It looks like Cult of Personality (T-H-L-K-D) is a standard vehicle for bias. All the current "bad guys" are listed as having cults. However, you could find ample sources to apply the same term to Obama. This is not to say that Obama is better or worse than the heads of state that are listed in the article -- it just means there is a double standard.

I remember about 5 years ago(2007ish) I believe Jimbo Wales was discussed about being considered a cult of personality

Its true, very true whenever Jimbo Wales goes you hear people saying "Oooh look at him, he's a right cult!" - Courtesy Kenneth Williams.

Hmmm, under "China" it has

"A personality cult in the Republic of China was centered on the Kuomintang party founder Dr. Sun Yat-sen, and his successor, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek" and then some irrelevant crap about Muslims (basically trying to portray someone as "bad" by associating them with "those Muslim", which is stupid on several levels)

But not a word about Mao.

Funny. When you think "China" and "Cult of Personality" do you really think "oh yeah, Dr. Sun Yat-sen!" and don't think "Mao!"???

Although the article picture is about Mao's cult of personality. Bet it reads different tomorrow.

Articles like this tend to suck because the term is becoming more of a pop-culture thing to insult people and there are thus a lot of stupid inputs.

I mean the bit about Sun Yat-sen and his successor is true, both had personality cults. Of course Mao's was far more "involving" and clearly much more zealous, but again, just about every famous leader has a personality cult of some sort amongst some groups of people. Atatürk, Salvador Allende, De Gaulle, Churchill, etc. The question is one of degrees.

The article seems to solve this by pointing to the practice of government-sponsored political cults, but even here the practice varies wildly. The personality cult of Chiang Kai-shek was clearly sponsored by the state (then again so were those of Washington, etc. after their deaths), to give just one modern example. You can't really draw a line if you don't stop at three of the most famous examples: Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. If you absolutely need a contemporary example then the DPRK will do just fine.

Any attempt to move beyond those three and the article is going to suck. "Why don't we include Chiang Kai-shek? Why not that guy from Turkmenistan? Why not Brezhnev's half-assed attempts? Why not Lenin? Why not Che? Why not the American Founding Fathers? Why not Reagan? Why not Obama?" It'd never end, you'd need to list basically every notable world leader from ancient times to the present. I mean in earlier versions of the article there were random mentions of Siad Barre and Enver Hoxha, and Hoxha is still there with an uninformative "oh this guy had a personality cult as well" mention. Why were/are they in there? Because they're evil and bad diktaturz and we need to pad out a lame article, fin.

This is the point at which otherwise intelligible people like Fifelfoo start making sense - for these articles, given that they're going to exist, it should be only academic, scholarly sources and that's it. This is a round about way of saying that Wikipedia is nowhere near close to being able to handle complicated subject such as these - but that doesn't mean the subject itself isn't encyclopedic (with a better encyclopedia, you could do it).

Sorry, but I am compelled to ask: do you realize how absurd that sentence looks?

I have every sympathy with Radek. I look forward to seeing Eric's attempts to write regularly in a language other than English without making a few mistakes. Maybe funnier than that one!

It is difficult to engage in erudite discussion of the doings of such personalities as Fifelfoo and Breeblebrox.

Eh, I'm not offended, and I said exactly what I wanted to say. Here let me purposefully mangle the English language some more: telligibility depends on the context. In some, even most, contexts, Fifelfoo (don't know about Breeblebrox) is not telligible. But in this particular context, he is. It could also be due to the fact that he's one of the few voices on Wikipedia who are saying this, and that someone out there could say it simpler and better.

(and it's you folks fault for having a funky language that has the word "intelligible" in it, but not the word "telligible")

+1