This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cult of personality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was selected as the article for improvement on 14 February 2022 for a period of one week. |
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)
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)
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)
"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)
I recall that this page used to also cover non-political cults of personality. It does not do so now. Were such moved to another page or removed? If moved, there should be a link. 104.187.53.82 ( talk) 19:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cult of personality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was selected as the article for improvement on 14 February 2022 for a period of one week. |
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)
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)
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)
"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)
I recall that this page used to also cover non-political cults of personality. It does not do so now. Were such moved to another page or removed? If moved, there should be a link. 104.187.53.82 ( talk) 19:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
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)