Wikipedia's "Cult of Personality" article is totally biased.

[barbaraann]

It presents this phenomena as primarily a leftwing thing and doesn't even mention Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush or Koizumi!

Look at these pictures and tell me they aren't trying to maintain a Cult of Personality for George W. Bush:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/hurricane/photoessays/2005/essay2/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_cult

I wonder how many people Rove has on the federal payroll undermining wikipedia.

[populistdriven]

1. 30% of the US falls into the Bush Cult of Personality

We need to submit corrections!

[newyawker99]

14. Hi bushmeat!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[populistdriven]

15. ThankYou! Glad to be here :-)

[fujiyama]

2. It's open for anyone to edit

Feel free to add Reagan and Bush in there.

[salvorhardin]

3. Wikipedia is collaboratively written

You always have the option of editing or adding to the article yourself. If you dispute the neutrality of the article (or the pictures) then say so in the article's Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cult_of_personality

Don't just sit back and complain about bias when this is one of the few things you can take effective action on.

[barbaraann]

5. I am not an expert in this area and I don't think I could do it justice.

That's why I posted this.

[salvorhardin]

7. Just post your OP to the Talk page for the article

Explain why you think it's biased. I'd leave out the Rove part though as that makes you look like a raving PCTist.

[cynatnite]

4. Well, I don't think rover has anyone undermining wikipedia

There is a really good discussion on another page with the link at the top. It seems to me that 'cult of personality' is a term that can be defined from the views of any individual's politics.

I don't see how Wikipedia could have made everyone happy on this issue.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. I'll go with Raygun, but Bush is propped up entirely by media lies and

spin. There is NO personality there AT ALL to base a cult on.

[Angry Girl]

8. Bush is the prototype for the AI President

In a few years, we won't even need a live human being (if you can categorize that prick as such). Just an image is all we need.

Nightweed's Hurricane Katrina Aid Organizations

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. So edit it. That's the point of wikipedia (and every wiki)

Go in and do an edit that more accurately reflects the knowledge on this.

Wiki imperative: Make it better.

[barbaraann]

10. I think there are thousands of people better qualified than I am.

I do all sorts of things I feel qualified to do but I simply don't feel I have the credentials to post to that article. Geez. Can't I be humble?

[salvorhardin]

12. Then do what I suggested and post a comment to the Talk page

If you feel you don't have the qualifications to write intelligently on the subject, then comment that you think the article is biased and include your reasoning.

Not to be an arse but you really can't complain if you don't do something about it. Personally I don't really see the bias there but if you do then at least comment on it.

[barbaraann]

13. Oh, I see now.

Thanks.

[TahitiNut]

11. They don't mention Mussolini, Peron, or Franco, either.

To be fair, the American Presidency has often been personality-centric. While I really like JFK (and was a sideboy for him once), it's hard to deny that "Camelot" was personality-centric. Pierre Trudeau in Canada had a tinge of this, as well.

Other than heads of state, they fail to mention Jim Jones and his cult, but bring up Koresh. Strange.

I personally don't like the entry because it fails to distinguish between the subjective and objective ... and fails to offer a real definition, other than by allusion. How does one distinguish between a true "personality cult" and a charismatic, democratic head of state with tangible, creditable accomplishments? Media celebritization a la People Magazine -- a "fan base" -- really shouldn't be confused with a personality cult, imho.