Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of charismatic leaders


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was NO CONSENSUS. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about what this list is; it uses a precise definition of "charismatic leader." Setting this aside, there still seems to be some disagreement whether it's possible to categorically describe a person as a "charismatic leader" even by the dictates of that precise definition. It may help to add some prose explaining how each entry on this list meets that definition. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

List of charismatic leaders
It seems to me that this list is iherently POV and serves no useful purpose here.--Konstable 14:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:black; background-color:lightblue; font-weight:bold">Lurker ]] say/said 17:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list has and very clear criterion for list member inclusion ("as defined by Max Weber's tripartite classification of authority), and each list member has a reliable source as a reference. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not a "list of charismatic leaders", this is a "list of leaders who have ever been call charismatic in print". I'm sure you could find such a citation for just about any leader ever. - CheNuevara 15:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A better name for this list would be "List of leaders who have been considered charismatic". However, this list is inherently POV, and, although extensively sourced, is just the opinions of certain people.  I imagine there are a few people out there who think Bill Clinton or Ronald Regan weren't very charismatic... Green451 16:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per CheNuevara. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 16:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Even the reference to the "definition" by Weber is Weber's POV, and is fairly subjective in any event. I don't think we need a "List of leaders Max Weber would classify as charismatic". Agent 86 17:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Agent 86 has correctly understood the issue at hand. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The term charismatic can only be a matter of opinion [[User:Lurker|<span
 * Keep this is a political science typography of leadership. The term doesn't mean that they 'have charisma', but that their leadership authority stems from their charisma, rather than being founded primarily in some other source. Aargh. Please reconsider - it looks like some of these votes stem from a misunderstanding. Gravitor 17:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It appears most proponents of this article's deletion do not understand the concept of charismatic authority, and are thus assuming this article is just of list of leaders described as "charismatic" (which would lilely be POV by nature). Because this article's reason for deletion is based on a misunderstanding, and not any violation, it should remain on wikipedia, and expanded to include more examples of charismatic leaders, perhaps with a broader explanation/definition of charismatic authority. --NEMT 19:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This proponent of deleting the article has read Max Weber and still thinks this article should be deleted. Did you read our article on charismatic authority? The first sentence contains the phrase "exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character". The caption on the top picture states that "Jesus is considered by many historians ..." Just because they aren't based on your POV does not mean that they aren't POV. Someone else's POV is also not acceptable. - CheNuevara 21:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the caption is wrong. Charismatic authority is a concept used in sociology, not in history. Andries 23:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per NEMT - suggest that the nom might be based on misunderstanding. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 19:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It is not useful and POV. NCursework 19:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the title of the article is excessively vague and confusing. It has confused almost everyone here, and thus probably confuses a majority of readers. Delete as non-notable. Otherwise, move to List of charismatic leaders as defined by Weber's classification of authority. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree to this move. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no problem with this move only I would like to include Max Weber's first name in the title (which is only a detail) i.e. List of charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority. Andries 20:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - on the Fidel Castro talk page there has been a discussion raging for months over whether Fidel Castro is charismatic or not -- extremely strong opinions on both sides. Could this list settle the issue for them? He's not on there. Mattisse 20:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Agent 86. Unencyclopedic, if interesting. Jacqui ★ 20:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't ever see this list ever getting to NPOV. Whispering 20:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Once again, many of you seem to misunderstand the concept of a charismatic leader. While the article is in need of attention and should clarify the distinction between charismatic, legal, and traditional authority to avoid confusion, this is not reason enough to remove the article. The tripartite theory of authority is an important element of both political science and sociology, and articles classifying specific leaders in authority-groups are helpful and encyclopedic. --NEMT 21:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment to your comment: A third party POV is still not a neutral one. See above. - CheNuevara 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You still seem to be missing the point. There is no POV.  