Talk:Max Weber/Archive 1

Early talk
The section on the Protestant Ethic is somewhat of a crude caricature. One key idea that it misses is predestination -- the Calvinists of which Weber was speaking believed that their actions could have no influence on whether they were among the elect (saved) or not. They worked hard, were ascetic and calculating not in order to become saved, but to reassure themselves that they were. The description of catholicism is also unnecessarily flippant -- Weber's understanding of the difference between protestantism and catholicism was far more subtle.

The line


 * "However the continuing corruption and dysfunctional governments and economies of predominatly Catholic societies is of deep concern."

is just crude POV, unworthy of a serious article, and I have removed it. BrendanH 10:10, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

The Line "Weber, who died in 1920, would have never supported the Nazis." seems to be based on conjecture more than fact. Weber probably would not have supported the Nazis, but the line should be phrased differently to sound like an encyclopedia entry rather than a personal belief. goaway110

I'm curious why most of the DDP (Max Weber's party) voters of the late 1910s decided to vote NSDAP in the early 1930s. The DDP had only a few voters left in 1933. Max Weber was a liberal and a nationalist, so i think that he probably would have supported the nazis (40% of the Germans did), allthough you never can know for sure.--Daanschr 13:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The early nazis didn't look as bad as they did later, who could have imagined where their path would lead? Still, its hard to guess what would Weber do if he lived that long. Surely, he would have opposed the more radical nazism of late 1930s - or at least I think so. Btw, how free were the 1930s elections - did the DDP voters *really* voted from their own will? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The last free election was in january 1933, but the elections in the early 1930s were not completely free, because the SA and the communist youth were shouting through speeches before the election day.--Daanschr 12:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Note to German speakers
First, note to any German speaker - plz check my orginal title translations, I used online translator on them. BrendanH, I hope you will go over my description of his works and add your input there as well.

--Piotrus 18:38, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

No credit
This page seems to have the same entry as Wiki, but claims it is copyrighted. Note that c is 2004, while our entry is 2003. I have no idea how to deal with this, but if WE have to rewrite the article, just PM me and I'll do it. --Piotrus 17:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The content in that page was written bit by bit on Wikipedia. I have looked through the edit history and it is clear that the article was written incrementally and not taken en bloc from elsewhere. Braungardt has a right to copy it (GFDL) but not to claim copyright. I will contact him and ask him about it. BrendanH 15:02, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. My latest changes to our wiki article about MW make it quite diffrent from the copied version (ATM at least), but that doesnt change the general problem.

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:12, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I contacted him -- it's material reproduced from Wikipedia, and the absence of the link back to Wikipedia was inadvertant. Now fixed. BrendanH 11:19, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Removed 2 paragraphs
I removed those two paragraphs:

''Pivotal in his analysis of the tenets of a faith is the reliance upon "magic" in sermons and faith. Briefly, Protestants become wealthy because they have no "magic wand" to get them into heaven, therefore Protestants have to work constantly and consistently to assure themselves a place in heaven. On the other hand, Catholicism involves much waving of hands, fixed 'magical' rituals, chanted incantations, a bit of water, and an abracadabra-like prayer: believers' souls become purified for their ascent to heaven.''

''The disparity in wealth between religions is still very prominent, though there are critics who suggest this disparity owes more to historical hangover from colonialism than from a particular creed. Critics also say that one could make a distinction between northern Europe and southern Europe yet, looking at Switzerland, Protestant Cantons tend to be wealthier than Catholic ones. Weber's work is parallel to Sombart's treatise of the same phenomenon, which however located the rise of Capitalism in Judaism.''

