1091:
ever-changing
Bhagwan who gives daily performances is not more a charismatic leader than the spoiled materialistic and intellectually unremarkable Maharaj Ji. As charismatic leaders, they, by the way, both have their own public and their own function." page 101-102 "At the same time, this means however that charismatic leadership, as such, can be staged to a certain degree. Maharaj Ji is an example of this. From one perspective, it concerns here routinized charisma (succession), but to the followers in America and Europe this applies that nevertheless hardly: they were prepared to have faith exactly in him and around Maharaj Ji a complete organisation existed which fed and reinforced that faith."
1085:
optredende
Bhagwan is niet meer een charismatisch leider dan de verwende materialistische en intellectueel weinig opmerkelijke Maharaj Ji. Als charismatisch leider hebben beiden overigens wel een eigen publiek en een eigen functie." page 101-102 "Tegelijkertijd betekent dit echter charismatisch leiderschap als zodanig tot op zekere hoogte ensceneerbaar is. Maharaj Ji is daar een voorbeeld van. In zekere zin gaat het hier om geroutinizeerd charisma (erfopvolging), maar voor de volgelingen in Amerika en Europa geldt dat toch nauwelijk: zij waren bereid juist in hem te geloven en er was rond Maharaj Ji een hele organisatie die dat geloof voedde en versterkte."
3085:
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.
631:. 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? --
365:
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.
74:
53:
4659:
leader has been touched by God, in the sense of a guru or prophet. However, should the strength of this belief fade, the power of the charismatic leader can fade quickly, which is one of the ways in which this form of authority shows itself to be unstable. In contrast to the current popular use of the term charismatic leader, Weber saw charismatic authority not so much as character traits of the charismatic leader but as a relationship between the leader and his followers.
179:
158:
189:
4542:"a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which s/he is 'set apart' from ordinary people and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader."
1112:"Die charismatisch Autorität ruht auf den "Glauben" an den Propheten, der Anerkennung, die der charismatische ... Held ... persönlich, und fällt mit ihm dahin. Gleichwohl leitet sie ihre Autorität nicht etwa aus dieser Anerkennung durch die Beherrschten ab. Sondern umgekehrt: Glaube und Anerkennung gelten als Pflicht, deren Erfüllung der charismatisch Legitimierte für sich forder." (Weber 1973 (1922), 483)
411:
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.
84:
22:
2641:. Not one of the three mentions Weber anywhere. Only the middle one of these uses the word "charismatic" in any sense, but that is only as a link-back to this article, not something described in the main article body. If you put something into, e.g. the Jesus article, that "Jesus was a charismatic authority, in a Weberian sense", and that assertion remains for a while as consensus of
4763:
431:
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.
5358:
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
5353:
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
4663:
The source provided in is an article in About.com. I would argue that being this an article on Weber's definition of charismatic authority, we use a good cite from Weber rather than an interpretation by an about.com. com editor for the first sentence. As for the second sentence there is no source,
4658:
Due to its idiosyncratic nature and lack of formal organization, charismatic authority depends much more strongly on the perceived legitimacy of the authority than Weber’s other forms of authority. For instance, a charismatic leader in a religious context might require an unchallenged belief that the
4436:
I stand by the deletion and the further edit. Your cite of Barker's book was not "a well referenced assertion". Context is everything as they say. The way that you chose to position Barker's statement was not neutral. After the research and the edits by me now it reads correctly. You could have saved
4426:
I first thought that I had made a mistake when you removed the word "unpredictable", but no, when I read the book in the library, I was right all along. Please do not again remove notable attributed well referenced assertions. (I admit though that the assertion could have been better contextualized).
2213:
IMO, the best place to discuss a subject and have the opportunity and space to present all POVs about that subject, is that subject's article. When we depart from that, and we create lists of people that we then proceed to assign a categorization (such as this list), the most reliable source would be
1067:
Please note that
Schnabel was not making an assertion about Elan Vital or the current situation. He was only writing about Rawat's leadership of the DLM at that time. I had some e-mail correspondence with him about his dissertation and he emphasized that his dissertation should be seen in the context
789:
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
5197:
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
4876:
It seems to me that Bill
Clinton qualifies for "specifically exceptional powers or qualities" and "treated as a leader". The last point is also interesting, given the quite different opinions on Clinton. And after all, to me it seems that there is anyway subjectivity involved in judging people to be
3725:
Andries, since when a revert is a "minor edit"? Please do not do that again. Thanks. As discussed above, this list is like a sore thumb in the article. Best would be to incorporate some names that are 100% undisputed, into the narrative of the article. That is what I intend to do. As for the people
2476:
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
2289:
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
2119:
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
3088:
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
2811:
OK, I've read it about a half-dozen times now. I cannot yet find a way to construe it as any true statement. You did provide a single common outside citation for a some of religious figures, but not all. The Oakes reference seems pretty weak however, if that's what you mean. Aside from it being
2218:
article there is overwhelming support for a characterization of Jesus as a religious leader fitting Weber's characterization of charismatic authority, that in itself will denote overwhelming evidence of consensus opinion, and its inclusion in this list would be warranted. On the other hand, when we
2208:
such "XYZ attribute", we assume that that person must have "XYZ attribute". (e.g. "Paul attest that Anna is a whore; if there is no person attesting that Anna is not a whore, then Anna must be a whore." That is a fallacy: the only thing you can assert is that Paul said that Ana is a whore, not that
1084:
Dutch original "De meest zuivere voorbeelden van charismatisch leiderschap zijn op dit moment wel
Bhagwan en Maharaj Ji. Daaruit blijkt meteen al hoe persoonlijke kwaliteiten alleen onvoldoende zijn voor de erkenning van het charismatisch leiderschap. De intelligente, steeds wisselende en dagelijks
950:
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
5354:
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
4933:
Joshua
Jonathan you reverted my edit with an edit summary of "Undid cutting up of quote and removal of wiki-makeup". Until I read your summary I didn't have a clue that part of the page was a quote of someones. Going by the fact an editor added a citation need to this part of the text, I'm not the
4122:
I don't know whether she says so in the article but she does write it in her book, on page 13 of the Dutch version as already mentioned in the reference section. I will try to look for the exact wording. I think that
Chryssides quoted her in that respect. Why did you remove his article by the way?
3588:
I'm sure Oakes read Weber, and bases his thinking, in part, on Weber. But the book is at least being sold as advancing Oakes' own analytic framework. This is no criticism of Oakes, for all I know his thinking is brilliantly original, but it's not apparently an attempt to mechanically apply Weber.
3494:
An article in Knowledge (XXG) needs to pass a certain threshold. The main focus of this article is Weber's theories on charismatic authority, not the applications of his theories by non-notable people. Notabe scholar's applications of these theories to the study of human endeavors not addressed by
3067:
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
1195:
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.
618:
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
364:
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
3638:
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
3575:
In this unique contribution to our understanding of the social phenomenon of charismatic groups and those who lead them, Dr. Len Oakes explores the psychology of charisma and proposes his own theory of the five-stage life cycle of two types of prophets-the messianic and the charismatic-from their
3405:
I agree that the article falsely suggests otherwise. There is too much Weber in this article as if nothing has happened in sociology and this concept since his writings were published. I think to state that the concept belongs to Weber is too strong worded. He introduced the concept and it gained
3084:
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
3076:
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
2684:
What false claim did I make? I only proposed that the inclusion of charismatic authority in list if it were already in the article for this person in the heat of the ongoing discussion. I did not m4ean to suggest that this charaterization was already there. I wrote that this characterization was
2267:
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
997:
I do not oppose to this clean up tag, but this article is better referenced than most Knowledge (XXG) 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
410:
Hi Jossi. In concur with you about Knowledge (XXG), 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
1090:
English translation by Babelfish and corrected by user:andries "The purest examples of charismatic leadership are at this moment, still, Bhagwan and Maharaj Ji. This shows directly that personal qualities alone are insufficient for the recognition of the charismatic leadership. The intelligent,
2219:
use one obscure scholar, and one citation as the reason for inclusion of one person in this list, and the article about this person does not provide a consensus of opinion about this person befitting such characterization, then we are again in violation of NPOV. Hope this clarifies it for you.
1770:
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
1131:
The purest examples of charismatic leadership are at this moment, still, Bhagwan and Maharaj Ji." page 101-102 "At the same time, this means however that charismatic leadership, as such, can be staged to a certain degree. Maharaj Ji is an example of this. From one perspective, it concerns here
654:
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
430:
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
3071:
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
4388:
OK. So you found Barker used the term "unpredictable", but you are not giving the readers the background and context. Maybe it got lost in the translation? Could you please post here the whole paragraph in Ducth in which she speaks of the unreliability aspect of charismatic leaders? Thanks.
4747:
The list that was originally a spin-off from this article has disappeared from Knowledge (XXG). 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.
4624:
Here is the German original "»Charisma« soll eine als außeralltäglich (ursprünglich, sowohl bei Propheten wie bei therapeutischen wie bei Rechts-Weisen wie bei Jagdführern wie bei Kriegshelden: als magisch bedingt) geltende Qualität einer Persönlichkeit heißen, um derentwillen sie als mit
2515:
On the other hand, when we use one obscure scholar, and one citation as the reason for inclusion of one person in this list, and the article about this person does not provide a consensus of opinion about this person befitting such characterization, then we are again in violation of NPOV.
4244:
New religions are rarely initiated by a committee. Although sects may be formed by a group of dissatisfied persons breaking away from a larger body, several of the movements have, or have had, a founder or leader who is believed to have some special powers or knowledge, and whom his (or,
951:
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.
296:
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.
1502:
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.
2029:). 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.
926:
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.
3909:
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.
1155:
From a certain point of view, Maharaj Ji's leadership can be seen as routinized charisma (succession), but to the followers in America and Europe this hardly applies: they were prepared to have faith exactly in him. A whole organisation existed that fed and reinforced that
2512:
article there is overwhelming support for a characterization of Jesus as a religious leader fitting Weber's characterization of charismatic authority, that in itself will denote overwhelming evidence of consensus opinion, and its inclusion in this list would be warranted.
3546:
I checked Oakes 246 page book and Oakes mentions Weber according to the reference (sorted on subject) on pages 20-21, 12, 122, 144, 27, 2, 186, 67, 42-43, 29, 149, 7, 27, 150, 191-192, 87, and 27-30. I think this stronngly indicates that he uses a Weberian framework.
723:, 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!
4132:
I did not remove anything. As for the "reliable" thing, I would argue that if you cite Barker's in regard of her studies on charismatic leaders, you ought to present a summary of her views, not a summary of your ideas about leaders which Barker's addresses. Remember
733:(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
4776:
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
2015:
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.
