text:
Talk:Space debris

This NASA graph of space debris over time probably needs to be in the article
This NASA graph of space debris over time probably needs to be in the article. Discuss. Concur or oppose? N2e (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the copyright of it?Integral Python click here to argue with me 15:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 * It's a NASA chart. Here's the [original in a NASA publication.

 * All the NASA stuff is pretty explicitly public domain, which is why Wikipedia spaceflight articles have so many NASA reports, graphs, videos, etc. in it. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Agree that an updated chart would be useful as most visuals in the article are quite dated. An updated version of the chart in the publication linked above here probably a more permanent source here NASA Orbital Debris Program Office quarterly report Jan 2020. I'm going to upload a copy of the chart and put it in. Phil (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Vanguard 1 age
The article on Vanguard 1 states that it will last only 240 years, original estimate 2000 years based on citation

The article on space debris states Vanguard 1 age estimate 240 years with a citation that states 2000 years, original 200 years.

I changed Vanguard 1 age to 2000 years based on the citation. Clearly there is a confusion with the sources cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.233.208.252 (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a better reference and suggests that 240 year estimated lifetime is revised from previous 2000 years. The '2000 years' figure comes from this 10 year old NRL press release. Ohsin  09:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Space Junk Multiplying
Space Junk multiplies extremely rapidly. For example, a small wing nut comes off of a satellite. That wing nut goes into orbit. If it collides with a satellite in orbit, at 67,000 miles an hour, or 30 kilometers per second, that satellite will instantly become millions more pieces of space junk. If this keeps happening, no one will be able to see the stars in a very, very far away future.

 * Sounds like a nice PLANETES anime reference. Well, except for the fact it's the sorrow reality 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Starlink failure rate
The failure rate estimate for SpaceX Starlink satellites has some issues. It is not from a reliable source to begin with and the blog it is sourced from misrepresents its source going from an educated estimate by one scientist (not peer reviewed to any indication in the Business Insider article). The BI article here notes a potential 2.5% failure rate while the researcher also noted his estimated failure rate had originally been 3% was dropping noticeably as more v1.0 satellites were launched. The initial analysis included prototypes and the researcher is responsibly, very tentative about his findings. The blog not only rounds up the data to 2.5% to 3% but states that these failures "have been proven" rather than just being the educated estimated the researcher presents them as. I'm going to at least begin to remedy this by replacing the blog source with the underlying Business Insider article source I used which it links and tweak the wording slightly to be more accurate. I welcome any improvements on this. It certainly is a notable issue and deserves accurate but not sensationalized coverage. Phil (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Starlink section because it's not relevant to the article. Operational satellites, even if there are a great number of them, are not "space debris". Ergzay (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alarmist reporting in. Main issue with lotsa sattelas is, they can get rekt-- erm, sorry, but literally wrecked by the space debris, becoming more space debris. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Since a lot of the Starlink satellites have already stopped working (and many more will soon enough, practically all of them in 5 years) and there is debris from all the launches, how is that not space debris and just operational satellites? Simanos (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Space Junk.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Cleanspace One chasser.jpg

Starlink
As SpaceX thinks that lauching 12 000 distinct objects in orbit to provide a service that will probably be outdated in a decade or two is an excellent idea, there needs to be a section about it within the article. A real section, with pros, cons, estimates, because it could be the biggest pollution since the needle project. And of course, people who will try to remove this type of section should be banned. There is one in this page, and removing content from an encyclopaedia without having a debate BEFORE is just not acceptable. Whatever the "rank" you claim, you are just a person. Also, i dont believe that pursuit of knowledge is the real reason for the removal. Should we also ask the astronomers using long-exposure pictures what they think about Starlink? Please participate astronomers, before somebody tries tells us it's a side topic. I know we're on the anglo-saxon Wikipedia, where some people think space entrepreneurs are heroes. But i'd very much like to see if they can sabotage wikipedia's quality and range, by avoiding discussing this subject in-depth. Not even trying to edit the article here, just watching. I saw some very interesting stuff in politically-loaded articles, and i want to see if if my fears are justified or not. 77.131.39.197 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I personally think you have a point about the negative aspects of Starlink, it's outside the scope of "defunct human-made objects in space—principally in Earth orbit—which no longer serve a useful function." Schazjmd   (talk)  00:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, Starlink addresses some of the criticisms of Starlink. Schazjmd   (talk)  00:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Since a lot of the Starlink satellites have already stopped working (and many more will soon enough, practically all of them in 5 years) and the debris from all the launches, how is that outside the scope of defunct human-made objects in space? Simanos (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Environmental concerns / Environmental justice
Do the sections Environmental concerns and Orbital debris as a question of environmental justice belong here? The Point Nemo reference which made to sound like plastic pollution is caused by space debris actually says the opposite "The area is so far flung that the nearest humans are often those aboard the International Space Station. But even that hasn’t saved it from the scourge of microplastics"