First is a summary of a very small part of his works on religion, second is a discussion of his views again in only one aspect of his work - good, but not in entry about Weber, I think. If you feel those paragrahps I vital, feel free to put them inside those parts of his work dealing with them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:54, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I put the last sentence of the 2nd § in again, because it is vital to understand Weber in the context of Sombart's work (Weber would have been the first to agree with that; Sombart was the more famous and better-selling German sociologist-economist at the time); it also helps as a contrast. Clossius 18:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Weber's ideas list
Lot's of Weber's theories and ideas he contributed to are lying around Wiki already (see what links here - though not all of those link here). I am wondering on the best way to group them. Some category perhaps? Or just a list of his concepts on this or some special page? For now, I will put what I can think of here: That is what I can think of now, but surely lot of other subjects can be added here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:01, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * ideal type
 * bureaucracy
 * ideal types of goverment or tripartite classification of authority: traditional authority, charismatic authority, legal authority, note that authority can be exchanged for domination, and legal is reffered to as rational-legal sometimes
 * sociology of religion (this article needs interlinks and a section on Weber)
 * three-component theory of stratification: social class, status class and party class
 * Monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force


 * Yes, the 'achievements' section need to be streamlined and, perhaps, renames 'theories and ideas'. Maybe something like this:

Rex 14:43, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Methodology (objectivity, ideal types, etc., types of rationality)
 * Religion (Protestant ethic, religious sociology)
 * Institutional analysis (bureacracy, charisma, the state, status group and party, law)
 * Political thought and applied institutional work (Junker agricultural, industrial worker surveys)
 * Economic history


 * The section is divided into:

I think this is a rather good division, but if anybody can think of anything better, feel free to improve it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * sociology of regigion
 * sociology of politics and government
 * sociology of industry/economy


 * Piotr, I have undone some edits of yours to Social class and the three-component theory of stratification pages. This is because the "social class/status class/party class" wording is strictly incorrect. Weber wrote of "class, status and party" as three separate dimensions of stratification, and it is profoundly confusing to talk of "status class" in a Weberian context. We can talk of status groups without problems, but "status" and "class" are two conceptually distinct dimensions of stratification. The status class and party class pages should therefore be deleted, and I wonder if the three-component theory of stratification page has enough content to survive. BrendanH 16:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you cite some sources to back up your claim?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Piotr, the essay "Class, Status and Party", in e.g. Gerth, Hans and C. Wright Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. It's mentioned in the Further Reading section of Social class. BrendanH 20:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Goal:Featured Article
One day, I'd like for old Max to hit the main page :) But I am sure this some improvement before then. My question is: what improvement? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:45, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Before that happens a lot of expansion is going to be needed and a lead section added. All the one sentence paragraphs that start with "In" need to be replaced by real paragraphs that expand on the topic sentence. --mav 00:25, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Tnx for the advice, this will go to my to do list. Any other ideas? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Done and done, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:19, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm down with that Piotrus, I'll work on this page w/you.


 * Tnx. Don't forget to sign :) What else do you think should be fixed/changed before we submit our article to peer review or fa? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * oops sorry Rex 14:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) The biography needs to be extensively revised - make notes on Weber's nervous breakdowns, when major works were published, his political views, etc. etc.


 * All biographical info I could find is added. I ilinked the bio section as much as I could as well, and for the moment I think this section rather complete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2nd peer review comments and my responses
All concerns from the last (summer) peer review have been adressed. Do you have any further comments or can this be moved to featured candidates now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Much of what is there is very good. But also much of the article is just a list of his works.  The standard comment made in the featured article discussion is that this should be moved out to a list that is linked in the article.  Once those are out the article is a bit short.  If he is one of the founders of sociology is there not more to write about him? Also, were the "resources" used the write the article? If so they are normally called references. The lead section is a little short.  There are a number of one sentence paragraphs; those need to be either removed, merged, or expanded. There are also a lot of wikilinks to things that perhaps should not be articles.  Anything that is purely a dictionary definition and not an encyclopedic concept should not get a wikilink. Examples include "descriptive".  Similarly some concepts are just not notable enough to have their own articles, so they should not be linked as well.  I'll leave it to you to decide some of those. Just the shear volume of red links leads me to believe that perhaps many of them do not in fact need to be their own article.  See WP:VFD for some of the things that are commonly not considered worthy of articles. - Taxman 00:11, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Tnx for your comments. I moved the list off and expaned the article (it is atm 31kb long even without the list). Resources renamed to references. I merged some short paragraphs but honestly don't know what more can be added to the lead. As for red links, I think that they should be made into an article, although I did remove few that would only point to Wiktionary stuff. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Essays on Education
Seeking English translation of Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre? (Collected Essays on Education) (original - 1922). -DennisDaniels