Charismatic authority describes the method of gaining and/or holding power through rallying public suppot as opposed to other methods such as being part of a hereditary ruling class or elected majority, it has nothing to do with anyone's personal opinion of a leader or his/her actual or perceived level of charisma of competence. --NEMT 21:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Another comment to this comment perhaps this could benefit from a better description of what constitutes "listed sources"? Right now it seems to indicate that if someone categorizes a leader according to Weber's distinction anywhere in print it should go on the list, but that doesn't take into account disputes or disagreements about the classification and is rightly near-useless and confusing. Z iggurat 21:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment regardless of any misunderstanding on the part of the nominator, this article does not appear to have encylopedic content, or the potential for encyclopedic content. It should be moved to a willing editor's User space, and removed from the article namespace.  There is too much room for disagreement, and no means exists to establish facts which will support the application of this theory. --71.36.251.182 21:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment on comment if too much room for disagreement is a valid reason for deleting an article then I can think of a long list of other articles that should be deleted. Let us start with e.g. Israel. Andries 22:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV. --SFont 22:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: Can somebody please explain why s/he considers the list POV? I sincerely cannot understand this because the sociological concept of charismatic leadership is neutral and the list is well sourced. Andries 22:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: Can somebody please explain to me why Fidel Castro is not on that list? I looked at the criteria and he fits. Shall I put him on? Mattisse 23:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source has described Fidel to be a charismatic leader as per Max Weber's definition, you can add it. This has nothing to do with the value judgement of "charismatic". ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * O.K. Castro goes on! - I'm sure you count the many BBC News and the New York Times articles - as well as the new books out on Castro, one by Anthone DePalma that describes how the NYTimes and it's reporter Herbert L. Matthews helped create Castro's charisma. And the book by the CIA guy Brian Latell that goes on at length about Castro's charisma. Too tired tonight but I'll do it tomorrow.   Mattisse 00:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This seems to be a fruitless discussion as the advocates of deleting the article continually ignore the clarification of charismatic authority's definition and refuse to acknowledge any misunderstanding. We can only hope the wiki admins will have more sense.  The article should be partially rewritten to include further explanations of tripartite authority, however, it should not be deleted, and it is not POV.  --NEMT 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the article should not have extensive explanations, because it is a list. Explanation of the list can be found at charismatic authority. Andries 23:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - for future reference, please list new AfD candidates at the bottom of the day's page. BigHaz 23:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The best that this article can accomplish is to be one of the biggest POV arguments on Wikipedia.70.106.115.245 01:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep&mdash;that it might develop into POV discussions (for example by those that are appalled that George Bush isn't there and Bill Clinton is) is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to participate in a reasoned discussion to determine whether the list is correct. Don't let your POV get in the way of legitimate encyclopedic material. Williamborg 01:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment While I don't doubt the legitimacy of a list detailing those described under Weber's definition, the title of this article implies anything but. He does not have a monopoly on the use of the term "charismatic leader", and I don't think it's enough to mention this condition in the intro. Almost any reader would interpret the title as it stands to be a general (and POV) description, and people could (quite rightly) dispute why Weber's definition was the only one selected for such a generic topic. The solution seems to be either renaming this article, or merging it to Charismatic authority. Z iggurat 01:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The list is unavoidably POV, and would be subject to edit wars over which POV is the 'correct' one. The examples of Clinton and Dubya are such polarizing figures that a 'reasoned discussion' is sadly a pipe dream. --DarkAudit 02:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per ≈ jossi ≈ comments above. Webers concept is clearly defined and it is a recognised political science term akin to cult of personality. It may need some work however. But it would be a disaster if this page was removed based on a lack of understanding of a legitimate academic concept.--Zleitzen 02:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional Comment I'm finding many of the responses here baffling, unintellectual and plain unencyclopedic. I can only reiterate that this is a notable academic concept - read this "Charisma", and this or this or this: "Charisma is central to Max Weber’s theories of authority, power, and domination" I could go on all day...
 * Strong delete/possibly merge:this is pointless rubbish, but if it is so much of a key part of Max Weber's presence in the encyclopedia, it should probably go on his article. Without Max, it obviously should be deleted because its POV.  This is not nearly as notable as List of messiah claimants and the like.--Musaabdulrashid 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Weber is to political science what Freud is to psychology. How on earth is this concept "pointless rubbish"?