Environmental concerns is entirely about launches not debris. Orbital debris as a question of environmental justice is about all objects in space not debris and then it goes off into a entirely different topic. Mtpaley (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

While I am here the "On Earth / Although most debris burns up" section also needs work as it refers to 3 different things.

In popular culture
Some comments on this section.

 * Until the End of the World - Initial plot is driven by a satellite that is predicted to crash releasing radioactive waste. A single satellite crashing to Earth is one thing but space debris is usually referring to within orbit issues.
 * Gravity - A impact between two satellites. Yes this is a good example of genuine space debris although not Kessler Syndrome which is a gradual process.
 * Love Death and Robots Helping Hand - Plot is directly initiated by space debris and a single random impact like this is a very plausuble incident.
 * Planetes - Sounds like the entire plot of this is about space debris.

Mtpaley (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Space debris


text:
Talk:Whyalla

untitled section
I cannot think of any good reason why this page should be at Whyalla, Australia. Indeed, I cannot think of a bad reason either. Is there a reason? If so, please speak up and I'll stop reverting the move. Otherwise, this should stay here at Whyalla. Tannin

 * I moved it - twice! ;) Now I know why the first change didn't seem to "stick"; I thought maybe I was going mad! I moved it because a) when I first saw the article I had no idea where the place was at all, and I'm IN Australia... and b) my article about Armidale got moved to Armidale, Australia, even though as fas as I know there isn't another one. So in that regard it was about consistency. As for a) the article hads been edited now to make it clearer that the place is in Australia, but in that case maybe Armidale should be moved back? GRAHAMUK 09:58 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ahh, thankyou Graham. The general rule is use just the name except
 * 1) in the USA (because the Americans like to do it that way and we honour their convention). US cities are in the form Sacramento, California.
 * 2) where there are two or more places with the same name and none of them is clearly the best-known - i.e., use Paris, not Paris (France). I think other, less-well-known cities of the same name usually have their disambiguation term in parenthesis: Armidale (Australia). For the Paris in the USA, though, the USA rule applies and we use Paris, Texas instead.

The general rule seems to be to use the country name rather than the state, county, or territory name as the dsambiguation term, though I'd want to see someone confirm this - I am a little uncertain.

Armidale is an exception, however, and I'm glad you noticed it, as there are at lest two Armidales in Australia: one in NSW, and one in Melbourne. Both are quite well-known but I imagine that the NSW one is the better-known of the two (except here in Victoria, of course). I'm going to move Armidale, Australia to Armidale (New South Wales) so as to leave room for Armidale (Victoria) and (possibly) any other Armidales around the world as well. If someone wants to put the NSW one at Armidale instead, I have no objection, so long as it has a disambiguation block.

Tannin

Damn, that bloody harvey norman really ruined the view of Hummock Hill

Spelling of Armadale, Victoria
CMIIAW, but isn't Armidale Vic spelled Armadale?

203.12.97.47 05:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Population
The most recent ABS population estimate for Whyalla (c) is 21,306 at June 2005.

Source: ABS (2006), 3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2004-05

Cmicik 03:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Education
Do we really need to list every single school in whyalla? Its a bit much... ive tried to break it up and add links, but it seem kind of pointless when like half of the damn article talks about the town's schools. Yeah? The Catcher 08:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

personal I think you do Ray-Rays (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move all. Jafeluv (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Whyalla, South Australia → Whyalla — These three cities are all uniquely named and do not require disambiguation. As such, in line with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DISAMBIG, these articles should be at their common name: i.e. Whyalla, Port Pirie and Port Lincoln. Australian place name articles have historically been named in the [Town, State] format but it is no longer clear that the idiosyncratic process of mandatory "disambiguation" has widespread support. See Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 36 and Talk:Ballarat. Mattinbgn (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Port Pirie, South Australia → Port Pirie
 * Port Lincoln, South Australia → Port Lincoln