1982:
precedent in Knowledge (XXG). 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
4304:
Thanks. That is exacty what I meant. If you cite Chryssides. Cite him as above. If you cite Barker. Cite a good and representative summary as Chryssides did in regard to the formation of new religions and their leaders. Maybe this whole section can me moved to
1672:" (page 18) that redirects to this article. That should suffice. If this is not enough then I will try to find another reference but I am not going to cite the whole book in the article or here on the talk page. If you have any doubts just read the book.
305:
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
833:
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.
1968:
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.
1132:
routinized charisma (succession), but to the followers in America and Europe this applies nevertheless hardly: they were prepared to have faith exactly in him and around Maharaj Ji a complete organisation existed which fed and reinforced that faith.
587:
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.
2729:. The references do not exist at all in the first three religious figures I checked; maybe you provided them in a previous edit on those articles, but given there's nothing there now, it does not represent longstanding consensus of those pages.
2089:
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.
4498:
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
2047:
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.
3022:
It does not look like. You can only assert that one source made that statement, but you cannot assert that lack of a contrarian argument of that person's opinion, means that it is a consensus opinion, in particular if that person is the
3077:
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
1276:
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.
3828:
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
4980:. Common practice is to use "" around the text example:- In the New York times John Smith says "Blar blar blar blar blar." In this type of format we know who is talking, where the quote is from and where the quote starts and finishes.
1351:. 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.
4625:übernatürlichen oder übermenschlichen oder mindestens spezifisch außeralltäglichen, nicht jedem andern zugänglichen Kräften oder Eigenschaften oder als gottgesandt oder als vorbildlich und deshalb als »Führer« gewertet wird." from
4487:
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)
478:
I think you are right that what I originally wrote about Barker may have been too strong worded but now you make it too weak, I think. She was strong worded about it, if I remember it well. Do you have the original quote? Thanks
3089:
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
4594:
That does not work. If you are using a quote, we need a direct cite from the english edition of that book. This is the English Knowledge (XXG), and you know about the restrictions on non-english sources. I will look for it.
4881:, and derive their power in the first place from the American Constitution. So maybe this whole section is problematic. Anyway, just add Reagan if you like. He was charismatic, wasn't he, no matter how one feels about him.
693:
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.
2645:
editors, I'm happy with the evidence. But just saying... or not even really stating, just sort of implying by the edit history... that "Andries believes Jesus fits the Weberian meaning of charismatic authority" violates
1875:
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.
2238:
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.
1837:
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
1819:
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.
2882:
You can say that in the article itself, (if you can provide a source for that assertion, of course). But including a list of any and all leaders of new religious movement on the basis of that generalization violates
1482:
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.
1771:"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:
626:
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
2248:
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.
499:
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.
4812:
Clinton does not qualify -- except in popular, not Weberian -- sense for charisma. Obama might -- but the dust hasn't settled. Reagan would. Among U.S. military leaders, Pershing fits better than Marshall.
2570:
All the references for the religious list use the Weberian sense of the word. I know because I provided them and I am well aware of the difference between every-day-use of the word and the Weberian meaning.
1168:
There is no need to have the text twice (one on the aticle and once on the ref). Just provide the reference. If you wish, you can add the original Dutch to the ref as per the verifiability guidelines. Thanks
2867:
In the case of several founders or new religious movements there are several sources and there is scholarly consensus that most new religious movements are founded by people possessing charismatic authority.
2596:
source, and that there is no obvious consensus, just the opinion of a sigle person. That is against NPOV to list them as examples of charismatic authority on the basis of a single mention by a single source.
3804:
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
4173:
That is an intrepretation. For NPOV, you should avoid making interpretations. I am going to the library this afternoon to consult that book and to provide a good summary citation that complies with NPOV.
1024:
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
565:
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
890:
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.
1749:
in the Sathya Sai Baba movement" in "Hinduism in Great Britain", SSB made extraordinary declarations to be God to keep his authority at the center of the movement and he made his claim to get .. etc.
1375:
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 Knowledge (XXG) style guideline
987:
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.
2449:
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.
2430:
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
1412:
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.
4101:
Read the article. I would suggest we properly quote a summary of Baker's assertions rather than an narrow interpretation (e.g. the word "unreliable" is not even used once in Barker's article).
2412:
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?
1343:
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
856:
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
2553:. Just to see in an article that so-and-so was a charismatic leader in most cases just means that editors gave no thought (or had no knowledge of or interest in) the narrowly Weberian sense.
3681:
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.
1268:
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
4934:
only editor this is not clear to. Having reread the text in compare selected revisions section the with your comment in mind I see the quote markup but this is not the normal readers view.
3181:
The term is also referred to/translated as as "domination" or "leadership". Of course not by Weber himself, because he wrote in German. Besides Weber does not own the concept. See e.g. here
4285:
To be fair to Barker, she acknowledges that ‘ot all new religious movements have charismatic leaders’, and that there are differences in the hegemonic styles among those movements that do.
4683:
I agree that about.com is an inferior source that was fine to start with, but now that the article has matured and uses better sources, information sourced to about.com could be removed.
3870:
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.
2157:
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?
3619:
Not even the sociologist Paul Schabel mechanically followed Weber and he criticized Weber for making a distinction between a "Schwindler" (fraud) and people who possess real charisma.
3513:
I do not agree with that at all, but it is a theoretical matter for future editors because nobody has made serious attempts to include new theories and applications into this article.
3281:
Is this an article about Weber's definitions or a generic article? My understanding, is that this article is one in a series, based on Weber's tripartite classification of authority.
3270:
Where does the article state that Weber used the term "charismatic leadership". The article only states that an English synonym for charismatic authority is charismatic leadership.
380:
Ismael, in Knowledge (XXG) 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
488:
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. --
530:
The political charismatic leaders section, includes text such as "the beautiful wife of" and "revolutionary turned dictator" and "enigmatic philosopher". etc. Hardy encyclopedic.
4368:(outdent) That is what I found to be the most appropriate from her book, about this specific subject as related to Weber's concept applied to NRMs. You are welcome to augument.
3374:
Yes, the article is among others about Weber's definition of charismatic authority, but as I said, before the concept gained wide acceptance and Weber does not own the concept.
3347:
Again you can ask for references and yes sometimes you have to but please do consider before asking for references and raising objections whether this is constructive or not.
4164:
She wrote that charismatic leaders are almost by definition unpredictable because there a no constraints on their behavior, neither by tradition, scripture or anything else.
603:
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, --
1153:
I think one sentence may be incomprensible. (I find writing in English directly easier than translating)I did write the Dutch version here. Here is the improved sentence "
3668:
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.
4937:
It is not clear that part of text is a quote, who is being quoted or where it's being quoted from. This should be address by someone who know what the RS actually says.
5276:
5272:
5258:
5139:
5135:
5121:
4457:
Thanks for your comments, but I continue to disagree. I will not pursue this debate here further however because it is unrelated to the current version of the article.
3709:
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)
2390:
What do you want me to do? Inlude the scholars' opinions in the respective articles and only then list them here as charismatic leaders. That has already been done for
2467:
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.
939:. 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. ;-)
4871:
How the quality in question would be ultimately judged from an ethical, aesthetic, or other such point of view is naturally indifferent for the purpose of definition.
4097:, who specializes in new religious movements asserts that Most new religious movements are founded by charismatic leaders, and considers these leaders unpredictable.
2812:
just one author, the reviews and summaries I can find suggest that Oakes' framework is only loosely based on Weber's, not directly claiming to apply Weber's schema.
1454:
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?
4007:
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.
3797:
Chrissides article as evidentiary source that Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and Prabhupada, is inconsistent with the article itself. Read
3432:(outdent)I have yet to see an article or book in which "charismatic authority" is referred to, that does not include Weber. The article in Knowledge (XXG) about
2209:
she is one.) Take that example forward: imagine trying to add Anna to a "list of whores" based on Paul's assertion by claiming that no one is saying she is not.
936:
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
140:
5015:, together with the closing brackets, whereby the quote-template didn't work anymore. So I undid your edit, because it mutilated the Wiki-make-up in two ways.
1523:
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
245:
4204:
Weber’s model of charismatic leadership giving way to institutionalization is endorsed by several academic sociologists. For example, Eileen Barker writes:
4336:
Your summary is not what I remember what she had written in the book though it is an improvement over what I had originally written. I will get the book.
5399:
4712:
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.
1801:
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.
130:
2204:
if we fallaciously assume that because there a source that states that a person has an "XYZ attribute" and there is no source that states that a person
4952:
The problem was in the last part: }}}} It's easy to overlook, because of the double-double brackets; I didn't notice myself at once either. Greetings,
5409:
235:
3153:
As far as I know Weber never used "charismatic leadership". Unless references are provided for these assertions, I will remove that from the intro.
4047:(outdent) I removed this article from the listing of request for comments because the dispute is more or less resolved, I believe, by creating the
1322:
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 even
5394:
3436:
is, and needs to be focused on Weber's definition, with maybe a section in which the application of these concepts by other scholars is explored.
1546:
display an extraordinary amount of energy, accompanied by an inner clarity unhindered by the anxieties and guilt that afflict more ordinary people
106:
3356:
I am not asking for references now. I am asking for a clarification: is this article about Weber's deifinition of charismatic authority or not.
5414:
5404:
4977:
You have only addressed the markup issue. You haven't addressed my concern that when reading the article page readers can't tell it's a quote.
5011:
No quote-signs are being used in the quote-template. There is nou source indeed, but there was/is a {{source?}} tag, which was removed by you
1326:. 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.
211:
4546:
I cannot find it anywere. If this is a cite from a book, it needs to be from the english version and not free-form translation by an editor.
4085:
I see this interpretations and summary of Baker's assertions to be (a) factually innacurate and (b) not representative of her body of work.
5359:
charismatic authority are testament of the concept's generatively rather than its lack of specificity.) And second, Weber's position in the
5335:
3890:
Yes, I read it and I cannot understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion. Chryssides keeps mentioning Weber and writes about "
1778:
The references represent a consensus opinion by a majority of scholars on such persons fitting the characteristics of a charismatic leader.
1215:
Citations from Weber are often from the date of English language translations. I have observed this often and I first wondered about this.
907:
I do not agree with your removal of notable attributed sources (Schnabel's Phd dissertation about new religious movements). I will revert.
5087:
5077:
3261:
Jossi, I do not think that your excessive skepticism of other people's edits and excessive requests for references here are constructive.
805:
1611:
I will make a note in the article about Kohut because I do not want other peole to waste their time reading incomprehensible literature.
5199:
4764:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/List_of_charismatic_leaders_as_defined_by_Max_Weber's_classification_of_authority_(2nd_nomination)
1864:
It would be a minority opinion if there are 99 that disagree with this one scholar. Each scholar studies different aspects of a person.