 * This page is two links away from the Max Weber article, and no one should need this if they've read Charismatic authority. listcruft--Musaabdulrashid 07:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you saying that no one should need examples which demonstrate the theory of Charismatic authority? Also, though the theory stems from Weber it plays a continuing role in the study of political science. See my links above. All theories in academia are reliant and best demonstrated by the study of tangible examples.--Zleitzen 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per CheNuevara. - Mertens21 05:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - per ≈ jossi ≈ and Zleitzen above. I read the inclusion criteria and it was clear to me that Fidel Castro fits. It seems to me very useful to have a set of criteria for charisma that is recognized in the academic field of potitical science. Maybe the name of the list could be changed to include a reference to Weber. Mattisse 15:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jossi, Zleitzen, and NEMT, although such retitling/cleanup as proposed by Mattisse is likely in order. Others have addressed most of the salient points supra, but it should be said that, pace User:CheNuevara, whilst a third party POV is still not a neutral one, where such POV is presented as the subjective (or even objective) contentions of another, we've no problem (toward which, see, e.g., WP:V, viz., that the threshold for inclusion...is verifiability, not truth [emphasis in original]).  To be sure, the pronouncements of a non-notable individual or the non-notable pronoucements of a notable individual aren't encyclopedic, but the dispositive issues there are, principally, WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:V; where a classification system or subjective treatment is notable (either in view of its currency or of the prominence of its proponents), such concerns do not entail.  Consider, for example, the attitudinal taxonomy of James Barber, which surely, even as it seeks to interpret objective facts through objective criteria, is necessarily subjective; the conclusions of Barber, though, are surely notable.  The argument here is not unlike one that could be essayed toward the deletion of, to name an article I created, WNBA's All-Decade Team, inasmuch as such list is POV; the list, though, is promulgated by a notable organization, and the conclusions of that organization are notable.  The only distinction here is as to titling, and the list might be moved in order that it should be clear that the assessments of charisma are not those of Wikipedia.  Joe 23:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jossi, NEMT, Zleitzen, Joe, and everyone else who's outlined the reasons why better than I could.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! 09:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a notable political science concept that is very encyclopedic. I do agree that the terminology needs to be better expressed. I suspect the POV claims are tied into a base assumption that calling someone charismatic is inherently a POV descriptor (either positive or negative). If the article could better outline "Charismatic authority" and demonstrate the neutrality of the term more it would go a long way towards quelling the POV fears. Agne 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete While they might be charasmatic according to Max Weber, the last time I checked, everyone has a different opion. per nom Mikeeilbacher 00:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete original research. By the way, as a professional historian influenced by Weberian political sociology, I must say that I strongly disagree with the classification of many leaders of Western liberal democracies as examples of "charismatic" authority. These kinds of classifications should be made by professional political scientists, not Wikipedia editors. 172 | Talk 17:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No, no 172 - This list is not original research it is sourced - or at least it should be sourced - to political science analysis. Anyone who has spent any time reading or listening to political philosophers debate examples of various leaders and how they relate to concepts of the three forms of legitimacy would testify to the legitimacy of the need for examples. The title should be "List of leaders described as examples of charismatic authority" or something similar. And that should be the end of it.--Zleitzen 18:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no Zleitzen - Just because something happens to be "sourced" does not mean it is not original research. Political scientists disagree on these classifications considerably. At present, any Wikipedia editor can dig up something by any author describing any random leader as "charismatic," regardless of whether or not the "source" happens to be a serious scholar of Weberian political sociology. This article is beyond the realm of what Wikipedia editors are qualified to do. 172 | Talk 20:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment on comment on comment 172, feel free to remove the sources by people who are not a "serious scholar of Weberian political sociology" with an explanation of the talk page. Please note that the concept is more a religious one than political. Weber considered the Shaman the most primitive example of charismatic authority and I think he considered the prophet as a typical example of charismatic authority. Andries 20:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Scholars do not necessarily interpret and apply the work of Max Weber in a consistent way. The very selection of whom we cite in this entry is an act of original research and imposing a POV in itslef. While I make a career of doing so off Wikipedia, my own original research and POV is no more appropriate than that of any other Wikipedia editor on Wikipedia. So it would be inappropriate for me to follow your suggestion. 172 | Talk 01:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment on comment I agree with the need for examples. The list was originally first in the article charismatic authority and was re-created by me in a seperate list and expanded by Jossi. The list is a content fork of charismatic authority. Andries 18:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weber himself gave examples of "charismatic authority" in his work. Stick with Weber's examples, or else, as you do in this list, we're not just reporting encyclopedic facts but going into the realm of original research. 172 | Talk 05:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep We should keep those which can be sourced by a number of various sources. --Ionius Mundus 20:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. POV no matter how many references you provide. Vegaswikian 02:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.