 * Support No disambiguation required.--Melburnian (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Unconvinced Hmmm. You have a good point, and in principle I agree. But there are 5,999,000,000 people that live outside of South Australia who, in practice, have probably never heard of these 3 cities. They're not really comparable with, for example, Adelaide, Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, so the "South Australia" does actually add value. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (Note, however, that I am not adamantly opposed to the idea. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

 * Weak oppose, especially for Port Pirie. I honestly don't think they're well-known enough to not generate some level of confusion. I also think all these discussions should be taking place in a central location rather than scattered across little RM discussions all over Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 20:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Support - we don't add information to titles to clarify them to people who don't know the topic anyway, only to distinguish them from other topics with the same name (which apparently isn't necessary here).--Kotniski (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Another "Hmmm." I don't disagree, but I think you've missed the point. I find that I support Orderinchaos's POV. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Question - Orderinchaos: I also think all these discussions should be taking place in a central location - I'm inclined to agree with you. Where do you suggest? Pdfpdf (talk)

 * Support - I agree with with Kotniski. There isn't a need for disambiguation if there is no ambiguity in the first place.T.carnifex (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Support - I also agree with Kotniski, and don't understand why Pdfpdf thinks Kotniski missed the point, citing agreement with Orderinchaos. Orderinchaos' argument seems to be based on the assumption that someone unfamiliar with a topic should be able to glean what it is about from the title, and notes that the ", South Australia" in the title does that.  Kotniski's comment addresses and refutes the Orderinchaos concern (which is not based in policy or guidelines at all) directly.  What point is missed?  Titles should be precise, but only as precise as necessary to disambiguate from other titles.  The shorter titles proposed here accomplish that exactly. The current titles are in violation of naming criteria.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Born2cycle, please reread what I've written - it should be obvious why I think Kotniski missed the point. Please note, however, that I am NOT saying that I disagree with what you and others have said. On the one hand I agree with T.carnifex. (There isn't a need for disambiguation if there is no ambiguity in the first place.) On the other, I also agree with Orderinchaos. (I honestly don't think they're well-known enough to not generate some level of confusion.). In other words, I don't think it's a simple "black & white" situation. I hope that clarifies things for you. If not, please ask. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reread the entire discussion and am still not following. That is, until I found this discussion, I'd never heard of "Whyalla", and, so, of course Whyalla, South Australia is more informative to someone like me than is just "Whyalla".  No debate about that.  But that should not be a consideration for deciding articles.  As Kotniski noted, "we don't add information to titles to clarify them to people who don't know the topic anyway", period.  I think some get the impression that we do that, because it might seem like we do when you see a title extended with more precise information, but usually that's because the additional precision is needed for disambiguation.  Here, it is clearly  not, since there is no other use for "Whyalla".    So it does seem simply "black &white" to me.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Support. No disambiguation required. Avoid redirects by just using the name readers would expect to find the article at...you know, the actual name of the place.  Night w   15:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment. It looks to me like there is a concensus. What happens now? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support- Per WP:PRIMARY we should only disambiguate when there is actually something to distinguish the subject from. When there are no other Whyallas or Port Piries or Port Lincolns anywhere, there's no need for it. Reyk  YO!  11:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

fork

 * Oppose: per Naming conventions (geographic_names). This convention was changed late last month with no explanation other than, "this seems to best describe the status quo". I have reverted back to the previous definition. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Support: per Naming conventions (geographic_names). This convention was updated last month to reflect the current conventions, after lengthy discussion. I've restored the consensus. Jayjg (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Please see  this discussion . Unless there is a verified consensus to change the policy, it can't really be changed. Which administrator declared consensus? OSX (talk • contributions) 05:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen: Perhaps you two can resolve your disagreement elsewhere? You're not adding any value to this discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Only" 3.6 % of the population are Indigenous
Since the Indigenous population of South Australia is 1.7%, Whyalla's Indigenous population is actually above the state average. I've removed the "only". Hexyhex (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I have lived in Port Lincoln for some years and there the indigenous population fluctuated a fair bit, which might also apply to Whyalla. It was said at the time that people came down from Ceduna in the summer because it is so much cooler in Port Lincoln. From observation (nobody would research that officially) the indigenous population is also related to the prisons. Families move there when the father is in prison. It only came out when three children and their mother perished some years ago.