2762:
Please re-read what I wrote. I did not provide references for them in their biograhies, only here in this list, with the exception of
97:
58:
5254:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
2025:
Characterization of a person as a dictator is indeed neutral, as there is a clear definition of what a dictator is (see criteria in
1544:
what I am talking about. Have you even read the book? Following your logic I can quote this from Oakes' book: charimsmatic leaders
3606:
No, are there any recent sociologist of new religious movement who mechanically attempt to apply Weber? I am not aware of any. Not
3495:
Weber himself, can be explored in a sub-section of this article, or on a separate article about the application of these theories.
202:
163:
5364:
791:
556:
I object to removing them, I think they are fairly good. Of course, feel free to clean them up as you see this should be done. --
1258:"People associate with religion" is very vague and unnecessarily so. what dictionary says that figurehead is a pejorative word?
3952:
Can you explain this: "Sennett 1975, Berger 1963, Blau 1963, Olin 1980". Where are these sources? Or is this a copy and paste?
3639:
incorporate the names you find illustrative into a narrative discussion (with appropriate citations, of course) that describes
1548:. But that is not the point I am making. You have placed that cite as a generic cite for "phsychology of charismatic leaders".
4615:
It is a quote from an English work. I did not translate it myself. I only checked the translation and I think it is accurate.
1410:
These words can imply a connection without stating the nature of the connection or discussing the evidence for and against it.
33:
5380:
2536:
I think that the bar for inclusion should be that the characterization should be mentioned in the article about that person.
443:
Including such persons such as Jim Jones and the saint Sai Baba nicely illustrates the diversity of the charismatic leaders.
4309:
where it can be further explored, unless a specific cite about Weberian charismatic leaders can be found from these authors.
786:
1699:
Have you read the book? I have read most of it. McCormick Maaga extensively treats charismatic authority on pages 69-70.
4793:
3648:
3590:
3094:
2813:
2730:
2659:
2554:
1233:
1205:
1178:
1143:
3103:
I agree. To illustrate the concept, all is needed is to mention a few obviuous names for which there is clear consensus.
5319:
5182:
1602:
Yes, I have read Oakes' book. No, I have not read Kohut and Oakes called Kohut's work breathtakingly difficult to read.
5238:
3536:
To me this sounds doubtful. I admit that he presents a contestable theory about two different kind of prophets though.
1512:
How can a citation from a book here be anything but selective? We cannot break copyrights and have limited space here.
4327:
Okay, I admit, the summary is open for refinement and improvement, like almost everything written in Knowledge (XXG).
3383:
Well, that is not the way that the article reads (just read the intro...). And as far as I understand, the concept of
3093:
the US presidents? Seriously? I might make my own guess, but as reader I'm given no guidance in the current article.
1376:
1323:
3336:
Well, may be it was a mistake but he introduced the concept and I think that this justifies the category Max Weber.
4090:
2955:? It is a fallacious argument that you are stubbornly making. Please re-read the explanation of your fallacy above.
3726:
in the list, these POVs of these scholars are already discussed in their respective articles, so nothing is lost.
3657:
On re-reading the relevant pages in Oakes book, I have to admit that he does not use a strict Weberian framework.
1134:. Can you please post the Dutch version and let someone translate properly? It does not make sense as is. Thanks.
1078:
574:
i.e. not a pure form of charismatic authority. I do not see a good reason for your removals of Sai Baba and Jesus
5035:
4961:
4914:
4886:
4830:
4732:
4155:
I did present a summary of her views from what I have read. Feel free to expand on that from what you have read.
4048:
3746:
548:
Basically, I object to this arbitrary taxonomy. These lists need to either go away or be seriously cleaned up. --
5275:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
5138:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
3316:?. It is important that we have an agreement about what this article is all about, otherwise it will get messy.
1991:
to be a dictator is insufficient to prove that it is the minority viewpoint. Indeed dangerous interpretation of
3187:
1026:
516:
The charismatic religious leaders section is not pretty. What is the criteria used to judge those in that list?
350:
5339:
4877:
charismatic. So any name in this section might be problematic. Oh, and of course: all American presidents are
2727:
All the references for the religious list use the Weberian sense of the word. I know because I provided them
1009:
Can we now remove the clean up tag? This article is now very well referenced for Knowledge (XXG)'s standards.
937:
879:
The text I have deleted makes an unwarranted statement aboyt cults in connection to Weber. That is not right.
465:
39:
21:
5203:
662:
May be a short, complicated list in this article would be the best idea. Not a separate article for example.
333:
section, why not have religious? Lots of prophets fit into charismatic authority type (if not all), right? --
5376:
5310:
5230:
5173:
5069:
4717:
4673:
4604:
4555:
4512:
4446:
4417:
4398:
4377:
4318:
4306:
4183:
4146:
4110:
4070:
4016:
3989:
3961:
3930:
3879:
3852:
3818:
3735:
3690:
3504:
3476:
3445:
3396:
3365:
3325:
3290:
3215:
3172:
I think what he wrote was "Charismatische Herrschaft", but charismatic authority is the normal translation.
3162:
3112:
3040:
2964:
2899:
2838:
and used the following references, McCormick Maaga, Schnabel and Bromley and Shupe and Oakes. I did not add
2629:
The claim by Andreis above is flatly false. I looked at the entries for the first three religious figures:
2606:
2526:
2458:
2421:
2370:
2307:
2290:
of charismatic autority as per Weber's definition. If that consensus is not obvious then you are violatinmg
2258:
2228:
2214:
the long-standing consensus of editors on the content article of the subject itself. For example, if in the
2146:
2108:
2038:
2004:
1957:
1906:
1855:
1791:
1766:
Thanks, Andries. My feeling is the sections with names of people is not compliant with NPOV. If you recall,
1733:
1724:
Unless you find a reference tha describes this person as a charismatic authority, I will remove it as well.
1690:
1658:
1585:
1557:
1492:
1463:
1421:
1364:
1310:
4781:
3745:
I do not agree that the list is a sore problem, but I have little problem with creating a separate article
2658:, I'm simply not interested in the question of truth or falsity, but only of verifiability and neutrality.
1229:
1201:
1174:
1139:
3895:
1441:
The word "inspirator" sounded a bit strange to me too, but is really an English word. (I had checked it.)
3299:
A generic article. This is not just about the book by Weber that introduced the now widely used concept.
5294:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
5282:
5222:
5157:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
5145:
5061:
3433:
3384:
3313:
1642:
1641:
That is incorrect. Mary McCormick Maaga call Jones "charismatic" but that is it. This article discusses
346:
307:
210:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
105:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
5372:
5368:
5229:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
5088:
https://web.archive.org/web/20050426080033/http://cbae.nmsu.edu:80/~dboje/teaching/503/weber_links.html
5078:
https://web.archive.org/web/20050426080033/http://cbae.nmsu.edu:80/~dboje/teaching/503/weber_links.html
5068:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
4789:
2026:
1984:
1681:
This article is not abouth charismatic leaders, it is about Charismatic authority as defined by Weber.
2823:
Lulu/David, I think you mistakenly assume that I created the bulk of the list. I did add among others
1225:
1197:
1170:
1135:
988:
961:
940:
891:
880:
848:
824:
809:
5112:
5027:
4953:
4910:
4882:
4826:
4728:
4698:
I think that Oakes wrote that Weber had written that they were not insane, but I have to check that.
3485:
That article does not focus on Weber's works on this concept and I think the same should apply here.
4822:
1940:. A weay to resolve this would be to discuss the charismatic authority aspects of these persons in
412:
366:
288:
4785:
1915:
If there are no notable opposing voices or if these voices are mentioned then the list fits fully
4713:
3891:
3309:
1669:
1269:
5279:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
5142:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
3206:
These additional usages are not widely used. I moved these out of the lead and added references.
1576:. Have you ever read him? I tried reading some of his articles and found them incomprehensible.
5295:
5158:
4994:
4942:
4632:
The English translation does not include what is between brackets. The text mentions the word "
2835:
1782:
IMO, the best place to present competing views about these persons, is in their own articles .
544:
Including Sai Baba and Jim Jones as "less famous leaders" is indeed strange. I have removed it.
4900:
4753:
2268:
because we do not mention all POVs about him. Clearly this shows that your argument is wrong.
1224:
No worries. I found the cite on the 1978 edition of Weber's "Economy and Society". Added ref.
720:
73:
52:
4989:
In the article, who is being quoted? Where is the quote from? and which words are the quote?
3467:
Sorry, but I don't follow your logic. What does that article has to do with this discussion?
2888:
2291:
2134:
2130:
1992:
1945:
1937:
1936:
stating a minority opinion as it was the consensus opinion. I would suggest that you re-read
1916:
1894:
1839:
1767:
1344:
385:
5371:
but not properly addressed. I am submitting an RFC to aid in the resolution of this dispute
5248:
5091:
5081:
4575:
Irvine Schiffer (New York Free Press 1973), 3 and in Madelein Landau Tobia and Janja Lalich
3861:
Chryssides argues that Weber's framework should be refined, not that it should be rejected.
1033:
Irvine Schiffer (New York Free Press 1973), 3 and in Madelein Landau Tobia and Janja Lalich
746:
I think I'm pretty much done now; it's not perfect, but I think it's good enough. Cheers!
5302:
5165:
4636:" which means leader that did then not yet have the negative connotations that it has now.
4134:
2647:
2504:
To present my argument again, in case you did not read it: the most reliable source is the
381:
4669:
4600:
4551:
4508:
4442:
4413:
4394:
4373:
4314:
4179:
4142:
4106:
4066:
4055:
4012:
3985:
3965:
3957:
3926:
3875:
3848:
3822:
3814:
3768:
3731:
3686:
3561:
3500:
3472:
3441:
3392:
3361:
3321:
3286:
3211:
3158:
3108:
3036:
2960:
2895:
2824:
2771:
2690:
2602:
2522:
2478:
2454:
2417:
2399:
2366:
2303:
2254:
2224:
2142:
2104:
2034:
2000:
1953:
1902:
1851:
1787:
1729:
1717:
1686:
1654:
1581:
1553:
1488:
1459:
1417:
1360:
1306:
823:
Weber died in 1920, how come the article reads as if speaks of "cults' and new religions?
393:
311:
194:
5023:
4895:
Can you please read the old discussion about examples? It was deleted from this article.
4677:
4559:
5360:
5261:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
5124:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
3921:
Just read the summary, would you. Read it carefully and detached if you could. Thanks.
3798:
1056:
89:
5301:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
5268:
5164:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
5131:
3190:
2884:
2651:
1348:
1035:
Captive Hears captive minds:freedom and recovery from cults and abusive relationships.
655:
correct me if I am wrong. I know all of them quite well except for Hendrik the eigth.
188:
178:
157:
5388:
4577:
Captive Hears captive minds:freedom and recovery from cults and abusive relationships
4094:
3980:
Then, the right way to do this is to quote Oakes. not Senet, Berger, Bluan and Olin.
3607:
3576:
primitive narcissistic beginnings to their ultimately inevitable implosion or demise.
