Talk:Charisma

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charisma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20050502-000001.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/338/charisma.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060526114911/http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/charisma.htm to http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/charisma.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

A large part of this article is devoted to a confused, poorly written dictionary entry on the word 'charisma'. See WP:NOTDIC. There is a wiktionary for this. If the word has widely different meanings, that should be handled by the disambiguation page or a disambig line at the top. Ashmoo (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article deserves to be much better.

Going to start by removing poor quality and promotional material, but hoping to add substantially more as I can. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Ctbeiser (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It definitely doesn't appear to be the case that John Antonakis or Olivia Fox Cabane are such esteemed scholars on the subject that they should be the sole sources for modern understandings of charisma. Ctbeiser (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Working further, I'm starting to wonder if there's some need for the Charismatic authority article and this one to be distinguished further. Ctbeiser (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)