Talk:Cult of Personality

Anyone object to a launch?

Apparently not. Launching, then.

I figured it was time -- especially given the current political environment in the United States -- that we actually added it.

If you want to do it based on that, you're going to have to be very careful. I think the way we've currently been handling politics is good so we don't want to waste that good process. I'd probably recommend the contested template to be put under such an article permanently.

And having redlinks is a perfectly good reason to have a page -- it means people writing on widely different topics all felt it was something that we ought to have, or thought we already had.

I wasn't arguing the red links, the "that" meant political environment.

I see you have a pinball header here, so does Tommy count? Also, how about The Wonderful Wizard of Oz?

I have no idea what a pinball header is or whether you're asking me or LT.

Oh, and the "Pinball header" is the media type header for pinball. We've actually had pinball examples for other tropes, and even though they are rare we still set up a header for them in the standard set that pre-populates a new trope.

That still draws blanks for me, it is almost 3AM for me but I seem to suffer from a lack of glossary here.

Tommy would be music, or film, depending on which version you're documenting.

Oh, and the Wizard is so definitely an example.

Edit: Tommy would probably end up a subversion -- he has a cult of personality following him until he regains his senses and tries to actually do something with them, at which point they turn on him.

> "I'd probably recommend the contested template to be put under such an article permanently."

Well, given that there's nothing here actually referring to anything contemporary in the United States, that would make us quite a bit more scaredy-cat about the topic than Wikipedia is... I'd rather wait until we actually see anyone care enough to try to edit war instead of prematurely wimping out "just in case".

Your initial post seemed to suggest that you were going to include an entry regarding US politics 2017.

I'm not saying wimp out, I'm saying take precautionary measures so users/editors know that political entries exist and not to engage in those, preventative rather than curing.

If I were going to do that, it would have been in the article to begin with. There is no reason for me to be coy.

As someone who supports Trump, it's not unfair to say he has a cult of personality. They have a clearly defined place on the internet where most can be found (r/thedonald), as well as many who play up his every action and message with memes and other signs of political adoration.

To be fair to the other side, Hillary had her own, as did Bernie Sanders, and both still do to an extent.

If we are to approach this as non-controversially as possible, an entry could be made for these parties, but merely giving overview what each politician's COP is like, but with a purposeful attempt to refrain from casting any judgement on the objective facts.

I think it would be not quite appropriate to say that Trump, Sanders, H-Rod, or even Gary Johnson has a cult of personality. Of course, I would say that Trump wants one, what with his comments about "only I can fix X". This is a far way from actually having one. Putin tries but Russians are by nature a pessimistic lot; the only currently living political leader who has a proper cult is Kim Jong Un of Best Korea.

Maybe /r/thedonald is an example of such a cult, but it's hard to tell the trolls from the trolls, you know? But Trump himself wouldn't be the example based on evidence thus far.

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is kind of a satirical in that Oz is supposed to be an allegorical version of the U.S. President, but has more power in people's minds than in reality. Of course the 19th century President couldn't destroy the world with a nuclear football, but the comparison still applies: Actually accomplishing anything with the presidency is pretty hard. This doesn't stop our national cult from spouting off "Leader of the Free World" or even "I don't respect the man but I respect the office" about the presidency itself. Oz is just a personification of the presidency, which makes this trope apply.

I think it might be safest to say that the position of POTUS has the aura, rather than the person holding the position. Do any of the office-holders and office-seekers of the last couple of decades still have their adherents?

Changing tangents, how do we want to phrase the listing for Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the man who built the modern nation of Turkey from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire? He should definitely be listed - people still mourn his death nearly eight decades after his passing - but phrasing his entry the wrong way could get the entire wiki blocked in Turkey.

I would recommend we just not include any POTUS in the initial text, under Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment. If an editor cares to add one, we watch carefully.

As for the Turkish national hero... I'm not familiar enough with him to comment. I'll have to give the WP article an in-depth reading before I can offer any suggestions.

I concur with LT on the POTUS part.

As for Ataturk, I might take a crack at writing his entry eventually. He does have COP, but it's actually pretty benign in intention, merely being a symbol of Turkish national pride that his COP sees as someone whose example as a Turkmen is something they should look up to.

That's something maybe we should add to the article -- that a COP can be benevolent, or at least neutral, especially if they're spontaneous. It's the deliberate, orchestrated ones that are tools for repression. (And a benevolent one which outlives its target can get hijacked by the unscrupulous.)