Talk:Great man theory

Requested move 29 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Great man theory. Where real-world usage is mixed, we apply in-house style, which is WP:MOSCAPS. I don't see evidence for assertion that "Great Man" is a proper noun, so discounted accordingly. Aervanath's search demonstrates that most sources do downcase the phrase, when you filter out the titles. No such user (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Great Man theory → Great man theory – Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. This google ngram search shows significant majority for lowercase usage in books. Tony (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. DrStrauss talk 18:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support, per this ngram. 10W41 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

What about this [1] ngram - seems to suggest "Great Man" and "great man" are equal in usage terms (if the "Great Man theory" and "Great Man Theory" numbers are added together). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Great Man" is a proper noun, in this context it's not a common term. - TheMagnificentist 14:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• "Great Man" looks to be the correct form to me, and if I were using the phrase, I'd capitalize it. I think the nominator needs to prove by citing examples of its usage that it is not normally used in a capitalized form, rather than just referring to Wikipedia guidelines. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• support; after doing some poking around on Google Scholar, it seems that the non-capitalized version is slightly more common amongst expert sources: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22great+man+theory+of+leadership%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5. --Aervanath (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you really checked every one of those 900 results individually, checking the numbers as well as the type of source? If you have, please give more details as proof of your assertion, such as how do the numbers break down. Google Scholar searches do not differentiate between capitalized and non-capitalized words. On a skim reading for page 1 of the results the non-capitalized form predominates in the clips, for page 2 the capitalised form predominates. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Original research

@Beyond My Ken: I hope you didn't find my reversion hostile. I didn't mean to be combative; I assumed my edit summary explanation would suffice. But on to the article. The section I want to remove on the grounds of it being WP:OR reads as follows:

"In Untimely Meditations, Nietzsche writes that: "...the goal of humanity lies in its highest specimens".

In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard writes that: "...to be able to fall down in such a way that the same second it looks as if one were standing and walking, to transform the leap of life into a walk, absolutely to express the sublime and the pedestrian—that only these knights of faith can do—this is the one and only prodigy."

Hegel, proceeding from providentialist theory, argued that what is real is reasonable and World-Historical individuals are World-Spirit's agents. Hegel opined: "Such are great historical men—whose own particular aims involve those large issues which are the will of the World-Spirit." Thus, according to Hegel, a great man does not create historical reality himself but only uncovers the inevitable future."

Now, you said in your first reversion summary that "Sourced [info], by definition, is not OR". Now, this does follow the part of WP:OR that states "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." But, the next line says "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources" [emphasis added].

The first two quotes, I believe, serve to reach or imply a conclusion that those writers were offering their thoughts on great man theory, despite the fact that such was not stated by the sources. A search of the text of Untimely Meditations returns no hits for the phrase "great man theory". According to whom was Nietzsche discussing great man theory? According to whom is the quote relevant enough to include in this article? According to some random Wikipedia editor with an interpretation, that's whom. A search of the text of Fear and Trembling returns no hits for "great man theory" and one irrelevant hit for "great man" [this is a 2006 translation I used, seeing as no date or link was provided in the original reference]. The last paragraph is the most obvious example of OR. Like the last example, a search of the text returns no hits for "great man theory" and one irrelevant hit for "great man" [this is a 1900 edition]. Then, following the Hegel quote and its reference, is the unreferenced statement "Thus, according to Hegel, a great man does not create historical reality himself but only uncovers the inevitable future." That may seem obvious, but this is simply the conjecture of the editor who added that info. I'm sure I could find dozens of quotes from various notable figures that say "Great men shape history" and the like, but what makes them notable to include in this article? Are they an accurate representation of great man theory, according to the scholars and historians who study it? Only a secondary source can tell us this (except perhaps quotes from Thomas Carlyle, who created the theory). -Indy beetle (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Re-pinging for discussion @Beyond My Ken:. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I guess my basic problem is that I don't understand how the quotes from Nietzsche and Kierkegaard aren;t illustrative of the sentence which immediately precedes them: "This heroic view of history was also strongly endorsed by some philosophical figures such as Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Spengler..." It's not OR in my opinion because it's illustrating that "heroic view" which is at the core of the Great Man Theory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If that statement were cited I would perhaps agree with you. But since it is not, it could very well be the opinion of some Wikipedia editor, and therefore be WP:SYNTH. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but you didn't remove the statement, just the quotes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think to, but probably should have. However, seeing as you have found supporting sources, I guess the matter is resolved. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

William James response is given undue weight

The weight given to James seems excessive in comparison to Spencer. I think it would be a good idea to cut down the information on William James by summarizing it concisely and removing some of the long quotes. Right now it seems like it would be difficult for the average reader and a bit excessive. I'm personally not well versed on this subject. --Pythagimedes (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Napoleon, a political genius?

Sure, Napoleon was a military genius, but political? Louis XIV is way better at politics than Napoleon84.54.70.206 (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Kierkegaard “strong proponent”

this claim is not supported by the text. Kierkegaard being a strong individualist is obviously insufficient to say that he is a “strong proponent” of Carlyle’s theory of history. 2601:18E:C47F:D0F0:C17E:EAC1:9718:93FC (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

looking further into the citations for others, Spengler et al, and I’m even more frustrated. An author deems their theories of history as aligned with the idea so therefore they must “strongly endorse” it? this is a completely inaccurate justification, and I think anyone attempting to suggest these endorsements are worth mention must shore them up with the actual words of the person who is said to be “endorsing” this view 2601:18E:C47F:D0F0:C17E:EAC1:9718:93FC (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)