Talk:Tripartite classification of authority
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Tripartite classification of authority, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Proposed mergers
For discussion of the proposed merge with Max Weber, please see Talk:Max Weber#Mergers by User:Jossifresco.
[edit] Table
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Summarizing somebody's writings is what all editors should do. The table is very informative, I think. Andries 03:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] Cult of personality is not equal to charismatic authority
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)
