Talk:Charismatic authority

message: Is this confined to politics only? Why not to e.g. religion? Andries 19:47, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The origin of this idea in sociology is largely via Max Weber, who generalised the idea of charismatic authority in religion to other domains such as politics. I should put in a brief statement to this effect. BrendanH 09:09, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
I have removed Stalin who came to power via tricks in the Communist party, not because he was so popular, and was more a bureaucrat and reigned by fear and was obeyed. Later he created a personality cult but that doesn't make him a charismatic leader. Lenin would be a better example. Andries 18:39, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I guess it can be argued this way. I will leave it to others to decide if this is so, I am concerned more with Weber then Stalin. I can expand the entry on Weber's def of charismatic authority - and please not that ATM there are no entries at all on the traditional authority nor legal authority.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:48, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Nice job with religious leader selection Andries. I have now started Traditional authority and Rational-legal authority to expand on Max Weber theme. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I question the claim that prophets are good examples of charismatic authority, at least when we refer to Jesus and pre christian jew prophets. Nor Jesus, nor these prophets actually had many power as Weber define it, even if we can define them as charismatic characters. The weberian charisma isn't essentially a personal trait, but the social confidence on and sanctification of real or supposed special traits. These prophets were normally marginal characters in his societies, and lack commonly power ("probability to make others make his will"). Mahoma, by other hand, it's a good example of charismatic authority; in fact he had power in his time as Weber define it. So, I propose to remove the picture of Jesus and the general comments who make a direct relation between the prophet stereotype and charismatic authority.IsmaelPR 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ismael, in Wikipedia articles we do not assert our opinions. We simply describe what reliable published sources have said about a subject. You may want to read our policy of Attribution that together with the policy of neutral point of view comprise our core content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Jossi. In concur with you about Wikipedia, but if we're making an article about a Weberian concept, we should keep attached to his definitions. Isn't just a problem of opinions. There are many interpretators of Weber, many of them have consciously modified weberian concepts in different efforts to develop sociology; many of them will concur with the definition of Jesus as a charismatic authority example, many will certainly not. I just think the only picture of the articule shouldn't be a controversial application (very best if is a character who Weber signal as charismatic leader, like Julius Caesar) and the link between prophet/charismatic authority should be heavily relativized.IsmaelPR 18:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early talk

message: I read somewhere that charismatic leasers only happen to be charismatic because of special social and historical circumstances. Not always in the first place because of their personal traits. I do not have an English referenced source for this but if somebody can find a reference then I would appreciate it if this included in the article because I believe it to be true. E.g. Hitler was charismatic only because of very special circumstances i.e. humiliating, unexpected defeat in WWI, period of hyperinflation that ruined people's savings, Versailles treaty etc. Not only because he was eloquent. Andries 22:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Charasmatic leaders are only charismatic because of their context

message: Including such persons such as Jim Jones and the saint Sai Baba nicely illustrates the diversity of the charismatic leaders. Andries 10:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add these, but not under the same category with of Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad. I mean, that is obvious isnt' it? And for your information, charisma is not a vituperative.  --Zappaz 14:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, why obvious? I am far from experts on them, but they are all charismatic religous leaders, right? Sure, some are world famous and some are not, but that does not disqualify them from our section, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by Zappaz

