Category talk:Charismatic religious leaders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This category was nominated for deletion or renaming on 2005 October 3. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. An archived record of this discussion can be found on this log page.

∞Who?¿? 20:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we please use this category only for leaders who clearly fit the profile? Please do not use it for priests or imams. thanks. Andries 20:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I have removed several from this category as these do not fit. Some of them are non-religious, or they did not form a religion when they were alive, others do not fit the concept of religion, others yet do not fit the concept of "charismatic" and others do not fit the concept of "leader". --ZappaZ 00:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

the ones left, I do not have enough information about them to make an assessment if (a) they are religious, (b) they are or where leaders whehn alive and (c) they had charisma. --ZappaZ 00:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You should probably be more specific in your justification for removing each of those people from the category. Explaining which of the necessary qualities you believe each individual in question (or at least a few of the individuals in question) lacks would make it easier for people to either agree or disagree with you, based on their own evaluations of whether the individuals do indeed lack the critera you say they do. Without a specific explanation, people may not be able to figure out where you're coming from in some cases.

Your removal has been reverted already in the case of Prem Rawat and Bahá'u'lláh by frequenters of those pages. I would also like to know what your justification is for not considering Jesus a religious leader with charismatic authority. Do you think that he didn't exist? (Irrelevant for the purposes of classification, and a minority viewpoint.) Do you think that he wasn't a leader, or that he wasn't religious, or that he relied on one of the other two forms of authority in Weber's system, "traditional" or "rational"? All those explanations seem very dubious to me, so presumably you have some other explanation for removing the categorization that hasn't yet occurred to me.

And while I'm posting here, I'd like to recommend that this category be moved to Category:Religious leaders with charismatic authority. Almost all of the complaints about this category (and there have been many) have stemmed from the use of "charismatic" to denote "having charismatic authority" rather than just "having charisma", its usage in common language. Simply renaming the category would solve this problem, as someone would likely check the charismatic authority article before criticizing its title or assuming that it just means that the person in question has personal charisma. -Silence 21:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

ZappaZ has, I think, put more than a little thought into the subject; but ZappaZ, your documentation could have been better.

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of moving this to Category:Religious leaders with charismatic authority. It would be much more clear. "Charismatic Religious Leader" is loaded. I objected to Bahá'u'lláh being linked here until I dug into the Charismatic Authority article; but only then did it make sense. However, Muhammad should be on this list too along with Moses.

I wouldn't put Jesus here as the effect of His ministry during His own lifetime did not move more than twelve to become devoted disciples. Christianity's success following His death is ample evidence that there's far more to religous movements than the charismatic effect of its founder. MARussellPESE 13:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the name Category:Religious leaders with charismatic authority is ugly and too long but if others want to move it then I agree of course. Andries 22:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

There are much uglier and longer categories out there, like Category:Media with an environmentalism theme (as opposed to the prettier but much more ambiguous "Environmentalist media"). Even more so than with page names, clarity is more important than aesthetics. -Silence 22:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jossi wants to delete Prem Rawat from this Category

and i feel he is not answering my arguments, please read below , maybe a third party has a more distant view than we both:

===Charismatic Religious Leader=== Rawat is charismatic and Elan Vital is a church in the US. Churches are for religions. Elan Vital is listed as a New RELIGIOUS Movement at Wikipedia. So why should it not be religious? The twisting can only go that far. 15:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to challenge the categorization of "Charismatic religious leader". My argument is that there is ony one person (Schnabel) that has categorized Prem Rawat as such. One scholar stating his opinion that Prem Rawat is a "charismatic religious leader" is not sufficient to include him in this category. Stating that Schnabel carries that opinion, as we have done already in the article, is compatible with NPOV, but categorizing him as such because of the opinion of one person, and without the possibity of presenting a rebuttal to his opinion, is not NPOV. For example, if I create a category Category:People that sing off key and add Britney Spears to that category on the basis that one music critic says that she sings off-key. That would be ridiculous. Based upon this argument I propose to remove that category from this article. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

i am simply counting on logic. If you agree that he is charismatic and he lives in a context of a NEw RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT, like i think you and Zappaz have stated that themselves, he is a charismatic religious leader. Otherwise you should scratch the NRM thing in terms of Rawat and end the status of Elan Vital as a church in the US, or do you want to tell us that you are only cheating with such labels for PR and monetarian reasons?You can add that as a complaint about rawat by critics right away in the criticism article then ;-).BTW, congrats to your successful adminship election Thomas h 10:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Please note that this is not about what you or I think. (For example, I think that Prem Rawat is very charismatic, but I do not see him fulfilling a role of a leader in the traditional meaning of the word, and by reading his comments about this subject neither does he). This is about an encyclopedia with an non-negotiable principle of NPOV that calls for providing references and attributions of assertions made in its articles, (and that includes lists and categories, of course). I would further argue that Schnabel describes him as an example of "charismatic authority" and not as a "charismatic religious leader", so unless we can show that there is an overwhelming claim that he is one by notable sources, we cannot not include him in this category. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