 * Um, Dennis, you are seeking them, or you know where they are...? Please be more specific, and use wiki signature. Thnak you --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Picture
I assume it is current picture is public domain since this is a photo of Max Weber and he died in 1920. I also think that this same could apply to any Weber photo from Google Images - correct me if I am wrong? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Weasel word
It is important to avoid saying things like "It is argued that this work should not be viewed as" etc, see Weasel word. Say who argues it. This is an important point for getting the article featured! I hope it does get featured, this is a very, very important subject and the article is good in many ways.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 21:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikilinks
Hello, Piotrus, you asked on FAC about my problem with the links. Here are some examples from the first paragraphs. Don't link to redirects (mental breakdown, University of Heidelberg), instead point directly to relevant articles using piped links. Don't link to disambiguation pages (scholar, Eastern Germany), but directly to the meaningful page for your context (well, check it out, I doubt that there exists a meaningful page for scholar).

But especially, don't put in links not relevant to the context (see Make only links relevant to the context). There are some of those links in most articles (I'd like to get rid of them all, for my part), but yours are numerous and extra distracting because they link to such very irrelevant, modern, Americentric stuff. If you check out where links to such wide concepts as intellectual, author, essay (for crying out loud!), professor, editor, inheritance, doctorate, thesis, or politician lead, you'll see that they'd be meaninglessly over-general in almost any biographical account. And when it's a 19-th century biographical account of a non-American, well, just take a look at those links for yourself, I'm sure you'll see what I mean. People don't necessarily have unlimited time to spend on Wikipedia, I know, but if you do have the time, I think it would be a real quality boost for the article if you simply went through all its links. Click on them, I mean, see where they lead, maybe sometimes you'll be seized with a desire to change or unlink them.

At the same time, you need to add more links. There are some much more specific concepts in the first paragraphs, that are not linked, but usefully could be. Salon is a good example! Note that you don't want to allow it to link to the Salon disambiguation page, pipe it straight to Salon (gathering) the way I did (you might want to check out the edit field sourcecode for this page to see how I did it). Good luck, hope the article makes it!--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 15:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My copyedits
Hello, again, Piotrus, having gone through the whole pretty thoroughly I now see that the wikilinking gets a lot better later in the article! There was certainly no need for me to be telling you about things like piped links, sorry about holding forth, above: the first sections misled me into thinking you might want advice on a level that I now see you don't at all.


 * Much tnx for all the work and advice - since there were some errors, apparently no advice was uneeded :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have been rather bold in copyediting; when I couldn't understand something, I usually made a guess and put my guess into good English (hopefully). Please check for this, and apologies for any misunderstanding. At the same time, please consider that if I couldn't understand a sentence, it could be because of my individual stupidity, but it could also be because it really is hard to understand.

Some details I had trouble with (you can probably fix them!):
 * I couldn't make sense of the way The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism, The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Budhism, and Ancient Judaism were referred to. I went ahead and guessed they were books and phrased and formatted accordingly throughout, please change if I was barking up the wrong tree.


 * Yep, they're books. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "the rationalism in scientific pursuit, merging observation with mathematics, science of scholarship and jurisprudence, rational systematisation of government administration"—I don't understand this, I think those must be mostly the wrong words, please rephrase, or tell me what it means and I'll try to help.


 * Hmmm, I belive it means that Occident culture was rational because it saw and utilised the links between the ilinked stuff. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know where the quote beginning "For the Jew (&hellip;) the social order of the world" is supposed to end.


 * Deleted unecessary ", all quotes are in italic now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Ooh noooo! No kidding? You reverted me? I'd just gotten rid of all the italics for quotes, and put quote marks round them instead. The way I'd done it is the Wikipedia house style, compare Manual of style (as well as being the MLA style and the Chicago Manual of Style style, if it comes to that). You unpicked my copyediting? I don't quite know what to say... what did you think I did it for?--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 08:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The sentence about the phrase work ethic is very interesting, but what's it doing interrupting the discussion of politics/politicians? It really needs to be moved, but I don't know where to.