message: #The charismatic religious leaders section is not pretty. What is the criteria used to judge those in that list?
* Random Wiki editing chaos I'd say. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We could rename it as examples. I think it is important to show the diversity of the phenomenon so that is why I think it is important that people like Jim Jones are included. I oppose the inclusion of Vivekananda because his authority was partially based on his lineage with Ramakrishna i.e. not a pure form of charismatic authority. I do not see a good reason for your removals of Sai Baba and Jesus Jim Jones who had both pure forms of charismatic authority. Andries 06:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: As I don't feel I am competent in those examples, I'd abstain from voicing any opinion on who should be and who shouldn't be here. I did create the 'less famous' list to solve similar problem earlier, hopefully you can tweak it so it works for you. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This taxonomy, as I said, is totaly arbitray.  As I said, tis article needs serious work. I am pretty busy now with other articles, but I will visit this one soon to NPOV it and clean up if nobody else does ist. I will add the cleanup tag in the meantime, --Zappaz 15:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can not say that I often agree with Zappaz but when giving examples one should state to what extent they have the other two authorities e.g. Hitler first had only charismatic auth. but became chancellor and then also had rational-legal auth. This should be stated. There are some pure charismatic types such as Sai Baba, Jim Jones, and Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 17:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Weber noted in his research that it is nearly impossible to find a historical example on any pure dominance/authority, as they always exist in some mixed combinations. The charismatic type is just a theoretical ideal type. A theory - as are the traditional and rational-legal types. So any examples we give are obviously given under assumption that they are only partialy charismatic and partialy sth else. I guess we can imagine lists like 'mostly charismatic/minor charismatic' here or create a separate article with examples, linked from all three authority articles? I think we have to  ask ourselves if we want just a simple list with few non-controversial charismatic examples, or a complicated list dicussing how charismatic, traditional and r-l any of our examples are? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotr, personally I would prefer a complicated list. Please note that the founders of religions and NRMs are often the ideal type. With regards to the religious figuresm, Vivekananda, Jim Jones, and Hendrik the eighth, Martin Luther and Calvin were not ideal types. The rest is, I think, please correct me if I am wrong. I know all of them quite well except for Hendrik the eigth. Andries 19:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: May be a short, complicated list in this article would be the best idea. Not a separate article for example. Andries 19:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to see the results of your work then. Just a word of advice: my wiki experience shows that when a list gets long (half of the article or more) it is generally a good idea to move it to an entirely new article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs serious NPOV work

message: This was referred to my Desk, and so I've started to edit it.  I felt that the text was sufficiently disorganized enough to warrant a major re-write, but I would love opinions. I just finished the first version, and I'm going to go over the examples list and tune that up as well, next.  Cheers! Khamsin 01:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Note: I read the earlier discussion on the example lists, and I've opted to remove extraneous text from the list;  my feeling is that the article provides a way to evaluate how the cited example leader is charismatic, and if we have to spend so much time explaining why they're charismatic in the list, then something is wrong in the article itself.) Khamsin 01:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I'm pretty much done now;  it's not perfect, but I think it's good enough.  Cheers! Khamsin 05:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Are pythagoras and plato really charismatic religious leaders? I have my doubts. Andries 18:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pythagoras and plato

message: I created a category :category:charismatic religious leaders for two reasons. First there is no category religious founders because there is always controversy who created the religion: the messiah or one of his prominent followers, as the case of Jesus and Paul illustrates. For this reason the category religious founder had been deleted. The second reason was because the 
:category:new religious movements was becoming too large and messy. Andries 18:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That category , for obvious reasons is up for deletion. Vote here. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:charismatic religious leaders

message: Weber died in 1920, how come the article reads as if speaks of "cults' and new religions? ≈ jossi ≈ 16:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Max Weber is a founding father of sociology and introduced the concept that is now used by many others. He could never have spoke of cults because there is no equivalent of that word in German language. He spoke of Mormonism that was new at that time. Andries 17:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am then deleting the text on that section. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 20:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not exactly what you want to delete, but as I said, keep in mind that the concept is not unique for Weber and is extensively used in the study of cults and new religious movements e.g. by Eileen Barker and this article should reflect that. Andries 20:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The text I have deleted makes an unwarranted statement aboyt cults in connection to Weber. That is not right. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 20:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Also removed "charismatic religious leaders" section. The fact that one single person (Schnabel) makes that assessment (e.g. person X is a "charismatoc religious leader") is not a basis for inclusion. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 20:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with your removal of notable attributed sources (Schnabel's Phd dissertation about new religious movements). I will revert. Andries 20:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Jossi, you have the right to ask for references and remove contents if they can't be provided, but you have no right to remove contents that is referenced from notable, scholarly sources. It becomes a different matter, of course, when you find a scholar who contradicts Schnabel. Andries 20:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You and I know the reasons for you inclusion of Prem Rawat in this article. Let's leave it at that. Nevertheless, check the good work you are doing for Schnabel .  As for notability, Schabel was not notable, until you started prompting hs dissertation in WP that is. :)  You can try the same search on Haan and van der Lans. ;-)≈ jossi fresco ≈ 21:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why I included Rawat in this article was because I did not agree with your deletions of the whole list and these two (Rajneesh and Rawat) were the only ones for which I had good references so I could insert them, without having to fear that they would be deleted. I admit that I was angry about what I consider your excessive scepticism of other people's edits. Note that I had done the same for Hitler, providing references. And to say that Schnabel is not notable is simply untrue. He is one of the highest ranking civil servants who do social research in the Netherlands.  Andries 21:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Being angry does not solve anything and is also bad for your health. Cheer up. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 21:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weber and new religions? 