 * Conclusion: There is more than one variable applying to figures of indigenous populations.

 * Port Lincoln also had a published poet called Tom Black which German immigrant Dieter Hauptmann set to music for choires years ago. I haven't got the details. Something to explore, anyway. 2001:8003:A02F:F400:14BC:960C:A7E:989E (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Population
Sorry for newbie question, but when I clicked on the link (http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/SSC40795?opendocument&navpos=220) to the population census, it it telling me the population is 3,733 (as opposed to 20,088 listed in the wiki page). Can someone confirm the number please? Thank you very much.

Delightxd (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

- Let me confuse you a bit more. Whyalla consists of: Whyalla (population is 3,733), Whyalla Playford, Whyalla Norrie, Whyalla Stuart and Whyalla Barson. Once you add up all the populations of those suburbs you should get the right number.144.140.234.176 (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Whyalla. 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.arrium.com.au/~/media/Arrium%20Mining%20and%20Materials/Files/ASX%20Announcements/FY2015/2015%20Annual%20Report.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120235414/http://www.whyallacuttlefish.com/cuttlefish/index.htm to http://www.whyallacuttlefish.com/cuttlefish/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821041516/http://www.seo.sa.gov.au/election2006/pdf/Results_and_Outcomes_Booklet3.pdf to http://www.seo.sa.gov.au/election2006/pdf/Results_and_Outcomes_Booklet3.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140809184659/http://www.peterstanley.com.au/about-me/ to http://www.peterstanley.com.au/about-me/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Whyalla


text:
Talk:Leadership

............

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at James Madison University supported by Theories of Leadership and Leader Bios and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 SP term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 14:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Carnegie Mellon University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term.

Above message substituted from on 14:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Untitled
Hi I am a student at York College and would like to make an edit on this page if you do not mind. The edit that I would like to add is on the like provided

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SRampersaud/Leadership

SRampersaud 01:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC) SRampersaudl (talk)

A new approach
I propose a new way forward on this. I have contributed a short summary on leadership, which opens the path to separate articles on organisational leadership (House, Fiedler &c &c &c), and on leadership in other areas (eg military, sport). I hope this is helpful. Deipnosophista 05:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a better way to start would be to define Leader objectively, since it is an easier word to define, e.g., one who directs or influences the actions of others. Then proceed to define leadership very sparsely, e.g. a character trait or ability that makes a leader effective. Adding any more to this definition would not be objective, since it is a matter of opinion as to what exactly makes a leader effective or good. This article should include a representative list of official roles that are considered leaders, e.g. kings, generals, coaches, executives, etc. and the corresponding "others" that they lead. There could also be a list of famous individuals that are considered to have had great leadership ability historically, although that would of course be a matter of opinion. Napoleon and Roosevelt come to mind. Probably also a mention that people can lead without having any officially given title, like Joan of Arc or Martin Luther King, Jr. Lay the foundation with cold facts, then y'alls can get into your theories about what makes a good leader. I think the theories mentioned should preferably be those that have had the most influence on society, not necessarily what people believe to be most accurate, since again, the very nature of leadership is extremely subjective, hence the terrible state of this article. Plato's Republic and Machiavelli's The Prince seem like good candidates. Maybe Sun Tzu's Art of War. I'm not familiar with more modern theories since it seems like the waters are muddied with a bunch of hacks just trying to sell books.--Edwardstirling (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How to Be a Leader in a Crowd, Not a Follower

Technique (Lead the Listeners): No matter how prominent the big cat behind the podium is, crouched inside is a little scaredy-cat who is anxious about the crowd’s acceptance. Big winners recognize you’re a fellow big winner when they see you leading their listeners in a positive reaction. Be the first to applaud or publicly commend the man or woman you agree with (or want favors from). Technique (The Great Scorecard in the Sky): Any two people have an invisible scorecard hovering above their heads. The numbers continually fluctuate, but one rule remains: players with lower score pays deference to player with higher score. The penalty for not keeping your eye on The Great Scorecard in the Sky is to be thrown out of the game. Permanently
 * How to Make All the Right Moves

Big winners-before putting pen to paper, fingers to keyboard, mouth to phone, or hand to someone else’s to shake it-do a quick calc ulation. They ask themselves “Who has the most to benefit from this relationship? What has each of us done recently that demand deference from the other?” And what can I do to even the score 05/2023>https://kizlonji.wordpress.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultrakiz17 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia
Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, meaning the content should be Objective. Please guys, this is not a biography nor a place to spread your theories or what you think. Please, don't add a section starting with "According to John Smith", while you are, in fact, John Smith. Thanks for your understanding. This article is already very very bad right now it's almost unreadable. Thanks!