 * Good point, moved to end of On The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "a classic, hierarchically organized civil service of the Continental type is—if basically mistakenly—called "Weberian civil service""—the remark about "mistakenly" must be sourced and explained (or ommitted), or it's going to be seen as extremely POV. Also the remark that "Weber's bureaucracy studies also led him to his analysis &mdash; correct, as it would turn out &mdash; that socialism" ( simpler to just skip that one, is it a lot of use... ?)


 * It is not my comment and you are right - I think. So feel free to correct this however you think would be best. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * These are my additions, and you are welcome to remove them of course, but the main problem of the Weber article is that, i.m.o., it anyway shortchanges Weber on his achievements in Public Administration, bureaucracy studies, and Soviet studies, which can be argued to be at least as important as those in Sociology. Both statements challenged here are easily supportable from the mainstream scholarly literature on the subject; I would be happy to provide the respective references, if this would help.  (Naturally, in such questions, there will always be some other opinions).


 * Yes, of course it would help, Clossius, that is exactly what would help. If you're explicitly citing mainstream scholars, who then appear in the references section, there is no need to pay lip-service to a minority view, either (unless the point under discussion is a huge central big deal in the article, that needs to be imparatially illuminated from several sides, which is hardly the case here).--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 08:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I haven't seen any bibliographic annotations of this kind to statements that are not challenged here yet. Then you have a classical scholarly article, which I understand to be not exactly what Wikipedia is striving for. Clossius 09:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * 1. On the mistakenness: "a classic, hierarchically organized civil service of the Continental type is—if basically mistakenly—called "Weberian civil service". Well, as the saying goes, "Plato was not a Platonist, Luther said he was not a Lutheran, Marx said he was not a Marxist." The system we call "Weberian CS" is certainly described and analyzed in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (esp. pp. 124-130 in the original 1922 edn.), but as one of several systems - and Weber himself did not even particularly like the model of PA so described. He only saw it, rightly as it turned out, as the most rational and efficient one for his time, and the one towards which PA would, in the immediate future, tend. That this is by and large still the case 80 years later if one looks at the model rather than at its caricature, is something that would have surprised him probably quite a bit.


 * What you have to consider is whether the issue is important enough to justify the extra weight of explaining why and how Weber wouldn't have thought it Weberian. If it is, go for it; if it's not, delete the comment, don't leave it in there unsourced. Your call. Bishonen (Forgot to sign here, sorry.)