message: There is a lot of material in this article that is unreferrenced. If it is from Weber's writings, it needs to be stated. If it is by someone else, it needs to be stated. I have added a cleanup tag. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 21:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not oppose to this clean up tag, but this article is better referenced than most Wikipedia articles and clearly the clean up tag has everything to do with the fact that this subject is related to cults and new religious movements. Just an observation that I think is funny, without any sarcasm or implicit criticism. Andries 21:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Can we now remove the clean up tag? This article is now very well referenced for Wikipedia's standards. Andries 19:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced material 

message: Weber defined charisma as "an exceptional quality in an individual who, through appearing to possess supernatural, providential, or extraordinary powers succeeds in gathering disciples about him" Weber The sociology of religion Boston Beacon Press 1963, cited in Charisma: A psychoanalytic look at mass society Irvine Schiffer (New York Free Press 1973), 3 and in Madelein Landau Tobia and Janja Lalich Captive Hears captive minds:freedom and recovery from cults and abusive relationships. Publishers group West 1993 Andries 21:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A quote to help the cleanup

message: Weber died in 1920. The cite added is labeled "Weber, 1978, p.241". If you use the notation (year) on the body of an article, you need to provide the date in which Weber first published that specific assertion. It would also be useful to have the name and published of the book you are citing from. Thank you. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Citations from Weber are often from the date of English language translations. I have observed this often and I first wondered about this. Andries 22:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. I found the cite on the 1978 edition of Weber's "Economy and Society". Added ref. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weber cite fm 1978? 

message: "People associate with religion" is very vague and unnecessarily so. what dictionary says that figurehead is a pejorative word? Andries 20:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider the word figurehead important because there is no way of knowing whether a religious leader who is presented as a leader is the de facto leader. For example, the religious scholar Reender Kranenborg wrote that the mother of Prem Rawat was the real leader of the DLM before the family split. Another example, there are rumors that Sathya Sai Baba has lost all power to the Sathya Sai Central Trust. Another reason is, that I do not know a synonym for the word figurehead. Andries 14:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "associated" is as vague as can be. I am associated with religion and NRMs too. The word "linked" meaning the same as "associated" is evena word to avoid. 99% of the people is linked to NRMs and religion. Again, find a good synonym or find a dictionary that says that figurehead is pejorative.  Andries 10:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely nothing problematic with the term "associated". But when you say "figureheads" as a generic attribution for a list of people which some are obviously not, you are bypassing WP:NPOV and WP:V. If some people in the list are figureheads as decribed by a reputable source, please add that to the list member and not to the heading for all list members. Otherwise, what you are really saying that Mohammad, Jesus, Buddha, etc. may have been figureheads. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 17:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is very much wrong with the word "associated" because it is very vague and in this encyclopedia we try to be as specific as possible. Please stop violating the Wikipedia style guideline Wikipedia:words to avoid that mentions the word "associated". I will try to avoid "figurehead". Andries 17:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the guideline. It is related to dubious application of the term: These words can imply a connection without stating the nature of the connection or discussing the evidence for and against it. This does not apply here as people in the list as well as the section title imply exactly that: people associated with religions or new religious movements. We could use "related", if you wish. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 18:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It may be at MB, but it fails all my spell checkers. I have never seen it use it this way and indeed sounds very strange. Do we really need that attribute, anyway? ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 21:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "People assiocated with religion"