1810:
I do not agree with the neutrality warning because there are no contradicting views.
857:
287:
to other domains such as politics. I should put in a brief statement to this effect.
5239:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060526114911/http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/charisma.htm
3248:
Based on this I think we can conclude that both alternative terms are quite common.
2133:
and turnd it upside down. I will really suggest that you take 5 minutes and re-read
2129:
Sorry, Andries, but your argument is unsustainable. You have taken the principle of
1645:
as per Webber's definition (and as specified in the intro to this article), and not
1478:
Why does Oakes book a reference to "phsychology of charismatic leaders". Oakes book
5330:
Would charismatic leadership be suitable for developing countries and how?(Lesotho)
4990:
4938:
4896:
4749:
4699:
4684:
4637:
4616:
4586:
4580:
4522:
4489:
4458:
4428:
4337:
4328:
4292:
4165:
4156:
4124:
4052:
4028:
3999:
3998:
I thought the right way was to write something like "Senet, Berger etc. in Oakes."
3972:
3911:
3899:
3862:
3830:
3784:
3750:
3710:
3669:
3658:
3620:
3611:
3548:
3537:
3514:
3486:
3459:
3407:
3375:
3348:
3337:
3300:
3271:
3262:
3249:
3225:
3192:
3173:
2923:
2869:
2843:
2775:
2763:
2698:
2694:
2572:
2537:
2482:
2468:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2403:
2395:
2333:
2269:
2240:
2158:
2121:
2091:
2049:
2017:
1970:
1920:
1877:
1865:
1821:
1811:
1802:
1750:
1700:
1673:
1612:
1603:
1528:
1513:
1504:
1445:
1380:
1327:
1278:
1259:
1216:
1159:
1120:
1095:
1069:
1038:
1010:
999:
952:
928:
908:
861:
835:
795:
772:
747:
738:
724:
695:
663:
656:
632:
620:
589:
579:
557:
536:
522:
501:
480:
472:
455:
444:
432:
354:
334:
315:
298:
268:
4381:
4114:
2995:
Yes, I have read your argument already several times. 06:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2592:
That is not the point. The point is that in many of these it is only the POV of a
3843:
It is not my interpretation. These above are Chryssides words. Read the article.
3235:
google search on "charismatic leadership weber -wikipedia" yields 155,000 results
1298:
a pejorative when you do not differentiate to whom you apply that charcterization
737:
they're charismatic in the list, then something is wrong in the article itself.)
5343:
5324:
5207:
5187:
5042:
4998:
4968:
4946:
4918:
4904:
4890:
4834:
4797:
4757:
4736:
4721:
4702:
4687:
4640:
4619:
4608:
4589:
4525:
4516:
4492:
4461:
4450:
4431:
4421:
4402:
4340:
4331:
4322:
4295:
4187:
4168:
4159:
4150:
4127:
4074:
4031:
4020:
4002:
3993:
3975:
3934:
3914:
3902:
3883:
3865:
3856:
3833:
3787:
3753:
3739:
3713:
3694:
3672:
3661:
3651:
3623:
3614:
3593:
3560:
I don't have, and haven't read the book. But according to the publisher's blurb
3551:
3540:
3517:
3508:
3489:
3480:
3462:
3449:
3400:
3378:
3369:
3351:
3340:
3329:
3303:
3294:
3274:
3265:
3252:
3228:
3219:
3195:
3176:
3166:
3130:
3116:
3097:
3044:
2968:
2926:
2903:
2846:
2816:
2778:
2733:
2701:
2662:
2610:
2575:
2557:
2540:
2530:
2485:
2471:
2462:
2442:
2425:
2406:
2374:
2336:
2311:
2272:
2262:
2243:
2232:
2161:
2150:
2124:
2112:
2094:
2052:
2042:
2020:
2008:
1973:
1961:
1923:
1910:
1880:
1868:
1859:
1824:
1814:
1805:
1795:
1753:
1737:
1703:
1694:
1676:
1662:
1615:
1606:
1589:
1573:
1561:
1531:
1516:
1507:
1496:
1467:
1448:
1425:
1383:
1368:
1330:
1314:
1281:
1262:
1237:
1219:
1209:
1182:
1147:
1123:
1098:
1072:
1041:
1013:
1002:
991:
964:
955:
943:
931:
911:
894:
883:
864:
851:
838:
827:
812:
798:
775:
750:
741:
727:
604:
571:
567:
549:
489:
415:
397:
369:
4245:
occasionally, her) followers are expected to believe and obey without question.
3778:
3241:
google search on "charismatic domination weber -wikipedia" yields 60,500 result
3238:
google search on "charismatic authority weber -wikipedia" yields 158,000 result
2506:
long-standing consensus of editors on the content article of the subject itself
960:
Being angry does not solve anything and is also bad for your health. Cheer up.
5355:
5267:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
5130:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
4665:
4596:
4547:
4504:
4438:
4409:
4390:
4369:
4310:
4175:
4138:
4102:
4062:
4008:
3981:
3953:
3922:
3871:
3844:
3810:
3774:
3727:
3682:
3496:
3468:
3437:
3388:
3357:
3317:
3282:
3207:
3154:
3104:
3032:
2956:
2891:
2832:
2767:
2686:
2598:
2518:
2450:
2413:
2391:
2362:
2361:
I already did. I also invited a few other experienced editors to take a look.
2299:
2250:
2220:
2187:(outdent) I will try again. We are breaking the nonnegotiable policy of NPOV:
2138:
2100:
2030:
1996:
1949:
1898:
1847:
1783:
1725:
1682:
1650:
1577:
1549:
1484:
1455:
1413:
1356:
1302:
1273:
764:
628:
389:
184:
83:
79:
4727:
I've added some subheaders and quote-templates; I hope this makes it better.
1842:. Now, if we find that there is consensus among the scholars that what study
1250:
What about him and other CEO's who use charisma. Cite iCon and other books.
5242:
3456:
3133:
2634:
2332:
We are not coming a millimeter closer. I will ask for Request for Comments.
1634:
1052:
599:
This taxonomy, as I said, is totaly arbitray. As I said, tis article needs
451:
280:
276:
102:
5026:. So, feel free to remove the whole quote, or to paraphrase it. Greetings,
5019:
4633:
4585:
I checked the German original quickly and I think the translation is okay.
4408:
Nevermid. I found the sentence in the book and added some context. Thanks.
3458:
shows that a lot has happened since Weber. Of course, it does mention him.
1480:
Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities
1442:
4978:
3185:
4868:
and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader
4521:
Thanks. The current wording is fine for me, but "several" was incorrect.
3771:
according to Chryssides, and according to Donald Taylor in a 1987 article
3182:
2638:
2294:
by asserting one single scholar's opinion as the only opinion and as the
1646:
469:
461:
207:
4437:
us the whole ordeal by providing the proper context in the first place.
1637:
According to Mary McCormick Maaga, Jim Jones authority was charismatic.
454:
is notable, at least notorious. I mean how can you seriously deny that?
5363:, as a proponent of the historical school. Edit was initially made by @
3028:
2828:
1893:
Is there another way to keep the list and at the same time comply with
1843:
1834:
1720:
was considered a charismatic leader by Donald Taylor in a 1987 article.
1379:
that mentions the word "associated". I will try to avoid "figurehead".
1129:
Sory, Andries but the grammar on this translation does not make sense:
5349:
Misunderstanding of Weber's epistemology / methodological intervention
1987:. With your logic, the fact that no other reputable sources name Bush
1408:
Read the guideline. It is related to dubious application of the term:
345:
Nice job with religious leader selection Andries. I have now started
3072:
included; or in any case, a very large percentage of them. What is
1745:
It is in the title! According to Donald Taylor in his 1987 article "
3312:
and all articles abour Weber refer to this article when discussing
4909:
Thanks. It looks like we're repeating an old discussion... Groet,
4626:
2642:
2630:
2509:
2215:
768:
426:
Charasmatic leaders are only charismatic because of their context
2551:
if it is mentioned as part of the specific Weberian distinction
2198:
if we do not present all notable points of view about a subject
1108:
Help with the translation of this German quote is appreciated
570:
because his authority was partially based on his lineage with
15:
2697:. (these characterization have been there now for some time)
804:
That category , for obvious reasons is up for deletion. Vote
267:
Is this confined to politics only? Why not to e.g. religion?
5097:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
4862:
These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person,
2201:
if we present a minority viewpoint as the majority viewpoint
1289:
people associated with religion and new religious movements
5348:
5233:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
5072:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
4819:
Also, consider using some non-U.S., non-Western examples.
3224:
No, I disagree, these alternative terms are quite common.
2438:, I had the feeling that I was reading about my own life.
1846:
that he indeed fits the categorization, that would be OK.
5249:
http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/503/weber_links.html
5092:
http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/503/weber_links.html
5082:
http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/503/weber_links.html
4859:
or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.
771:
really charismatic religious leaders? I have my doubts.
619:
types such as Sai Baba, Jim Jones, and Sathya Sai Baba.
5226:
5065:
5012:
4841:
Hi Ethicsjrt. Te article gives the following criteria:
4194:
Here is how Chryssides quotes a part of Barker's book
4865:
but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary,
4856:
and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman,
1077:
Translation of Schnabel as per the new guidelines at
4853:
by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men
2191:
if we assert a singular person point of view as the
2099:
We cannot do that. That would be original research.
1944:
own articles and not here. This way we can preserve
468:. I find 51,000 google hits for this guy. See also
283:, who generalised the idea of charismatic authority
206:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
5271:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
5134:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
4654:Now that we have that squared, let's look at this:
578:who had both pure forms of charismatic authority.
3027:one asserting that POV. That is what is called a
4846:# certain quality of an individual personality,
3971:This is mentioned in Oakes' treatment of Weber.
3764:There are two sources for the following persons
1928:I disagree. By adding a name to a list based on
4844:
4816:This paragraph seems a bit politically biased.
4573:Charisma: A psychoanalytic look at mass society
3777:according to Lucy Dupertuis, and Paul Schnabel
3760:There are two sources for the following persons
3647:each figure mentioned illustrates the concept?
1775:There are references to support their inclusion
1031:Charisma: A psychoanalytic look at mass society
5257:This message was posted before February 2018.
5120:This message was posted before February 2018.
2922:not if there are undisputed sources for this.
1114:Die drei reine Typen der legitimen Herrschaft
847:I am then deleting the text on that section.
8:
1833:If there are 100 scholars that have studied
337:23:22, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) == Heading text ==
19:
1116:(Three pure types of legitimate rule) in:
1057:Talk:Max Weber#Mergers by User:Jossifresco
1051:For discussion of the proposed merge with
152:
47:
5367:and a similar concern was introduced by @
5243:http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/charisma.htm
5221:I have just modified 2 external links on
5060:I have just modified 2 external links on
5193:Max Weber and unstable form of authority
5018:Regarding the source, I think it's from
3749:. Hope this solves the problem for you.