Is not an encyclopedia a place to look for "notble" theories and information. I have noted that there are many Biogrphies and Theories already included, John C Maxwell, Tom Peters, Ken Blachard. These are All Americans, I do Assume this is not just for Americans or for those only known to Americans.

Steve Coldwell (Malaysia) 211.24.170.130 09:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

i agree, why should leadership gurus be exclusive to the perseption of americans. there are many influential leadership gurus in asia also, and not political ones who make a difference for better leadership in multinational companies. we asians have oppinions too, but it not agreed by all americans. Lily 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Perspective of leadership
IMHO, the front article has mainly dealt with

 * Transformational perspective
 * Competency perspective

It could be good if we mention something about these other perspectives

 * Romance perspective
 * Behavioral perspective
 * Contingency perspective

Oh, and some guy Fred Fiedler that success of a leader depend on how well matched his natural leadership style matches the situation on hand, kind of go against the path-goal leadership theory. Some lame tools Leadership Grid may fall somewhere in the article

It might make more sense to lay the page out by the major schools of leadership theory:

 * Trait/Skills
 * Behavior
 * Contingency
 * Relational
 * Principled
 * Ethical
 * Transformational/Transactional

Then move to leadership in an applied setting:

 * Business settings
 * Small Teams and Groups
 * Military
 * Political

Getting Others Involved
In order to be a good leader, you must also get others involved in what you are doing. There are several ways that you can get outsiders involved. First you must publicize your event or meeting to draw those who are not involved in. Also, you can provide incentives to attract those outsiders. When they can get a reward for coming, they are more likely to get involved. Once they have come and made the decision to get involved, you must give them responsibility. Giving someone responsibility within your organization will make the person feel like they are a part of the bigger picture, and are really contributing. Finally, you must give your members a chance to get others involved. When someone gets involved, it makes it so much better for them when they can reach out and get others involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgold007 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Lack of Scholarship
This article is so poorly written as to defy description. An article on leadership that makes no mention at all of its true function, which is to manage the overall production of goods and services that enable the standard of living a society requires. It is almost like this article was written in a "vacuum", a veritable "dream state" of contributors repeating what they read in some old book or magazine. There is literally no thinking going on at all in the contributions to this article, they are just "cut and paste". Just think about it, without production who needs leaders? If as human beings we decided we weren't going to produce anything anymore, leadership would not be necessary except at the most basic tribal level for common defence. Oh, by the way, those tribal leaders all got wiped out by leaders who oversaw the production of superior weapons. So it is the volume and type of production that a leader oversees that they derive their power from. Please make an effort to write an article that has even the slightest bit of truth and analysis. Oh, by the way, the "natural born leader" is one who disagrees with everyone else, you can put that in too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.229.151 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The section on "Primate Leadership" is a regurgitation of Feminist Critical Thinking 101. And what Chomsky has to say, in the grand tradition of Marx and Freud, is completely irrelevant. Chomsky has expertise in certain areas of language and syntax. Otherwise he is about as scholarly as a newspaper editorial. I am chopping some of this out.

 * Please do not delete text without making at least a token effort to discuss and to reach concensus. I agree that the article is awful and needs serious work on it, but the talk page is where editors can discuss changes aimed at improving the article, and Wikipedia in general. --Technopat (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Time for a Renewal
This article on "Leadership" is a bit overwhelming. Shouldn't this be the "once over the world" view and then allow it to spin out into all the differing models and theorists. I believe that this article would be more beneficial if it provided a scholarly look at the study of leadership, allowing individual readers to pursue their own paths. This should be a topical outline of all things "leadership" and feed readers out to supporting articles. Just my opinion, but I volunteer if there is some consensus. --Bullock 07:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E.w.bullock (talk • contribs)

Suggestions
In our view (Stellenbosch MBA 2010 English Group 1), having reviewed this article, we found it to be somewhat lacking in regards to its distinction between what Leadership versus Management is. Yes, it was briefly touched on but we still felt that further expansion on the subject would have added greatly to the discussion, hence our summation below:

MANAGEMENT VERSUS LEADERSHIP:

Many definitions of management and leadership do not provide clear distinction between the roles of “managers” and “leaders”. Often managers and leaders perform similar tasks but the two are not synonymous. Both managers and leaders have authority; utilise resources ; motivate people; provide direction; require good communication; create processes for work; have objectives and a strategy; deal with conflict resolution and negotiate (Oyedele, 2009). Both “lead” in a sense. Whilst leadership is an aspect of the management function, this may imply that being a leader derives automatically from becoming a manager. This is often not the case. The differentiator is in how managers and leaders go about their tasks.

We can use the term “manager” to describe individuals in a hierarchical structure, who have employees reporting to them. Here, the manager has some power vested in him/her by virtue of his/her position within the company. They have the authority to exercise direct influence over their subordinates, who are motivated to comply by the reward of payment, promotion or recognition (or some other psychological need). This style is what Burns (1978) refers to as transactional leadership. Essentially, management refers to the planning, organising, directing and controlling of subordinates’ activities in the pursuit of some set of goals. By implication, the tasks to be completed are the focus of the manager, rather than the employees completing those tasks - the “what” of the role, rather than the “how”.

Studies by Buckingham and Coffman (1999) demonstrate that “people join companies but leave managers”. These managers do not inspire performance and often use coercion and co-option as tools to deliver results (Beudeker and Nel 2009). Many have earned their promotion due to excellent performance as an employee (such as those they now manage), but have not developed the necessary skill and change in mindset required to be an effective manager – which is usually a function of leadership development. Charan, Drotter and Noel (2001) describe “leadership pipelines” and the challenges and changes that individuals need to undergo in order to perform at the next level up in the hierarchy. As individuals move higher up an organisation, their roles need to move increasingly into the leadership realm as opposed to their management positions. Drucker (1999) states that “one does not "manage" people; the task is to lead people. And the goal is to make productive the specific strengths and knowledge of each individual.” Therefore, what defines great managers is the leadership that they exhibit. This speaks to the “how” referred to earlier.

A “leader” is someone who is able to motivate, inspire and persuade people through collaboration and co-creation. A leader considers employees as colleagues and understands that “organisations In our view (Stellenbosch MBA 2010 English Group 1), having reviewed this article, we found it to be somewhat lacking in regards to its distinction between what Leadership versus Management is. Yes, it was briefly touched on but we still felt that further expansion on the subject would have added greatly to the discussion, hence our summation below:are first and foremost human systems” (Beudeker and Nel, 2009). Thus, the focus of leadership is on the people. Leaders measure their success according to their contribution in unleashing people’s potential: their own, those they work with and their organisations and societies. A leader motivates their teams to be effective and efficient; and actively seeks and embraces change with a big-picture view to longer-term sustainability and success – what Burns (1978) terms transformational leadership (in contrast to transactional leadership described previously). Warren Bennis describes this as “managers are people who do things right; leaders are people who do the right thing”.

Nel (2010) asserts that “high impact leadership is, per definition, a team activity” and the further up you progress in the company hierarchy (managing increasingly diverse portfolios), the more ignorant and incompetent you become. What sets leaders apart is their acceptance of this reality as non-threatening and the manner in which they collaborate and engage with the teams that they work with to unlock the collective genius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charityn27 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

leaders
if the following is not in here anywhere, it should be: true leaders figure out how to motivate people toward the goal. they learn how to energize a team. if someone on the team gives a leader trouble the leader must not take it personally and must continue to figure out how to motivate the team member and how to energize persons by way of those persons' membership within a team. A leader's demeanor must be steady. a leader's authority is only truly undermined when he/she cannot effectively motivate the team toward the goal. TheBridge 07:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you, the artical need´s to be devided into Leader and Leadership. My understanding of Leader is one who Lea´s, as Franz Bengtsson explained in his book Karl XII Life, the Hero King, "he did not point and say, "go and fight" but standing at the head of his army turnd to them and said "come" and led them into battle. Or as General Longstreet said to General Lee at Gettysburg, "I cain´t lead from behind" when Lee requasted that he stay behind the line. Leadership seem to me more of an organizaional term. Rytter 1 Dec. 2008

History of Leadership
What's going on with these two sentences under the subheading Historical Views on Leadership?