i didn't know there is a traditional meaning of the word leader, is there? And in comparison something that might be a leader but not one to be categorised as such. Come on, that is rather getting philosophical and i promise you that all the other people listed in category charismatic religious leaders have their own special way how they are leaders and how they see themselves as being special. Why do you want an extra way, is it so hard then to be distinguished from others? You didn't answer to the circumstances Elan Vital/Church and NRM that have Rawat as their centerpoint also. The way he leads may be special, nonetheless he falls into that category. He described himself as a leader in the past and relativated it later, and on closed meeting reinstalls his claims as a leader to relativate it later...... So he has expressed both and the good apprentice choses what pleases the master. Yes a special way of leading, i agree. So he is a charismatic religious centerpoint with a special way of leadership that shall not be categorised? Pfffffff. For the Category Charismatic religious leadership is a summary term of a phenomena that we have in our times 'cause there are so many, i don't think sources are necessary that describe him exactly as such, word by word, but rather attributes that fit to this category are what counts. And if we look at rawat's life, leadership is definitely something he is to be categorised. All the changes that you were so proud of presenting that Rawat has done in the last 20 years are not possible and thinkable without leadership. So we have sources that he is charismatic and sources that he is a leader, the religious aspect for example is done by himself and yourself see NRMs and Elan Vital. Thomas h 17:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat my argument again: This is not about what you or I think about Prem Rawat being or not being a "religious charismatic leader". This is about: Are there notable sources that characterizes Prem Rawat as a "charismatic religious leader"? If there are, the categortization applies. If there aren't the categorization does not as it will fall within the policy of original research. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No, i think you are wrong, let me correct you. Even Zappaz has stated on the talkpage charismatic religious leaders that he considers a) religious b) charismatic and c) leaders are those that fit into that category. There is no word that is has to be from one source all together. I got your argument and answered it with mine. This has nothing to do with what i think about it, but are facts that you react upon with ignoring. I don't think we will come to a solution with this and i will transfer the discussion where it belongs Thomas h 18:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why still the disputed status?

Prem Rawat has been removed from this category. Why is the category still disputed? Andries 17:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Because it includes other people which their inclusion is disputed. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

like who? Andries 20:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the disputed warning because there is no named person anymore whose inclusion is disputed. If you restore the disputed warning then mention at least one person whose inclusion is disputed. Thanks. Andries 17:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Should Jimbo Wales be here? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 16:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the disputed notice? Whose inclusion is disputed? Andries 12:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threatened rewrite

When I removed the (unjustified) addition of Dr. M.L.King, Jr. to this category, User:WassermannNYC not only re-added him, but said he was going to re-write the description of this category because

"That category definition was written by a layperson/novice, and needs to be changed (I'll do that)."

I thought anybody interested in the topic should know that before it happens.--Orange Mike 19:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What makes the addition of that category to Dr. King's article "unjustified" as you claim? Also, there are no "threats" here, so please check your inflammatory rhetoric. If you would, please take a quick look at the massive reference/further reading list that I've been building over at the charisma page: it's here. Yes, I built that ENTIRE list by myself and am currently in the beginning stages of writing a scholarly book on this very topic. So, I will rightfully say that I am a bit more well read (just a bit...) when it comes to this particular topic than most people, hence the (very minor) re-write of the category description. Hope this clears things up a bit for you. Tschuess! --WassermannNYC 20:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith here. The category definition was written very specifically to address leaders whose main basis of authority was or is based on charismatic authority, following Max Weber's classification of authority. Your edits discarded all of that, and ignored all the discussion when the category was proposed for deletion. Not every article or category with 'charisma' or 'charism' in it is your sole bailiwick. I felt that a blithe "I'll do that" constituted a threat to completely redefine the category, as you did in fact a few minutes later. --Orange Mike 20:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So User:Andries is the verified expert in this field simply because he's the person that originally created the category? --WassermannNYC 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you and I interpret the purpose of this category, as well as Dr. King's ministry, in entirely different ways. While I believe you are wrong, and that your re-write destroys whatever value the category might have had, I do not believe you have ill intent. I see no point in getting into a revert war with you. Ewige blumenkraft. --Orange Mike 20:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I urge you to use "the trusted Wikipedia method of verification" (a Google search) and allow yourself to be astonished by the number of pages (both scholarly and non) that link Dr. King and charisma (also learn a bit about Charismatic oratory: this obviously relates to Dr. King just like many other charismatic religious/political leaders). Also, please try to learn a bit about Charismatic Christianity while you are at it. I certainly do not have ill intent when editing Wikipedia. I'm just trying to improve things around here. This category and subject (charisma & related topics) has been stagnant for a long time, and I'm trying to update some of these subjects. --WassermannNYC 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We do not have categories on value judgments, Wasserman. And for good reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making "value judgments" as you insist -- the people that I added earlier (and have now largely been stripped away) have ALL been variously described as charismatic by many scholars, researchers, their followers, and/or the general public (NOTE: many sub-categories and/or sub-sub-categories were also unjustly removed). PLEASE: do the research on charisma and then get back to me whenever you can, and then we'll talk about this. Also, please assume good faith. And I'd also like to know, while you are here: is there like a policy or something here on Wikipedia that states that administrators can only leave 1-3 sentence replies/justifications explaining their edits/reversions when fuller, more substantial explanations would be probably be in order? The rude terseness displayed by admins. (NOT only you, of course) when reverting valid edits is really starting to grind on my nerves. I also feel that many here on Wikipedia are singling me and my edits out for excessive criticism and scrutiny (for whatever reason?). --WassermannNYC 23:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't feel that way, Wassermann. No one is here to "get you". The categorization of people is tricky business, as explained in my talk page in response to your question. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)