/o fathers, or with abusive ones, and a certain percentage of them will be looking for someone to tell them what to do. Prison does that. The military does that, and personality cults do that too. Build a page around that aspect of the term 'personality cult' so people like me have one more place to get a look at what might be happening to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurplePoet (talkcontribs) 04:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo Section[edit]

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 (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've re-removed the section, which had been re-added back in by User:Tobby72 [3]. 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)


Concerning this revert [4] by Fat&Happy claiming "inadequately cited BLP assertion", please clarify what exactly is inadequately cited, because it offers more sources referring to Russia's Cult of personality over Putin then most other sections. (and I see a couple more above) -- (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

As indicated the first time it was used, some non-notable grad student's masters thesis is not a reliable source. That knocks out more than half the added content right off the top. The other sources listed for the remaining simple sentence are probably RS, but not sufficiently specific to be verifiable. Page numbers, ISSN/ISBNs, actual article titles and authors when part of a compendium – basic cite requirements. And of course, feel free to dispute or enhance other sections of the article if they also seem inadequately sourced. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I have readded only the first part for now, with expansion required tag. I'll work on the later when I have more time. If you want "basic cite requirements" such ISSN feel free to add the appropriate ref improve tags through out the whole article, since many ref here do not meet the requirements, thanks.-- (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

New Zealand[edit]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2014[edit]

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 {{edit semi-protected}} 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.[edit]

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#Balance?--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)

Republic of Kosovo[edit]

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)