message: Why does Oakes book a reference to "phsychology of charismatic leaders". Oakes book Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities is abook in which he explores the psychology of charisma and proposes his own theory on the development ofeligious prophets: the messianic and charismatic. This selective citation is, IMO unsuitable and misleading. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I do not understand your objection. What is wrong with citing Oakes? I am aware that he proposes a contestable theory about the difference between messianic and charismatic prophets, but he writes about many, many things in that book, not just that contestable theory of his. Andries 00:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: How can a citation from a book here be anything but selective? We cannot break copyrights and have limited space here. Andries 00:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oakes is not the only person who wrote that charismatic persons are narcistic. The psychiatry professor Anthony Storr wrote more or less the same in his book Feet of clay: a study of gurus. Andries 00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know exactly what I am talking about.  Have you even read the book? Following your logic I can quote this from Oakes' book: charimsmatic leaders display an extraordinary amount of energy, accompanied by an inner clarity unhindered by the anxieties and guilt that afflict more ordinary people. But that is not the point I am making. You have placed that cite as a generic cite for "phsychology of charismatic leaders". ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 05:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You also refer to Heinz Kohut. Have you ever read him? I tried reading some of his articles and found them incomprehensible. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 05:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have read Oakes' book. No, I have not read Kohut and Oakes called Kohut's work breathtakingly difficult to read. Andries 10:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I will make a note in the article about Kohut because I do not want other peole to waste their time reading incomprehensible literature. Andries 11:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oakes 