1118:Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wirtschaftslehre
5365:2A02:120B:2C15:C8A0:A13F:BB99:7E24:2E83
5198:of authority. Rational or Traditional.(
275:Good point. The origin of this idea in
154:
49:
3410:02:41, 15 January (amended) 2006 (UTC)
860:and this article should reflect that.
787:category:charismatic religious leaders
781:Category:charismatic religious leaders
5109:to let others know (documentation at
3532:Oakes not using a Weberian framework?
3308:Then why did you add this article to
696:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
633:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
590:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
558:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
537:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
523:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
521:Random Wiki editing chaos I'd say. --
502:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
355:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
335:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
324:==Charismatic authority in religion==
316:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
115:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Sociology
7:
4825:3 july 2012 (copied from article by
511:This article needs serious NPOV work
388:comprise our core content policies.
220:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Politics
200:This article is within the scope of
95:This article is within the scope of
4571:Boston Beacon Press 1963, cited in
1029:Boston Beacon Press 1963, cited in
535:Hmm. Maybe. Feel free to fix it. --
38:It is of interest to the following
4089:The professor of sociology at the
3406:wide acceptance is more accurate.
1104:Another quote to help the clean-up
794:was becoming too large and messy.
14:
5400:Mid-importance sociology articles
5225:. Please take a moment to review
5064:. Please take a moment to review
5022:, which is not a reliable source
1254:"People assiocated with religion"
384:that together with the policy of
331:Charismatic authority in politics
5410:Mid-importance politics articles
4664:so it will be good to have one.
2951:Do I need to repeat my argument
2685:already present in the articles
2477:similar to that of followers of
1649:that is a different definition.
792:category:new religious movements
353:to expand on Max Weber theme. --
187:
177:
156:
82:
72:
51:
20:
5247:Corrected formatting/usage for
998:sarcasm or implicit criticism.
240:This article has been rated as
135:This article has been rated as
5395:Start-Class sociology articles
4694:are charismatic leaders crazy?
2195:point of view about a subject;
1668:McCormick Maaga called him a "
1525:Feet of clay: a study of gurus
1377:Knowledge (XXG):words to avoid
118:Template:WikiProject Sociology
1:
5415:WikiProject Politics articles
5405:Start-Class politics articles
5188:18:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
4722:03:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
4579:. Publishers group West 1993
3387:does indeed belong to Weber.
1079:Knowledge (XXG):verifiability
1014:19:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
223:Template:WikiProject Politics
214:and see a list of open tasks.
109:and see a list of open tasks.
5344:15:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
5208:21:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
4703:16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
4678:23:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
4641:23:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
4620:22:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
4609:22:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
4590:19:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
4560:17:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
4526:22:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
4517:22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
4493:22:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
4462:21:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
4451:00:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
4432:17:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
4422:17:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
4403:17:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
4382:01:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
4341:00:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
4332:20:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
4323:19:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
4296:19:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
4188:19:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
4169:19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
4160:19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
4151:19:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
4128:19:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
4115:19:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
4075:17:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
4056:16:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
4032:16:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
4021:16:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
4003:16:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3994:16:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3976:16:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3966:16:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3935:19:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3915:17:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3903:16:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3884:16:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3866:16:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3857:16:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3834:16:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3823:16:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3788:06:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3754:18:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
3740:16:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
3714:16:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3695:16:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3673:07:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3662:06:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3652:06:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3624:06:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3615:06:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3594:06:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3552:06:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3541:06:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3518:04:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3509:04:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3490:03:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3481:03:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3463:02:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3450:02:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3401:02:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3379:02:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3370:02:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3352:01:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3341:01:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3330:01:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3304:01:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3295:01:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3275:01:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3266:01:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3177:01:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3167:00:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3117:05:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3098:04:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
3045:06:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2969:06:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2927:05:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2904:05:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2847:06:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2817:06:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2779:06:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2734:05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2702:05:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2663:05:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2611:05:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2576:05:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2558:04:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2541:04:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2531:04:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2486:20:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2472:04:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2463:04:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2443:04:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2426:04:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2407:04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2375:04:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2337:04:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2312:04:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2273:04:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2263:04:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2244:03:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2233:03:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2162:03:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2151:03:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2125:02:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2113:02:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2095:02:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2053:03:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2043:03:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2021:03:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2009:02:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
1974:02:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
1962:02:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
1924:01:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
1911:01:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
1881:01:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
1869:01:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
1860:01:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
1825:01:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
1815:01:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
1806:01:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
1796:01:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
1754:01:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
1738:00:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
1704:00:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
1695:00:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
1238:22:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
1220:22:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
1210:22:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
1183:02:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
1148:22:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
1124:22:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
1099:21:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
1073:10:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
1003:21:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
4809:The note link is broken.
4743:List of charismatic leaders
4628:Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft
4135:what Knowledge (XXG) is not
4049:List of charismatic leaders
4027:hm okay, you may be right.
3747:list of charismatic leaders
3253:20:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
3229:20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
3220:20:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
3196:12:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
1677:22:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
1663:21:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1616:11:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1607:10:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1590:05:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1562:05:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1532:00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1517:00:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1508:00:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1497:00:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1468:21:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1449:21:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1426:18:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1384:17:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1369:17:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1331:10:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1315:05:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1282:14:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
1263:20:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
1042:21:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
1037:Publishers group West 1993
1020:A quote to help the cleanup
992:21:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
965:21:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
956:21:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
944:21:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
932:20:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
912:20:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
895:20:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
884:20:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
865:20:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
852:20:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
839:17:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
828:16:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
813:16:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
799:18:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
776:18:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
5431:
5381:21:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
5325:01:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
5288:(last update: 5 June 2024)
5218:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
5151:(last update: 5 June 2024)
5057:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
5043:08:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
4999:01:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
4969:19:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
4947:13:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
4798:01:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
4758:20:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
4091:London school of Economics
3068:and the above discussion.
1762:Lists of people in article
416:18:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
398:18:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
370:18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
246:project's importance scale
141:project's importance scale
4737:06:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
4688:11:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
4569:The sociology of religion
4503:. Let's keep it at that.
2508:. For example, if in the
1272:wrote that the mother of
1027:The sociology of religion
659:19:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
623:17:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
552:05:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
435:22:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
301:18:39, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
291:09:09, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
239:
172:
134:
67:
46:
4919:07:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
4905:21:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
4891:19:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
4835:19:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
4476:My version states "most"
4247:" (Barker, 1989, p. 13.)
3649:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
3591:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
3095:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
2814:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
2731:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
2660:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
2654:. I'm not saying it is
2555:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
819:Weber and new religions?
719:This was referred to my
698:19:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
666:19:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
635:18:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
607:15:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
592:14:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
582:06:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
560:14:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
539:14:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
525:14:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
466:user:Lordsuryaofhrophire
447:10:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
357:21:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
351:Rational-legal authority
318:18:48, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
271:19:47, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
5214:External links modified
5053:External links modified
4307:New religious movements
4196:New Religious Movements
3792:
3063:Very odd list selection
1897:. Let's explore these.
751:05:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
742:01:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
728:01:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
504:15:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
492:14:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
483:10:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
475:10:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
458:10:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4848:
4772:Charismatic Succession
3896:CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP
3146:charismatic leadership
3142:charismatic domination
3031:. Good night for now.
1063:Prem Rawat and Schabel
28:This article is rated
5223:Charismatic authority
5062:Charismatic authority
4533:
3836:(amended for grammar)
3434:charismatic authority
3385:Charismatic authority
3314:charismatic authority
3138:charismatic authority
2842:, Jesus or Mohammed.
1747:CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY
1643:Charismatic authority
983:Unreferenced material
785:I created a category
386:neutral point of view
347:Traditional authority
308:traditional authority
98:WikiProject Sociology
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
5269:regular verification
5132:regular verification
4929:Reverting of my edit
3793:Chryssides's article
2549:This might be fine,
1917:Knowledge (XXG):NPOV
759:Pythagoras and plato
470:Sai_Baba#An_overview
464:is notable too. Ask
203:WikiProject Politics
5259:After February 2018
5122:After February 2018
5101:parameter below to
1932:reference, you are
1630:The article lists:
1191:Weber cite fm 1978?
5313:InternetArchiveBot
5264:InternetArchiveBot
5176:InternetArchiveBot
5127:InternetArchiveBot
3892:CHARISMATIC LEADER
3310:Category:Max Weber
1995:, very dangerous.
1670:charismatic leader
1572:You also refer to
1270:Reender Kranenborg
121:sociology articles
34:content assessment
5334:Please answer us
5289:
5152:
4801:
4784:comment added by
4676:
4630:chapter III, § 10
4607:
4558:
4515:
4449:
4420:
4401:
4380:
4321:
4186:
4149:
4113:
4073:
4019:
3992:
3964:
3933:
3882:
3855:
3821:
3738:
3693:
3507:
3479:
3448:
3399:
3368:
3328:
3293:
3218:
3165:
3127:The intro reads:
3115:
3043:
2967:
2902:
2609:
2529:
2500:Article consensus
2461:
2424:
2373:
2310:
2261:
2231:
2149:
2111:
2041:
2027:List of dictators
2007:
1985:List of dictators
1978:That would be a '
1960:
1909:
1858:
1794:
1736:
1713:Same applies to
1693:
1661:
1588:
1560:
1495:
1466:
1424:
1367:
1313:
1236:
1208:
1181:
1146:
396:
260:
259:
256:
255:
252:
251:
226:politics articles
151:
150:
147:
146:
5422:
5323:
5314:
5287:
5286:
5265:
5186:
5177:
5150:
5149:
5128:
5116:
5040:
5039:
5032:
5031:
4966:
4965:
4958:
4957:
4800:
4778:
4668:
4599:
4550:
4507:
4441:
4412:
4393:
4372:
4313:
4178:
4141:
4105:
4065:
4011:
3984:
3956:
3925:
3874:
3847:
3813:
3730:
3685:
3499:
3471:
3440:
3391:
3360:
3320:
3285:
3210:
3157:
3107:
3035:
2959:
2894:
2601:
2521:
2481:, including me.
2453:
2416:
2365:
2302:
2253:
2223:
2141:
2120:a majority POV.