"In the autocratic/paternalistic strain of thought, traditionalists recall the role of leadership of the Roman pater familias. feminist thinking, on the other hand, may damn such models as patriarchal and posit against them emotionally-attuned, responsive, and consensual empathetic guidance and matriarchies."

Is the bold type there for a reason to which I'm oblivious?

The sentence structure seems a little awkward and unclear.

Also, this sentence is incomplete:

"(Note that the Oxford English Dictionary traces the word "leadership" in English only as far back aant leadership]]."

Article length
Does anyone else think this article should be split into multiple articles on leadership? I think a history of leadership article and another on theories of leadership would make good splits. Thoughts? --Noetic Sage 04:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

ME AGREE LONGTIME

Leadership Readiness
Leadership is a much written and talked about term. We have seen authors and management gurus talking about leadership styles, theories and even how great leaders worked to rise to the occasion to save the day for their nations. There are numerous articles and material available on internet as well. A simple search for the term “leadership” in Google will give you approximately 164,000,000 (164 million) results. So what is different about this course titled “Leadership Readiness” being taught at SZABIST (Karachi, Pakistan) for the first time by Mr. Wali Zahid? It is not about the above mentioned questions. It is about what it takes to become a leader. What factors are involved in shaping up a leader, in preparing him / her to take up the leadership role, getting him / her ready to be precise? It is a prologue to leadership or becoming a leader. In studying the various aspects of readiness and during various brainstorming sessions in class we have developed a leadership readiness model. These and other documents shall be posted on the blog specifically made for it. http://readiness.wordpress.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fnaik (talk • contribs) 21:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The citation
The citation removed from this article (see history) may, if anybody finds it important, be inserted in Wikiquote instead. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad quality standard section
I had to move the following section "The embodiment of leadership" from the article to here, because of several issues, which need to be sorted out before reinsertion of anything of it:

 * It's just a citation. To meet Wikipedia quality standards, the gist of it need to be found and reinserted.
 * That "medical research" need citation before any reinsertion
 * It needs more concrete, encyclopaedic explanation. As for now it's actually rather confusing. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding a new "Task-oriented and relationship-oriented" section under Styles
After some research, my partner and I think that there is room for elaboration in discussing task-oriented and relationship-oriented types of leadership. In section 1.6 Situational and Contingency Theories paragraph 3 ( on the Fiedler Contingency Model), the two aforementioned styles of leadership are briefly touched upon, but does not 1) fully convey the concepts, methods and processes involved in task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership, 2) expand on the benefits and disadvantages of each, and 3) discuss the outcomes of each. These two types of leadership are fundamental to understanding how leaders behave and act in a team, and how that affects the performance and efficiency of the team, and therefore warrants a more comprehensive explanation in the "Leadership" page.

Using research from various texts, and drawing from the meta-analysis "What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams?" (Burke et al., 2006), we plan to implement a new section under 2 Styles, named "Task-oriented and Relationship-oriented". This new proposed section will: 1) clearly define the two types of leadership, 2) give examples of each type, 3) mention the synonymous terms ("task-focused", "person-focused", etc), 4) discuss the theories on each type, 5) and discuss the conclusions and results from the aforementioned meta-analysis.

If you have any relevant feedback please feel free to post them here or on my, or my partner's, talk page. Rkwok92 (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

More work is (still) needed

 * Can we please focus a little more on what is known of current day leadership, especially as it pertains to ethics in leadership? My point being that of all the theories and practices covered in most leadership texts, we are still facing a serious crisis in leadership...in both commercial, non-commercial and political contexts. So I would suggest a section on the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of leadership theories, and references to the latest studies and publications that shine a spotlight on that aspect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.248.47 (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of work needs doing here. Let's start with structuring the article, keeping edits within the structure, and all making a commitment to using only referenced material. I am removing any content that is irrelevant and unreferenced as a start ChrisTW (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC).

 * Some good improvements have been made, and I think it's time to move work that is not up to standard to the discussion to leave the main article reasonably professional. I have moved Leadership Cycles and Leadership in Politics to the discussion so far. ChrisTW (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree a lot of work is necessary. I particularly liked the suggestion of structure bellow, that is not signed and I am repeating here.