message: Thanks, Andries. My feeling is the sections with names of people is not compliant with NPOV. If you recall, WP:NPOV declares that we have to describe competing views without asserting any one in particular and that minority points of view should not be presented as if they were the majority point of view.  For this reason, inserting the name of a person on this section because one book refers them as having "charimastic authority", is presenting only that POV as if it was the consensus opinion. For this reason I am placing an NPOV warning on that section. My proposal is to delete all entries from that section unless:
* There are references to support their inclusion
* The references represent a consensus opinion by a majority of scholars on such persons fitting the characteristics of a charismatic leader.
IMO, the best place to present competing views about these persons, is in their own articles . ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 01:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are reference and as far as I know there is nobody who denies that they held charismatic authority. Where are the competing views? There are none. Andries 01:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not agree with the neutrality warning because there are no contradicting views. Andries 01:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I can understand the neutrality warning because of missing references for e.g. Jesus but I disagree with a neutrality warning in case notable references have been provided that are not contradicted by notable sources. Andries 01:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are 100 scholars that have studied Bhagwan and only one asserts that he is an example of charismatc authority as defined by Weber, that is a minority opinion. As a minority opinion it cannot be presented here as the majority (or only) position without breaking WP:NPOV. Now, if we find that there is consensus among the scholars that what study Bhagwan that he indeed fits the categorization, that would be OK. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 01:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a minority opinion if there are 99 that disagree with this one scholar. Each scholar studies different aspects of a person. Andries 01:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You are setting the bar for inclusion impossibly and unreasonably high and next time and in general please state in advance that even providing references will not suffice for an edit. That would save me a lot of time. Andries 01:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there another way to keep the list and at the same time comply with WP:NPOV. Let's explore these. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 01:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no notable opposing voices or if these voices are mentioned then the list fits fully Wikipedia:NPOV. Andries 01:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. By adding a name to a list based on one reference, you are de facto stating a minority opinion as it was the consensus opinion. I would suggest that you re-read WP:NPOV. A weay to resolve this would be to discuss the charismatic authority aspects of these persons in their own articles and not here. This way we can preserve WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 02:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if there is nobody who has objected then it is the majority. Where is the indication that this attribution for certain people has been opposed by sociologists. If there is none then it this is a clear indication that this is a majority opionion. Andries 02:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a 'very dangerous precedent in Wikipedia. For example: An opponent of George W. Bush, can find a reference (and believe me when I say that there are such references) about Bush being a totalitarian dictator and use your logic to assert the insertion of George W,. Bush into List of dictators. With your logic, the fact that no other reputable sources name Bush not to be a dictator is insufficient to prove that it is the minority viewpoint. Indeed dangerous interpretation of WP:NPOV, very dangerous. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 02:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparison for calling George Bush is wrong because 1. the characterization of dictator is not a neutral one, unlike charismatic authority and 2. common sense says that there are dissenting voices. None of those two objections are applicable for the list here. Andries 03:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Characterization of a person as a dictator is indeed neutral, as there is a clear definition of what a dictator is (see criteria in List of dictators). Nevertheless, that was just an extreme example to demonstrate the weakness in your argument. You can find hundreds of examples yourself were this will be applicable. If you are incapable of finding these examples on your own, let me know and I will provide you with a few more. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 03:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really do not understand the problems that you have with the a well sourced list from notable source without indication of dissenting voices. I consider your objections unjustified and excessively skeptical, but I may overlook something. Andries 03:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: May be you can organize a poll under notable sociologist with a list of people mentioned here and ask them to tag to what extent these people fit the characteristic of charismatic authority. I think that would solve the problem for some time. Andries 02:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot do that. That would be original research. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 02:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant to say with my sarcastical proposal is that the list is NPOV unless there is some indication that the opinion about a certain person is rejected by some sociologists. If there is no such indication then it is reasonable to assume that inclusion in the list of a certain person represents a majority POV. Andries 02:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Andries, but your argument is unsustainable. You have taken the principle of WP:NPOV and turnd it upside down. I will really suggest that you take 5 minutes and re-read WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 03:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a dictator has a clear definition then it is not a characterization but a matter of fact. I cannot find support for your view point in the NPOV policy. Can you please specify where? Andries 03:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no indication there are notable dissenting sources for the people cited and referenced so the list is not something like a POV fork. You may be right about possible dissent for unreferenced people like Jesus. Andries 03:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made an effort to make my argument clear. We all deserve better than a one liner that does not address the arguments made. Please respond to the arguments made in a manner conducive to clarifying this issue. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My one-liner addressed points 1, 3, and 4 of your arguments. with regards to point 2, i is true that mentioning a person here invariably leads to omitting most point of views about a person, but if this is the objection then we can not even mention a person as an example of charismatic authority because we do not mention all POVs about him. Clearly this shows that your argument is wrong. Andries 04:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My impressiun is that your one liner ony shows your inability to sustain an argumentation about this subject. My last paragraph above explains how to include a person in this list: when there is clear consensus in that person's article, about that person fitting the categorization of being an exaple of charismatic autority as per Weber's definition. If that consensus is not obvious then you are violatinmg WP:NPOV by asserting one single scholar's opinion as the only opinion and as the de facto majority POV. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not coming a millimeter closer. I will ask for Request for Comments. Andries 04:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did. I also invited a few other experienced editors to take a look. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That is a very nasty thing you did right there. Is that what you do when you run out of arguments? To mention in one breath these three people as to assert the fallacy of guilt by association? ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These three people happen be the persons in which I have actively edited the characterization of charismatic leadership. This is due to my background well known to you. When I read a book about Albert Speer by Gitta Sereny, I had the feeling that I was reading about my own life. Andries 04:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The honorable thing would be to refactor your comment above. Let see if you can do that to denote your good-faitrh and willingness to collaborate in this article without offending a fellow editor. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no intention to refractor that. My feelings were and are hurt too but I do not demand that the talk page be cleansed of comments that hurt me or make me angry. Andries 04:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid misunderstanding and feelings of hurt, I never meant to say and I do not believe that religious founders of NRMs are as sinister or potentially as sinister as founders as NRMs. I only had the unsettling realization that the social dynamics and psychology of the followers of Hitler was quite similar to that of followers of Sathya Sai Baba, including me. Andries 20:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of people in article