2103:
2033:
1999:
1952:
1901:
1850:
1786:
1728:
1685:
1653:
1580:
1552:
1487:
1458:
1416:
1359:
1305:
1228:
1226:≈ jossi fresco ≈
1200:
1198:≈ jossi fresco ≈
1173:
1171:≈ jossi fresco ≈
1138:
1136:≈ jossi fresco ≈
1047:Proposed mergers
989:≈ jossi fresco ≈
962:≈ jossi fresco ≈
941:≈ jossi fresco ≈
892:≈ jossi fresco ≈
881:≈ jossi fresco ≈
849:≈ jossi fresco ≈
392:
228:
227:
224:
221:
218:
197:
192:
191:
181:
174:
173:
168:
160:
153:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
5430:
5429:
5425:
5424:
5423:
5421:
5420:
5419:
5385:
5384:
5351:
5332:
5317:
5312:
5280:
5273:have permission
5263:
5231:this simple FaQ
5216:
5195:
5180:
5175:
5143:
5136:have permission
5126:
5110:
5070:this simple FaQ
5055:
5037:
5036:
5030:Joshua Jonathan
5029:
5028:
4963:
4962:
4956:Joshua Jonathan
4955:
4954:
4931:
4911:Joshua Jonathan
4883:Joshua Jonathan
4827:Joshua Jonathan
4807:
4779:
4774:
4745:
4729:Joshua Jonathan
4710:
4696:
4567:from Max Weber
4536:
4478:
4083:
4080:
3795:
3769:Sathya Sai Baba
3762:
3645:in what respect
3636:
3534:
3125:
3065:
2825:Sathya Sai Baba
2772:Sathya Sai Baba
2691:Sathya Sai Baba
2502:
2479:Sathya Sai Baba
2400:Sathya Sai Baba
1764:
1718:Sathya Sai Baba
1628:
1476:
1443:merriam webster
1324:a word to avoid
1256:
1248:
1193:
1106:
1065:
1049:
1022:
985:
821:
783:
761:
717:
513:
441:
439:Edits by Zappaz
428:
312:legal authority
279:is largely via
265:
225:
222:
219:
216:
215:
195:Politics portal
193:
186:
166:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
5428:
5426:
5418:
5417:
5412:
5407:
5402:
5397:
5387:
5386:
5361:Methodenstreit
5350:
5347:
5336:197.189.183.25
5331:
5328:
5307:
5306:
5299:
5252:
5251:
5245:
5237:Added archive
5215:
5212:
5194:
5191:
5170:
5169:
5162:
5095:
5094:
5086:Added archive
5084:
5076:Added archive
5054:
5051:
5050:
5049:
5048:
5047:
5046:
5045:
5016:
5004:
5003:
5002:
5001:
4984:
4983:
4982:
4981:
4972:
4971:
4930:
4927:
4926:
4925:
4924:
4923:
4922:
4921:
4873:
4872:
4869:
4866:
4863:
4860:
4857:
4854:
4850:
4849:
4842:
4823:User:Ethicsjrt
4806:
4803:
4773:
4770:
4768:
4744:
4741:
4740:
4739:
4709:
4706:
4695:
4692:
4691:
4690:
4661:
4660:
4652:
4651:
4650:
4649:
4648:
4647:
4646:
4645:
4644:
4643:
4622:
4583:
4544:
4543:
4535:
4532:
4531:
4530:
4529:
4528:
4477:
4474:
4473:
4472:
4471:
4470:
4469:
4468:
4467:
4466:
4465:
4464:
4406:
4366:
4365:
4364:
4363:
4362:
4361:
4360:
4359:
4358:
4357:
4356:
4355:
4354:
4353:
4352:
4351:
4350:
4349:
4348:
4347:
4346:
4345:
4344:
4343:
4334:
4290:
4289:
4288:
4265:
4264:
4263:
4262:
4261:
4260:
4259:
4258:
4257:
4256:
4255:
4254:
4253:
4252:
4251:
4250:
4249:
4248:
4223:
4222:
4221:
4220:
4219:
4218:
4217:
4216:
4215:
4214:
4213:
4212:
4211:
4210:
4209:
4208:
4207:
4206:
4162:
4099:
4098:
4082:
4079:
4078:
4077:
4045:
4044:
4043:
4042:
4041:
4040:
4039:
4038:
4037:
4036:
4035:
4034:
3950:
3949:
3948:
3947:
3946:
3945:
3944:
3943:
3942:
3941:
3940:
3939:
3938:
3937:
3907:
3906:
3905:
3838:
3837:
3808:
3807:
3794:
3791:
3782:
3781:
3772:
3761:
3758:
3757:
3756:
3723:
3722:
3721:
3720:
3719:
3718:
3717:
3716:
3700:
3699:
3698:
3697:
3676:
3675:
3665:
3664:
3635:
3632:
3631:
3630:
3629:
3628:
3627:
3626:
3617:
3599:
3598:
3597:
3596:
3583:
3582:
3581:
3580:
3579:
3578:
3567:
3566:
3565:
3564:
3555:
3554:
3533:
3530:
3529:
3528:
3527:
3526:
3525:
3524:
3523:
3522:
3521:
3520:
3430:
3429:
3428:
3427:
3426:
3425:
3424:
3423:
3422:
3421:
3420:
3419:
3418:
3417:
3416:
3415:
3414:
3413:
3412:
3411:
3345:
3344:
3343:
3268:
3259:
3258:
3257:
3256:
3255:
3246:
3245:
3244:
3243:
3242:
3239:
3236:
3201:
3200:
3199:
3198:
3152:
3140:, also called
3124:
3121:
3120:
3119:
3064:
3061:
3060:
3059:
3058:
3057:
3056:
3055:
3054:
3053:
3052:
3051:
3050:
3049:
3048:
3047:
3007:
3006:
3005:
3004:
3003:
3002:
3001:
3000:
2999:
2998:
2997:
2996:
2982:
2981:
2980:
2979:
2978:
2977:
2976:
2975:
2974:
2973:
2972:
2971:
2938:
2937:
2936:
2935:
2934:
2933:
2932:
2931:
2930:
2929:
2911:
2910:
2909:
2908:
2907:
2906:
2875:
2874:
2873:
2872:
2862:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2858:
2857:
2856:
2855:
2854:
2853:
2852:
2851:
2850:
2849:
2821:
2820:
2819:
2794:
2793:
2792:
2791:
2790:
2789:
2788:
2787:
2786:
2785:
2784:
2783:
2782:
2781:
2747:
2746:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2742:
2741:
2740:
2739:
2738:
2737:
2736:
2713:
2712:
2711:
2710:
2709:
2708:
2707:
2706:
2705:
2704:
2673:
2672:
2671:
2670:
2669:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2620:
2619:
2618:
2617:
2616:
2615:
2614:
2613:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2560:
2544:
2543:
2501:
2498:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2474:
2388:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2298:majority POV.
2280:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2276:
2275:
2211:
2210:
2202:
2199:
2196:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2127:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2055:
1980:very dangerous
1926:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1828:
1827:
1817:
1808:
1780:
1779:
1776:
1763:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1722:
1721:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1639:
1638:
1627:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1609:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1535:
1534:
1520:
1519:
1510:
1475:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1300:
1299:
1292:
1285:
1284:
1255:
1252:
1247:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1192:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1163:
1162:
1158:" Better now?
1127:
1126:
1105:
1102:
1093:
1092:
1087:
1086:
1064:
1061:
1048:
1045:
1021:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1006:
1005:
984:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
900:
899:
898:
897:
888:
887:
886:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
842:
841:
820:
817:
816:
815:
782:
779:
760:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
716:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
611:
610:
609:
608:
594:
593:
584:
583:
562:
561:
546:
545:
541:
540:
532:
531:
527:
526:
518:
517:
512:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
494:
493:
485:
484:
476:
459:
440:
437:
427:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
403:
402:
401:
400:
375:
374:
373:
372:
359:
358:
320:
319:
295:
293:
292:
264:
261:
258:
257:
254:
253:
250:
249:
242:Mid-importance
238:
232:
231:
229:
212:the discussion
199:
198:
182:
170:
169:
167:Mid‑importance
161:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Mid-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
90:Society portal
77:
65:
64:
62:Mid‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
5427:
5416:
5413:
5411:
5408:
5406:
5403:
5401:
5398:
5396:
5393:
5392:
5390:
5383:
5382:
5378:
5374:
5370:
5366:
5362:
5357:
5346:
5345:
5341:
5337:
5329:
5327:
5326:
5321:
5316:
5315:
5304:
5300:
5297:
5293:
5292:
5291:
5284:
5278:
5274:
5270:
5266:
5260:
5255:
5250:
5246:
5244:
5240:
5236:
5235:
5234:
5232:
5228:
5224:
5219:
5213:
5211:
5209:
5205:
5201:
5200:70.24.214.255
5192:
5190:
5189:
5184:
5179:
5178:
5167:
5163:
5160:
5156:
5155:
5154:
5147:
5141:
5137:
5133:
5129:
5123:
5118:
5114:
5108:
5104:
5100:
5093:
5089:
5085:
5083:
5079:
5075:
5074:
5073:
5071:
5067:
5063:
5058:
5052:
5044:
5041:
5033:
5025:
5021:
5017:
5014:
5010:
5009:
5008:
5007:
5006:
5005:
5000:
4996:
4992:
4988:
4987:
4986:
4985:
4979:
4976:
4975:
4974:
4973:
4970:
4967:
4959:
4951:
4950:
4949:
4948:
4944:
4940:
4935:
4928:
4920:
4916:
4912:
4908:
4907:
4906:
4902:
4898:
4894:
4893:
4892:
4888:
4884:
4880:
4875:
4874:
4870:
4867:
4864:
4861:
4858:
4855:
4852:
4851:
4847:
4843:
4840:
4839:
4838:
4836:
4832:
4828:
4824:
4820:
4817:
4814:
4810:
4804:
4802:
4799:
4795:
4791:
4787:
4783:
4771:
4769:
4766:
4765:
4760:
4759:
4755:
4751:
4742:
4738:
4734:
4730:
4726:
4725:
4724:
4723:
4719:
4715:
4714:Moby-Dick3000
4707:
4705:
4704:
4701:
4693:
4689:
4686:
4682:
4681:
4680:
4679:
4675:
4671:
4667:
4657:
4656:
4655:
4642:
4639:
4635:
4631:
4629:
4623:
4621:
4618:
4614:
4613:
4612:
4611:
4610:
4606:
4602:
4598:
4593:
4592:
4591:
4588:
4584:
4582:
4578:
4574:
4570:
4566:
4565:
4564:
4563:
4562:
4561:
4557:
4553:
4549:
4541:
4540:
4539:
4534:Weber's quote
4527:
4524:
4520:
4519:
4518:
4514:
4510:
4506:
4502:
4497:
4496:
4495:
4494:
4491:
4486:
4483:
4475:
4463:
4460:
4456:
4455:
4454:
4453:
4452:
4448:
4444:
4440:
4435:
4434:
4433:
4430:
4425:
4424:
4423:
4419:
4415:
4411:
4407:
4405:
4404:
4400:
4396:
4392:
4386:
4385:
4384:
4383:
4379:
4375:
4371:
4342:
4339:
4335:
4333:
4330:
4326:
4325:
4324:
4320:
4316:
4312:
4308:
4303:
4302:
4301:
4300:
4299:
4298:
4297:
4294:
4291:
4286:
4283:
4282:
4281:
4280:
4279:
4278:
4277:
4276:
4275:
4274:
4273:
4272:
4271:
4270:
4269:
4268:
4267:
4266:
4246:
4241:
4240:
4239:
4238:
4237:
4236:
4235:
4234:
4233:
4232:
4231:
4230:
4229:
4228:
4227:
4226:
4225:
4224:
4205:
4201:
4200:
4199:
4198:
4197:
4193:
4192:
4191:
4190:
4189:
4185:
4181:
4177:
4172:
4171:
4170:
4167:
4163:
4161:
4158:
4154:
4153:
4152:
4148:
4144:
4140:
4136:
4131:
4130:
4129:
4126:
4121:
4120:
4119:
4118:
4117:
4116:
4112:
4108:
4104:
4096:
4095:Eileen Barker
4092:
4088:
4087:
4086:
4076:
4072:
4068:
4064:
4061:Yes. Thanks.
