Talk:Cargo cult

message: Hello! I have added the section "Reverse cargo cult" into the article "Cargo cult". You've removed it. I protest against it on the following grounds:
1. As for Due and undue weight. Just some examples ... https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/life-after-facts-how-russian-state-media-defines-itself-through-negation/ This article on openDemocracy mentions political analyst Yekaterina Shulman’s theory of the “reverse cargo-cult” and consists the link to second source that I used (newspaper Vedomosti) ... https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/5rtznu/idioma_explains_a_reverse_cargo_cult_and_how_it/ Reverse cargo cult was discussed in 2017 by users of Reddit in regard to Donald Trump policy ... I think this proves that the term "reverse cargo cult" has emerged in modern socio-political lexicon, both in Russia and English-speaking world.
2. As for self-published sources. I had to used the link to Yekaterina Shulman’s blog (first source that I used) because it's the proof of first recorded usage of the term “reverse cargo-cult”. I haven't found earlier mentions of this term.
3. As for independent sources. Newspaper Vedomosti is a Russian media which isn't affiliated with Yekaterina Shulman. The article "Практический Нострадамус, или 12 умственных привычек, которые мешают нам предвидеть будущее" in Vedomosti (second source that I used) is not press release, syndicated story and there is no conflict of interest. As I noted earlier, this source was mentioned in the article published on openDemocracy, British media, this fact also confirms the independence and reliability of the source.
Thus, I think your decision to remove the section "Reverse cargo cult" is wrong. 5.129.59.116 (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there. I went ahead and added a sentence about it using your OpenDemocracy source, which is a better source than the two original sources. I'm still not thrilled with this sentence. The term is not succinct (it's not obvious why western institutions have anything to do with cargo cults), and it only has 3 hits in Google news search. I think this is just a WP:NEOLOGISM that almost nobody is using. I won't object if someone reverts me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

text: I don't have any documented proof, but I first heard the term "reverse cargo cult" being used in the 1990's. I'm also fairly sure is was used on PBS discussion. So I pretty sure she did not "coin" this term. AllUltima (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article on Melanesian millennialist movements, not critiques of the Russian economy. I've removed the section as entirely-off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding the section about Reverse cargo cult and its subsequent removing 

message: The section "Causes, beliefs, and practices" is too abstract. Somebody new to this concept has to wade through this text and only at the second half of the section "Pacific cults of World War II" sees a practical example that makes everything clear.
A Wikipedia article doesn't have to be a dissertation. Please start with the example so people instantly know what is meant. Edwinm (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too abstract 

message: A person with no familiarity with cargo cults would not be too illuminated by the lead here. The section theoretically complicating the term is poorly-written and grammatically unclear—and also probably not really duly weighted for inclusion in the lead at all, let alone taking up >50% of it. The intro to the Britannica article on the topic is a good example of a helpful lead. Isthistwisted (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the lede could be better worded. It does however reflect what the academic sources we cite in the article have to say on the subject, unlike the unsourced nonsense you tried to replace it with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Girl don’t get snippy with me Isthistwisted (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: “It should be written in a clear, accessible style” Isthistwisted (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, feel free to propose a new lede that accurately reflects the article content, in such a style. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You like it, hoss? Isthistwisted (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead is super unhelpful