 * I think anyone can read Wirtschaft and Gesellschaft; there are also the accompanying vols. to the Mohr Siebeck Weber Collected works, which are perhaps the most mainstreamy things on the topic. A good quick piece from there on this subject, and in English, too, is Eugenie Samier's essay in the 2001 Max Webers Herrschaftssoziologie. Studien zur Entstehung und Wirkung, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 235-263. If we start to put the relevant lit. on Weber in, which to a large extent is German and thus not understandable to most, then we would realy need about 30 references more, at the absolute minimum. Clossius 09:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * 2. On the mistakenness: "his analysis — correct, as it would turn out — that socialism in Russia would, due to the abolishing of the free market and its mechanisms, necessarily lead to over-bureaucratisation rather than to the "withering away of the state" - just on the common sense level, would anyone doubt that the Soviet Union was an extremely bureaucratized state? (One of the reasons of its demise, in the end.) One of the reasons was that, if you want to direct what is otherwise created by the Market, you obviously need a system, i.e. a bureaucracy, to do this. It is also not disputed in the literature that Weber, in his Summer 1918 Vienna lecture, "Der Sozialismus", makes precisely this point in a very careful and encompassing way that still stands today; this one I haven't ever heard challenged.  And if this is not a significant achievement for a social scientist, I really don't know.
 * Clossius 07:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought about that too, I almost left it without comment, thinking "well everybody knows what happened to the Soviet Union, what's the big deal?" But that's not it. What you need to source is not that the s.u. collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy, everybody does know that, it's the "necessarily". The passage doesn't just claim that socialism in Russia led to bureaucracy, but that it did so by historical necessity, and that this turned out to be correct. Most might agree about the historical necessity, but I'm sure there are a few diehards who don't. --[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 08:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I would always think that the point of the Wikipedia is that someone else takes out what she finds problematic, not that one anticipates problematicity (at least on such a minor level), no? Anyway, the "necessarily" is not important here and can be deleted with any loss of meaning (I think it is clear that "necessarily" in a historical development concept doesn't mean "necessarily" in a physics kind of way, but that it means that there is an autodynamics that will lead to such a result). Clossius 09:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What is an "outspoken concept"? Please explain or change.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 00:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, not my comment. Deleted outspoken. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can't make sense of it either, but it's a pity, it probably did mean something, that the sentence would have been richer for. Not much you or I can do about it, though.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 08:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Incidentally I just did the References up in Manual of style, please don't revert, they're supposed to look like that. But it would be good (in an extremely minor sort of way) if you could find the place of publication for a couple of them. (I found Marianne's biography in a library catalogue, imitate how the place is put in, in that one.) Gotta run to catch a train, I'll be back and see if I can put in a couple of the above things in the article later, maybe Friday night. (Not gonna do the italics/quote marks thing all over agin, though...you do it. ;-))--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 08:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please keep it the way you like it
Clossius, in reply to your comments above, and complaints about my not adhering to the point of Wikipedia: I didn't want to take out the two expressions of opinion myself, because I wanted to give the authors, the people who have done the work (I assume you're one of them), a chance to choose between either taking them out or adding references, something I don't know enough to do. By "references" I mean saying something like "a classic, hierarchically organized civil service of the Continental type is called 'Weberian civil service', erroneously so, as many scholars have pointed out, including Samier." I did not actually mean it would be a good idea to add a footnote saying "See Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (esp. pp. 124-130 in the original 1922 edn.)" or to add 30 books to the References section (you'd need that to source two expressions of opinion?). But I'm not really interested in getting into this big of an argument about a couple of minor suggestions, I don't have enough time for that. I was just trying to help the article get featured, and I don't need this much hostility for it. You guys should definitely keep the article the way you like it, I'll just butt out. Sorry, Piotrus.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 19:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think one really needs to work really hard to see my comments as hostile. If one hates scholarly discourse so much, should one really be engaged in writing or editing an encyclopedia? This kind of attitude is of course particularly ironic in a Weber article. As for myself, I am just interested in Weber and his theories and thus added a few things to the entry that were missing; I am neither interested in the idea of "featured article" nor am I a basic author of this entry. With a minimum of 30 books, as I said and as I think is also very clear, I meant that if one wanted to have a reflection on the key scholarly works on Weber altogether (not on these two points), this is really what there would have to be; otherwise, important aspects would have to be left out. Clossius 21:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The true scholar knows the medium in which he is working, I'd say. When one is writing a monograph and when one is writing an encyclopedia article, the demands are different, seems to me.  The reader's needs are foremost, and the task is accurate information that can be verified by external references.  Saying "Well, anyone can go read X work in German" is perfectly accurate for a specialist publication, but I, at least, only want to learn about this figure.  I will be well educated on history and on the contemporary world.  Any "obviously" or "necessarily" will likely set off the POV alarms without some reference, but a reference needs merely to be sufficient.  It seems to me that the difference between scholarship and pedantry is knowing and considering the audience for one's work and not erecting higher barriers to information than already exist with such a problematic figure as Max Weber.
 * For whatever it is worth, I have not voted on the FAC, as I am aware more of storms of controversy about Weber than Weber himself. If one wishes to keep a well educated and interested person (and I would say "like me") from understanding the text by refusing to offer a simple intralinear reference without loading "learned lumber" onto the article, then one must ask why one is working on a Wikipedia as well.  Geogre 04:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Attacks by conservatives"
Does anyone else find this section a little off? For instance, the first blurb claims that Weber said Protestantism is the only way to a work ethic, and I'm pretty sure he absolutely never said that. I'm not sure how to modify a criticism that's blatantly false. The second one says his arguments were "dismissed as Marxist", which does not sound like a highly critical argument. To be fair, the section is titled "attacks by conservatives" and not "legitimate criticism", but it's still pretty ill-fitting. Sarge Baldy 14:47, May 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * The section title itself is practically a parody of POV writing. He wasn't criticized ... he was ATTACKED! Those bastards!