4060:
4059:
4058:
4057:
4054:
4050:
4033:
4030:
4026:
4025:
4024:
4023:
4022:
4018:
4014:
4010:
4006:
4005:
4004:
4001:
3997:
3996:
3995:
3991:
3987:
3983:
3979:
3978:
3977:
3974:
3970:
3969:
3968:
3967:
3963:
3959:
3955:
3936:
3932:
3928:
3924:
3920:
3919:
3918:
3917:
3916:
3913:
3908:
3904:
3901:
3897:
3893:
3889:
3888:
3887:
3886:
3885:
3881:
3877:
3873:
3869:
3868:
3867:
3864:
3860:
3859:
3858:
3854:
3850:
3846:
3842:
3841:
3840:
3839:
3835:
3832:
3827:
3826:
3825:
3824:
3820:
3816:
3812:
3806:
3802:
3801:
3800:
3799:
3790:
3789:
3786:
3779:
3776:
3773:
3770:
3767:
3766:
3765:
3759:
3755:
3752:
3748:
3744:
3743:
3742:
3741:
3737:
3733:
3729:
3715:
3712:
3708:
3707:
3706:
3705:
3704:
3703:
3702:
3701:
3696:
3692:
3688:
3684:
3680:
3679:
3678:
3677:
3674:
3671:
3667:
3666:
3663:
3660:
3656:
3655:
3654:
3653:
3650:
3646:
3642:
3633:
3625:
3622:
3618:
3616:
3613:
3609:
3608:Eileen Barker
3605:
3604:
3603:
3602:
3601:
3600:
3595:
3592:
3587:
3586:
3585:
3584:
3577:
3573:
3572:
3571:
3570:
3569:
3568:
3562:
3559:
3558:
3557:
3556:
3553:
3550:
3545:
3544:
3543:
3542:
3539:
3531:
3519:
3516:
3512:
3511:
3510:
3506:
3502:
3498:
3493:
3492:
3491:
3488:
3484:
3483:
3482:
3478:
3474:
3470:
3466:
3465:
3464:
3461:
3457:
3455:this article
3454:
3453:
3452:
3451:
3447:
3443:
3439:
3435:
3409:
3404:
3403:
3402:
3398:
3394:
3390:
3386:
3382:
3381:
3380:
3377:
3373:
3372:
3371:
3367:
3363:
3359:
3355:
3354:
3353:
3350:
3346:
3342:
3339:
3335:
3334:
3333:
3332:
3331:
3327:
3323:
3319:
3315:
3311:
3307:
3306:
3305:
3302:
3298:
3297:
3296:
3292:
3288:
3284:
3280:
3279:
3278:
3277:
3276:
3273:
3269:
3267:
3264:
3260:
3254:
3251:
3247:
3240:
3237:
3234:
3233:
3232:
3231:
3230:
3227:
3223:
3222:
3221:
3217:
3213:
3209:
3205:
3204:
3203:
3202:
3197:
3194:
3191:
3188:
3186:
3183:
3180:
3179:
3178:
3175:
3171:
3170:
3169:
3168:
3164:
3160:
3156:
3150:
3149:
3147:
3143:
3139:
3135:
3132:
3122:
3118:
3114:
3110:
3106:
3102:
3101:
3100:
3099:
3096:
3092:
3086:
3082:
3080:
3075:
3069:
3062:
3046:
3042:
3038:
3034:
3030:
3026:
3021:
3020:
3019:
3018:
3017:
3016:
3015:
3014:
3013:
3012:
3011:
3010:
3009:
3008:
2994:
2993:
2992:
2991:
2990:
2989:
2988:
2987:
2986:
2985:
2984:
2983:
2970:
2966:
2962:
2958:
2954:
2950:
2949:
2948:
2947:
2946:
2945:
2944:
2943:
2942:
2941:
2940:
2939:
2928:
2925:
2921:
2920:
2919:
2918:
2917:
2916:
2915:
2914:
2913:
2912:
2905:
2901:
2897:
2893:
2890:
2886:
2881:
2880:
2879:
2878:
2877:
2876:
2871:
2866:
2865:
2864:
2863:
2848:
2845:
2841:
2837:
2834:
2830:
2826:
2822:
2818:
2815:
2810:
2809:
2808:
2807:
2806:
2805:
2804:
2803:
2802:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2797:
2796:
2795:
2780:
2777:
2773:
2769:
2765:
2761:
2760:
2759:
2758:
2757:
2756:
2755:
2754:
2753:
2752:
2751:
2750:
2749:
2748:
2735:
2732:
2728:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2722:
2721:
2720:
2719:
2718:
2717:
2716:
2715:
2714:
2703:
2700:
2696:
2692:
2688:
2683:
2682:
2681:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2676:
2675:
2674:
2664:
2661:
2657:
2653:
2649:
2644:
2640:
2636:
2632:
2628:
2627:
2626:
2625:
2624:
2623:
2622:
2621:
2612:
2608:
2604:
2600:
2595:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2585:
2584:
2577:
2574:
2569:
2568:
2567:
2566:
2565:
2564:
2559:
2556:
2552:
2548:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2542:
2539:
2535:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2528:
2524:
2520:
2517:
2511:
2507:
2499:
2487:
2484:
2480:
2475:
2473:
2470:
2466:
2465:
2464:
2460:
2456:
2452:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2441:
2437:
2433:
2429:
2428:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2405:
2401:
2397:
2393:
2376:
2372:
2368:
2364:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2338:
2335:
2331:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2313:
2309:
2305:
2301:
2297:
2293:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2281:
2274:
2271:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2260:
2256:
2252:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2242:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2230:
2226:
2222:
2217:
2207:
2206:does not have
2203:
2200:
2197:
2194:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2163:
2160:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2148:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2132:
2128:
2126:
2123:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2114:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2093:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2054:
2051:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2040:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2019:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1981:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1972:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1925:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1882:
1879:
1874:
1870:
1867:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1836:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1826:
1823:
1818:
1816:
1813:
1809:
1807:
1804:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1785:
1777:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1769:
1761:
1755:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1719:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1705:
1702:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1636:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1625:
1617:
1614:
1610:
1608:
1605:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1533:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1521:
1518:
1515:
1511:
1509:
1506:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1481:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1447:
1444:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1385:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1355:figureheads.
1354:
1353:may have been
1350:
1346:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1332:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1297:
1293:
1290:
1287:
1286:
1283:
1280:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1261:
1253:
1251:
1245:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1218:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1190:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1161:
1157:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1125:
1122:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1103:
1101:
1100:
1097:
1089:
1088:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1075:
1074:
1071:
1062:
1060:
1058:
1055:, please see
1054:
1046:
1044:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1004:
1001:
996:
995:
994:
993:
990:
982:
966:
963:
959:
958:
957:
954:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
942:
938:
935:
934:
933:
930:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
913:
910:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
896:
893:
889:
885:
882:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
866:
863:
859:
858:Eileen Barker
855:
854:
853:
850:
846:
845:
844:
843:
840:
837:
832:
831:
830:
829:
826:
818:
814:
811:
807:
803:
802:
801:
800:
797:
793:
790:because the
788:
780:
778:
777:
774:
770:
766:
758:
752:
749:
745:
744:
743:
740:
736:
732:
731:
730:
729:
726:
722:
714:
697:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
665:
661:
660:
658:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
634:
630:
625:
624:
622:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
606:
602:
598:
597:
596:
595:
591:
586:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
564:
563:
559:
555:
554:
553:
551:
543:
542:
538:
534:
533:
529:
528:
524:
520:
519:
515:
514:
510:
503:
498:
497:
496:
495:
491:
487:
486:
482:
477:
474:
471:
467:
463:
460:
457:
453:
450:
449:
448:
446:
438:
436:
434:
425:
417:
414:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
378:
377:
376:
371:
368:
363:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
343:
342:
341:
339:
336:
332:
327:
326:
325:
317:
313:
309:
304:
303:
302:
300:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
273:
272:
270:
262:
247:
243:
237:
234:
233:
230:
213:
209:
205:
204:
196:
190:
185:
183:
180:
176:
175:
171:
165:
162:
159:
155:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
5373:Sandsiltloam
5369:46.183.103.8
5352:
5333:
5311:
5308:
5283:source check
5262:
5256:
5253:
5220:
5217:
5196:
5174:
5171:
5146:source check
5125:
5119:
5106:
5102:
5098:
5096:
5059:
5056:
4936:
4932:
4878:
4845:
4821:
4818:
4815:
4811:
4808:
4780:— Preceding
4775:
4767:
4761:
4746:
4711:
4697:
4662:
4653:
4627:
4576:
4572:
4568:
4545:
4538:This quote:
4537:
4500:
4484:
4481:
4479:
4387:
4367:
4284:
4243:
4203:
4195:
4100:
4084:
4046:
3951:
3809:
3803:
3796:
3783:
3763:
3724:
3644:
3640:
3637:
3574:
3535:
3431:
3151:
3145:
3141:
3137:
3128:
3126:
3090:
3087:
3083:
3078:
3073:
3070:
3066:
3024:
2952:
2839:
2764:Adolf Hitler
2726:
2695:Adolf Hitler
2655:
2593:
2550:
2514:
2505:
2503:
2436:Gitta Sereny
2432:Albert Speer
2396:Adolf Hitler
2389:
2295:
2212:
2205:
2192:
2186:
1988:
1979:
1941:
1933:
1929:
1781:
1765:
1746:
1723:
1712:
1640:
1629:
1545:
1541:
1524:
1479:
1477:
1440:
1409:
1352:
1301:
1295:
1291:is not vague
1288:
1257:
1249:
1194:
1154:
1130:
1128:
1117:
1113:
1107:
1094:
1076:
1066:
1050:
1034:
1030:
1023:
986:
822:
784:
762:
734:
718:
600:
575:
547:
442:
429:
340:
338:
330:
328:
323:
322:
321:
294:
284:
266:
241:
201:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
5113:Sourcecheck
5038:Let's talk!