message: I have not looked at this page before, though being a political philosopher (in the sense of having a doctorate in that area, not as having a vague "philosophy towards life"), I naturally am familiar with Weber's concept.  But Jossi asked me to take a look at this, so I've read through the article and the above discussion.
The thing that strikes me even more than Jossi's concern (which I endorse) of providing citation of consensus support for a given name having "charsimatic authority" is just how capriciously selective the list is.  In some vague sense, just about every religious and political figure might be included; or in any case, a very large percentage of them.  What is special about the ones chosen for this list? It's too long to be the least necessary to illustrate the concept, but far too short to include even 1% of those plausibly listable.  On the other hand, most of the politicians are much more likely in the rational-legal mode.  Lenin seems like almost a perfect example of the latter, and JFK or Wilson are just regular elected presidents, with no obvious distinction from all the other US presidents (which isn't to say they don't each have some personal appeal; but you don't get elected without some).
I think most of the list, even where nominal citations exist, is more of the nature of writers using "charismatic" in its less formal non-Weberian sense.  Sure, JFK was a charismatic guy... I would have loved to schmooze with him if he hadn't been killed 11 months before I was born.  And Mohammad would certainly have made a very interesting dinner guest too.  But saying they're charismatic in a popular sense doesn't mean that there is a body of sociologists who follow Weber's specific classificatory system, and actually debated whether so-and-so fits this category.  In fact, there aren't a lot of dedicated Weberians in sociology, at least not at the level of following this much detail (lots of people are indirectly influenced), and mostly you'll only read some specific claim inasmuch as it illustrates something modestly counter-intuitive... that's not consensus, just inattention by everyone without the particular research agenda.
My opinion is that the whole list should get axed.  If mentioning some of the names in paragraph text can help illustrate the general concept of the article, it's great to use them.  I.e. "Wilson, in contrast with the style set by Roosevelt and Taft, ...illustrates charismatic authority... inasmuch as..."  If there really is something special about Wilson that make him an example, explain to readers what it is, don't just throw up a random name that, for unspecified reasons, might be plausible as an example.  Why not list all the US presidents? Seriously? I might make my own guess, but as reader I'm given no guidance in the current article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. To illustrate the concept, all is needed is to mention a few obviuous names for which there is clear consensus. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 05:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very odd list selection 

message: All of which certainly argues rather strongly against such a list.  If several different thinkers all mean somewhat different things by the term "charismatic authority", it's a deceptive simplification to just throw up a bunch of names as if they somehow meet some common definition.  Why not just incorporate the names you find illustrative into a narrative discussion (with appropriate citations, of course) that describes why or in what respect each figure mentioned illustrates the concept? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On re-reading the relevant pages in Oakes book, I have to admit that he does not use a strict Weberian framework. Andries 06:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to admit that Lulu's proposal sounds good, but I do not think that I have currently the writing skills, knowledge, and grasp of this complicated subject to do so. Andries 07:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Lulu's proposal to incorporate illustrative names into a narrative, providing that these names are widely agreed upon examples of charismatci authority a per Weber's definition. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weber used the prophet as the ideal type of the charismatic leader and mentioned the Shaman as the most primitive form of charismatic authority. (Please do check this) Andries 16:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not agree that the list is a sore problem, but I have little problem with creating a separate article list of charismatic leaders. Hope this solves the problem for you. Andries 18:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: There are two sources for the following persons
*Sathya Sai Baba according to Chryssides, and according to Donald Taylor in a 1987 article 
*Prem Rawat according to Lucy Dupertuis, and Paul Schnabel ]
Andries 06:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There are two sources for the following persons

