Talk:Tripartite classification of authority

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed mergers[edit]

For discussion of the proposed merge with Max Weber, please see Talk:Max Weber#Mergers by User:Jossifresco.

Table[edit]

The table added by Piotrus (talk · contribs) seems to be original research as it attempts to summarize Weber's theories in very specific manner. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it is a fairly straightforward summary of his ideas. If it is new research contradictory to common academic sources, I'll remove it. Is it?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, summarizing his ideas in such a table, may be seen as original research. I have not seen in the literature such a table, so that is why I am asking. My preference would be to find such a table in a reputable source and use that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a table from a copyrighted works may not be fair use. I wanted to avoid copyright issues, so this is why I uploaded this one (which was actually done by a friend of mine).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, Piotrus. Seems to be original research. We ought to be careful not do go there... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Summarizing somebody's writings is what all editors should do. The table is very informative, I think. Andries 03:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that the table is informative, but it presents a very specific viewpoint of Weber's classification, and as such it may fall in the domain of original research. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm, it may. Or it may not. I guess we should ask for more comments on this then?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cult of personality is not equal to charismatic authority[edit]

State sponsored and state encouraged or initiated personality cults are not a form of charismatic authority. For example. Stalin's cult of personality was state sponsered but his autority was not charismatic, but mainly legal. Spontaneous personality cults are probably a different matter. Andries (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is something in the article that is NOT NPOV:[edit]

Not likely. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The classification of authority in the context of history[edit]

It is written in the article:

(...)

Weber also notes that legal domination is the most advanced, and that societies evolve from having mostly traditional and charismatic authorities to mostly rational and legal ones, because the instability of charismatic authority inevitably forces it to "routinize" into a more structured form of authority. (...) A classic example of these three types may be found in religion:

priests (traditional),
Jesus (charismatic), and the
Roman Catholic Church (legal-rational).
(...)

I don't agree with the third example.
I would rather put United Nations and/or United Nations Security Council.
The "legality" and/or "rationality" of the Roman Catholic Church has been put into deep discussion and analysis by the italian mathematician Piergiorgio Odifreddi's essay "Why we cannot be Christians (much less catholics)" ISBN 978-88-304-2427-2.
Let's NOT forget that "religion" is the first authority in this Max Webers tripartite classification.
The lowest one in importance.
So this "legal-rationality" is internal to a charismatic domination and not to a legal domination.
Sorry!
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird![edit]

Contemplating the weirdness of the article, I imagine that it actually reflects Weber's thinking correctly. I cannot see any "hierarchy" between the three different forms of authority, so there must be some underlying notion of what is "primitive" vs. "civilized", which needs to be related in the intro. There is some underlying theory of incremental civilization or some such, that is missing in this text... Or? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples[edit]

This article lacks real-life examples of the three ideal types of authorities. Though it may be subjective, I think it would be valuable addition to the article and a good guidance to readers in order to facilitate their comprehension of the concepts. SpaceEconomist192 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

Support the July proposal to merge The Three Types of Legitimate Rule; heavily duplication. Klbrain (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]