4964:Let's talk!
3131:sociologist
1574:Heinz Kohut
1294:figurehead
1196:Thank you.
572:Ramakrishna
568:Vivekananda
382:Attribution
329:If we have
285:in religion
30:Start-class
5389:Categories
5356:Ideal type
5320:Report bug
5183:Report bug
4666:≈ jossi ≈
4597:≈ jossi ≈
4548:≈ jossi ≈
4505:≈ jossi ≈
4439:≈ jossi ≈
4410:≈ jossi ≈
4391:≈ jossi ≈
4370:≈ jossi ≈
4311:≈ jossi ≈
4176:≈ jossi ≈
4139:≈ jossi ≈
4103:≈ jossi ≈
4063:≈ jossi ≈
4009:≈ jossi ≈
3982:≈ jossi ≈
3954:≈ jossi ≈
3923:≈ jossi ≈
3872:≈ jossi ≈
3845:≈ jossi ≈
3811:≈ jossi ≈
3775:Prem Rawat
3728:≈ jossi ≈
3683:≈ jossi ≈
3610:at least.
3497:≈ jossi ≈
3469:≈ jossi ≈
3438:≈ jossi ≈
3389:≈ jossi ≈
3358:≈ jossi ≈
3318:≈ jossi ≈
3283:≈ jossi ≈
3155:≈ jossi ≈
3105:≈ jossi ≈
3033:≈ jossi ≈
2957:≈ jossi ≈
2953:ad nauseam
2892:≈ jossi ≈
2833:Prem Rawat
2768:Prem Rawat
2687:Prem Rawat
2599:≈ jossi ≈
2519:≈ jossi ≈
2451:≈ jossi ≈
2414:≈ jossi ≈
2392:Prem Rawat
2363:≈ jossi ≈
2300:≈ jossi ≈
2251:≈ jossi ≈
2221:≈ jossi ≈
2139:≈ jossi ≈
2101:≈ jossi ≈
2031:≈ jossi ≈
1997:≈ jossi ≈
1950:≈ jossi ≈
1899:≈ jossi ≈
1848:≈ jossi ≈
1784:≈ jossi ≈
1726:≈ jossi ≈
1683:≈ jossi ≈
1651:≈ jossi ≈
1578:≈ jossi ≈
1550:≈ jossi ≈
1485:≈ jossi ≈
1456:≈ jossi ≈
1414:≈ jossi ≈
1357:≈ jossi ≈
1303:≈ jossi ≈
1274:Prem Rawat
1246:Steve Jobs
765:pythagoras
629:ideal type
263:Early talk
5303:this tool
5296:this tool
5166:this tool
5159:this tool
5020:this blog
4708:Confusing
3208:≈ jossi ≈
3134:Max Weber
2836:Syun Moon
2635:Jim Jones
1635:Jim Jones
1626:Jim Jones
1540:You know
1068:of 1982.
1053:Max Weber
825:≈ jossi ≈
810:≈ jossi ≈
576:Jim Jones
452:Jim Jones
390:≈ jossi ≈
281:Max Weber
277:sociology
112:Sociology
103:sociology
59:Sociology
5309:Cheers.—
5172:Cheers.—
4794:contribs
4782:unsigned
4485:leaders
4427:Thanks.
4081:Barker's
3136:defined
2639:Mohammad
2296:de facto
1934:de facto
1647:Charisma
462:Sai Baba
413:IsmaelPR
367:IsmaelPR
289:BrendanH
217:Politics
208:politics
164:Politics
5227:my edit
5099:checked
5066:my edit
4897:Andries
4879:elected
4805:Clinton
4786:Jbredar
4750:Andries
4700:Andries
4685:Andries
4638:Andries
4617:Andries
4587:Andries
4581:Andries
4523:Andries
4490:Andries
4459:Andries
4429:Andries
4338:Andries
4329:Andries
4293:Andries
4166:Andries
4157:Andries
4125:Andries
4053:Andries
4029:Andries
4000:Andries
3973:Andries
3912:Andries
3900:Andries
3894:S" and
3863:Andries
3831:Andries
3805:leader.
3785:Andries
3751:Andries
3711:Andries
3670:Andries
3659:Andries
3621:Andries
3612:Andries
3549:Andries
3538:Andries
3515:Andries
3487:Andries
3460:Andries
3408:Andries
3376:Andries
3349:Andries
3338:Andries
3301:Andries
3272:Andries
3263:Andries
3250:Andries
3226:Andries
3193:Andries
3174:Andries
3074:special
3029:fallacy
2924:Andries
2889:WP:NPOV
2870:Andries
2844:Andries
2840:Curhill
2829:Bhagwan
2776:Andries
2699:Andries
2573:Andries
2538:Andries
2483:Andries
2469:Andries
2440:Andries
2404:Andries
2334:Andries
2292:WP:NPOV
2270:Andries
2241:Andries
2159:Andries
2135:WP:NPOV
2131:WP:NPOV
2122:Andries
2092:Andries
2050:Andries
2018:Andries
1993:WP:NPOV
1971:Andries
1946:WP:NPOV
1938:WP:NPOV
1921:Andries
1895:WP:NPOV
1878:Andries
1866:Andries
1844:Bhagwan
1840:WP:NPOV
1835:Bhagwan
1822:Andries
1812:Andries
1803:Andries
1768:WP:NPOV
1751:Andries
1701:Andries
1674:Andries
1613:Andries
1604:Andries
1542:exactly
1529:Andries
1514:Andries
1505:Andries
1446:Andries
1381:Andries
1345:WP:NPOV
1328:Andries
1279:Andries
1260:Andries
1217:Andries
1160:Andries
1121:Andries
1096:Andries
1070:Andries
1039:Andries
1011:Andries
1000:Andries
953:Andries
929:Andries
909:Andries
862:Andries
836:Andries
796:Andries
773:Andries
748:Khamsin
739:Khamsin
725:Khamsin
715:Cleanup
664:Andries
657:Andries
621:Andries
601:serious
580:Andries
481:Andries
473:Andries
456:Andries
445:Andries
433:Andries
299:Andries
269:Andries
244:on the
139:on the
5107:failed
4991:?oygul
4939:?oygul
4634:Führer
3829:that).
2770:, and
2648:WP:NOR
2637:, and
2594:single
2398:, and
1156:faith.
605:Zappaz
550:Zappaz
490:Zappaz
394:(talk)
36:scale.
5024:WP:RS
4501:often
4480:"...
3144:, or
3123:Intro
2656:false
2643:Jesus
2631:Jesus
2510:Jesus
2216:Jesus
1942:their
1474:Oakes
769:plato
5377:talk
5340:talk
5204:talk
5103:true
5013:diff
4995:talk
4943:talk
4915:talk
4901:talk
4887:talk
4831:talk
4790:talk
4762:See
4754:talk
4733:talk
4718:talk
4482:most
3634:List
3184:and
3129:The
3079:some
3025:only
2887:and
2885:WP:V
2693:and
2652:WP:V
2650:and
2193:only
1349:WP:V
1347:and
806:here
767:and
763:Are
721:Desk
349:and
310:nor
5277:RfC
5241:to
5140:RfC
5117:).
5105:or
5090:to
5080:to
3643:or
3641:why
3148:...
3091:all
3081:).
2434:by
1989:not
1930:one
735:why
314:.--
236:Mid
131:Mid
5391::
5379:)
5342:)
5290:.
5285:}}
5281:{{
5210:)
5206:)
5153:.
5148:}}
5144:{{
5115:}}
5111:{{
4997:)
4945:)
4917:)
4903:)
4889:)
4837:)
4833:)
4796:)
4792:•
4756:)
4735:)
4720:)
4672:•
4603:•
4554:•
4511:•
4445:•
4416:•
4397:•
4376:•
4317:•
4182:•
4145:•
4137:.
4109:•
4093:,
4069:•
4051:.
4015:•
3988:•
3960:•
3929:•
3898:.
3878:•
3851:•
3817:•
3734:•
3689:•
3503:•
3475:•
3444:•
3395:•
3364:•
3324:•
3289:•
3214:•
3189:,
3161:•
3111:•
3039:•
2963:•
2898:•
2831:,
2827:,
2774:.
2766:,
2689:,
2633:,
2605:•
2525:•
2457:•
2420:•
2402:.
2394:,
2369:•
2306:•
2257:•
2227:•
2145:•
2137:.
2107:•
2037:•
2003:•
1956:•
1948:.
1919:.
1905:•
1854:•
1790:•
1732:•
1689:•
1657:•
1584:•
1556:•
1527:.
1491:•
1462:•
1420:•
1363:•
1309:•
1296:is
1232:•
1204:•
1177:•
1142:•
1059:.
808:.
694:--
588:--
500:--
5375:(
5338:(
5322:)
5318:(
5305:.
5298:.
5202:(
5185:)
5181:(
5168:.
5161:.
5034:-
4993:(
4960:-
4941:(
4913:(
4899:(
4885:(
4829:(
4788:(
4752:(
4731:(
4716:(
4674:@
4670:t
4605:@
4601:t
4556:@
4552:t
4513:@
4509:t
4499:'
4447:@
4443:t
4418:@
4414:t
4399:@
4395:t
4378:@
4374:t
4319:@
4315:t
4287:"
4242:"
4202:"
4184:@
4180:t
4147:@
4143:t
4111:@
4107:t
4071:@
4067:t
4017:@
4013:t
3990:@
3986:t
3962:@
3958:t
3931:@
3927:t
3880:@
3876:t
3853:@
3849:t
3819:@
3815:t
3780:]
3736:@
3732:t
3691:@
3687:t
3563::
3505:@
3501:t
3477:@
3473:t
3446:@
3442:t
3397:@
3393:t
3366:@
3362:t
3326:@
3322:t
3291:@
3287:t
3216:@
3212:t
3163:@
3159:t
3113:@
3109:t
3041:@
3037:t
2965:@
2961:t
2900:@
2896:t
2665:~
2607:@
2603:t
2527:@
2523:t
2459:@
2455:t
2422:@
2418:t
2371:@
2367:t
2308:@
2304:t
2259:@
2255:t
2229:@
2225:t
2147:@
2143:t
2109:@
2105:t
2039:@
2035:t
2005:@
2001:t
1958:@
1954:t
1907:@
1903:t
1856:@
1852:t
1792:@
1788:t
1734:@
1730:t
1691:@
1687:t
1659:@
1655:t
1586:@
1582:t
1558:@
1554:t
1493:@
1489:t
1464:@
1460:t
1422:@
1418:t
1365:@
1361:t
1311:@
1307:t
1234:@
1230:t
1206:@
1202:t
1179:@
1175:t
1144:@
1140:t
248:.
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