message: Chrissides article as evidentiary source that Charles Taze Russell,  Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and Prabhupada, is inconsistent with the article itself. Read  
:What I have shown is that Weber’s model is insufficiently complex to account for charismatic leadership in new religious movements, failing as it does to recognize importantly different types of charismatic leader.
≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not agree with your interpretation of Chryssides. He does list them as charismatic leaders. Again Weber does not own the concept: he introduced it and it underwent significant modification in sociology. (I have references for that).Andries 16:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not my interpretation. These above are Chryssides words. Read the article. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chryssides argues that Weber's framework should be refined, not that it should be rejected. Andries 16:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not arguing that. I am arguing that an article as this one cannot be used as evidentiary source that these leaders fit the definition by Weber's. Read the artilce. Read the summary. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I read it and I cannot understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion. Chryssides keeps mentioning Weber and writes about "CHARISMATIC LEADERS" and CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP. Andries 16:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If Chryssides had written something like "Weber's concept of charismatic leadership is not useful in describing these founders of NRMs" then I would ageree, of course, that Chryssides can not be used as evidence, but he continues to use Weberian terms for their leadership. Andries 17:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just read the summary, would you. Read it carefully and detached if you could. Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 19:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is mentioned in Oakes' treatment of Weber. Andries 16:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, the right way to do this is to quote Oakes. not Senet, Berger, Bluan and Olin. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the right way was to write something like "Senet, Berger etc. in Oakes." Andries 16:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. If you are quoting from Oakes, you need to provide a cite from Oakes book. If yo are quoting from Sennet, you can provide a ref and and a cite from Sennet. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hm okay, you may be right. Andries 16:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 17:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chryssides's article 

message: "... most leaders  movements have a founder or a leader. It is often said of this person that that he or she posseses special powers or special knowledge. Followers are expected that they believe and obey this person" (translated back into English) Andries 22:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Andries, but I don't buy it. It says that most groups have a leader (Duh!), but not that most groups have a leader presenting charismatic authority as per Webber's. I have changed the text to reflect what she is saying. She is saying 'often. Let's keep it at that. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The current wording is fine for me, but "several" was incorrect. Andries 22:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My version states "most"

message: I think that Oakes wrote that Weber had written that they were not insane, but I have to check that. Andries 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: are charismatic leaders crazy?

message: The "Characteristics" section of this article is as clear as mud and has several unattributed quotes. Somebody please rewrite it. I don't have the time. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some subheaders and quote-templates; I hope this makes it better. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing

message: The list that was originally a spin-off from this article has disappeared from Wikipedia. It was very well referenced by reputable sociological sources. If that list has no value then I think that any  example in this article that has not been used by Weber himself should be deleted. Andries (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: List of charismatic leaders

message: I would like to add to the page with a description of the various methods of succession from charismatic leadership.  I'm planning on using some of Max Weber's work in the area as my source.  This should improve the page by adding content.  Any objections?
Jbredar  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbredar (talk • contribs) 01:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Charismatic Succession

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Charismatic authority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050426080033/http://cbae.nmsu.edu:80/~dboje/teaching/503/weber_links.html to http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/503/weber_links.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050426080033/http://cbae.nmsu.edu:80/~dboje/teaching/503/weber_links.html to http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/503/weber_links.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Max Weber does not say that it is the longest-lasting form of authority. Rather, it is the most unstable form because it only remains as long as the people believe in this individual. Further, because of how unstable this form of authority is, the individual inevitably transgresses into another form of authority. Rational or Traditional.(70.24.214.255 (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Max Weber and unstable form of authority

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Charismatic authority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060526114911/http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/charisma.htm to http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/charisma.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/503/weber_links.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please answer us 197.189.183.25 (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would charismatic leadership be suitable for developing countries and how?(Lesotho) 

message: The paragraph immediately following Weber's definition of charisma which states that "Weber does not get to the crux of what charisma is" and that it is "unscientific and impossible to measure or to manipulate" ought to be cut or moved to a later, specifically subtitled, section of the page. The idea that charisma can be operationalized in this way is missing the point of what Weber thought his types of legitimate authority, and the social sciences more broadly, should be. At the very least, this paragraph needs to include Weber's thoughts on the matter: First, that charismatic authority is an Ideal type that Weber intended to be compared to actually existing cases. Weber recognized that no case would perfectly correspond to his concepts, and thought that those differences would be analytically fruitful. (For example, the debates above about whether or not Bill Clinton and other US Presidents possess charismatic authority are testament of the concept's generatively rather than its lack of specificity.) And second, Weber's position in the Methodenstreit, as a proponent of the historical school. Edit was initially made by @2A02:120B:2C15:C8A0:A13F:BB99:7E24:2E83 and a similar concern was introduced by @46.183.103.8 but not properly addressed. I am submitting an RFC to aid in the resolution of this dispute Sandsiltloam (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstanding of Weber's epistemology / methodological intervention