Max Weber and German politics
I tried to summarize the mess that i left on this section of the article, but someone preferred the mess above my summarizings. (sorry for forgetting to log in lots of times). Does Evercat has any suggestions on the structuralization of the data? I don't want to delete any of it. Most of it will be reverted to a new main article, in order to not make the section of Max Weber and German politics to big in comparisson with the main works that Weber wrote.--Daanschr 13:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This section says twice that Weber thought that a socialist society was impossible. One instance should be deleted.

Interpretations of Weber's liberalism
As far as my Google search goes, this does not seem to be a copyvio (no hits on randomly selected sentences). It needs a copyedit/wikifying though, and I don't have time ATM to do it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I moved this sentry to Interpretations of Weber's liberalism. It is a bit controversial and not wikified, and should not disrupt this FA article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Mergers by User:Jossifresco
User:Jossifresco has recently tagged several articles (Tripartite classification of authority, Rational-legal authority and possibly others) with 'mergeto' template to main Weber article. I'd like to ask him why he think it should be done? Weber article is large and comprehensive (FA) already, and those subarticles are linked from various other articles and are being slowly expanded. I see no reason they should be merged here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe not to merge with Max Weber but to put all these into one article. I do not see the need for one article per the type of authority described by Weber. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; 14:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Because of this. A great many people who voted in that discussion did so under the mistaken impression that charismatic authority, not personal charisma, was the criterion for the category.  Now that it has been made more clear that it is not a POV assessment of "does this person have charisma?" but a sociological classification, I suspect that those who still want to see the category deleted no matter what would like to do what they can to portray it as an unimportant sociological classification.  I suppose they'd like to merge all of Max Weber's work on classification of authority into his article the way a creationist would like to see all evolution-related articles merged into Charles Darwin, so that they can be falsely portrayed as relying on that one person's authority. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the distinction. I just think that these are short articles that, could be nicely combined into one, don't you think?. It will be easy to read and to understand Weber's classifications on authority. This proposal has nothing to do on the CfD for Category:Charismatic_religious_leaders. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; 03:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I can see how at present it may be possible to merge those articles into the 'Tripartite classification of authority'. Still, the problem is that subarticles already have their own talk pages, and charismatic authority seems a fairly hot topic. I think that the 'triparitite' article should be expanded, but the specific type authority articles should be left as they are. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Taking into account the presence of both defenders and critics of new religious movements in Wikipedia, the related article charismatic authority will likely expand soon and strongly, making it too big for 'Tripartite classification of authority'. In other words, it could possibly be merged but it will probably soon have to become its own article again. Andries 16:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A good argument could be made that the content of all three individual articles might be easier to understand if merged with the article that discusses the division into three -- although a single good argument for does not counter all arguments against. But to suggest that it be merged with Max Weber?  Absolutely ludicrous.  Such mergers are only appropriate when one subject is utterly unnotable except in terms of the other -- which, to anyone with a grasp of sociology, is very obviously not the case here.  Not only is there not a good argument to be made for it, the fact that anyone even tried to make an argument for it must raise questions of motivation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Max Weber article is too complete as is and quite long already. But I would suggest to merge the small articles into Tripartite classification of authority. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; 01:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Request to move Weber's thesis article
I just noticed that the introductory paragraph to the Max Weber article was saying that his theory of the state is called "Weber's Thesis" and wikilinking to the "Weber's thesis" article. And the "Weber's thesis" article is completely misnamed, since "Weber's thesis" is used to describe his theory of the influence of Protestantism on the development of capitalism, not his theory of the state. So I deleted the statement and wikilink in the Weber article and put in a request to rename "Weber's thesis" as "Weber's theory of the state" (although that is covered briefly in the "Politics as a Vocation" article) and to redirect "Weber's thesis" to the "Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" article. Please go to the Talk page of "Weber's thesis" and register your support or opposition to having it moved to "Weber's theory of the state". Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The sociology of music
Apparently Max Weber began this subfield with his (posthumous) 1921 work Die rationalen und soziologischen Grundlagen der Musik (currently without an article). If anyone is knowledgable about this aspect of Weber's work, I'd like to see a section added regarding it. Sarge Baldy 17:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.


 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.


 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.


 * Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC.


 * Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.


 * article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.


 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
 * You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
 * Thanks, Andy t 21:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)