 * It might make more sense to lay the page out by the major schools of leadership theory:

 * * Trait/Skills
 * * Behavioral Style
 * * Situational Leadership
 * * Contingency theory
 * * Relational
 * * Principled
 * * Ethical
 * * Transformational/Transactional

 * Then move to leadership in an applied setting:

 * * Business settings
 * * Small Teams and Groups
 * * Military
 * * Political

 * I can work on the leadership theories in a separate article, trying to clean up/expand the theories, and then summarize in the main article. Thoughts? --Editor br (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I began to expand the trait/skill theory and welcome comments. --Editor br (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The following suggested structure is not exhaustive since there are so many leadership theories. I have changed "behavior" to "behavioral style" since this is a major theory and all theories involve behavior. Situational theories are important and should be included. More needs to be said about Transformational Leadership.
 * I would like to see the contexts of leadership section tidied up. I suggest removing politics and primates until they can be written in a scholarly fashion. I think Thomas Carlyle is overdone - this isn't an article about Thomas Carlyle although a link could be placed from this article to his shrine ChrisTW (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the input. I am working in other articles in -en and -pt, but I will come back to this one later. According to Heifetz, there are four main schools of thought in leadership: 1) trait (leaders have certain characteristics), 2) situational (the situation defines the type of leadership and leader), 3) conditional (synthesis of trait and situational), 4) transactional (emphasis on leader-follower exchanges). There are also two types of approaches, A) descriptive (explain how leader behaves), B) prescriptive (explain how you should behave to become one). In prescriptive approach there is a lot of crap, so we need to sort some things out. I will try to work on bringing more scholarship and fixing the text in the next few weeks. Cheers, Editor br (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I am thinking about a 'scope of leadership' section as well - traditional studies on leadership where related to the concept of authority as a way to provide protection, direction and order in groups. Early studies where predominantly about military and political leaders. There is also studies that define the scope of leadership as change. I will write down a proposal of a different outline in a while, if I can. Editor br (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Transformational leadership
Transformational Leadership (Bass; Kouzes & Posner) is a relatively new theory and deserves more lengthy treatment.ChrisTW (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi Chris, lately I've been busy with Wiki-pt and Marketing, so I left Leadership aside. I will work on it as soon as I can. I will take a look at the material on Transformational leadership and include the text. Editor br (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I checked the article on Transformational leadership, and I have the Burns book at home. I can also check the other two references you cited when I go back, checking them out of the Univ's library. I am out of town, so I probably will read them early February. If I understood it correctly, transformational leadership as defined by Burns is still a follower-leader relationship (leader motivate follower, follower motivate leader), which would place within the scope of transactional theories. I favor Heifetz four schools of thought (as outlined above), as it is sucint, comprehensive enough and mutually exclusive (MECE). The problem is that I will only work on it late January, cannot promise working on more deepen research earlier than that... Editor br (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection
Isn't it about time this article, as well as the Mike Richards article, be put under semi-protection? --scottieISmad (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

historical context
This article is impoverished by being almost exclusively about company leadership as studied in US business schools. Where is the reference to leadership as taught to Prussian officers or in the army of British India, or of the role of the mediaeval European or Japanese aristocracy?

I propose to impose some context by adding at the start something like this:

"Humans are social animals, which has made leadership of some sort part of humanity from its beginning. Ancient societies were keenly interested in leadership, and made studies of different leaders in an attempt to learn what made them successes or failures : the conclusion was that it was often character on the one hand, or external influences such as luck or the gods on the other . Such debates became part of formal philosophical debate in Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and the idea that success in endeavours was largely due not to individual leaders but to external factors became very influential through the Encyclopedists, Hegel, Marx and twentieth-century communism, though since the fall of the Soviet Union there has been something of a reaction.

"Leadership has been studied in political and military contexts, but most vigorously in recent years in the context of the leadership of organisations since the founding of management theory by Henri Fayol, Frederick Taylor and others. This article focuses on organisational leadership."

Deipnosophista (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

List of leadership qualities without reference
As there is no references, this list has no encyclopedic value, so I removed. Any objections? --Editor br (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

" Studies of leadership have suggested qualities that people often associate with leadership. They include:

 * Technical/specific skill at some task at hand
 * Charismatic inspiration - attractiveness to others and the ability to leverage this esteem to motivate others
 * Preoccupation with a role - a dedication that consumes much of leaders' life - service to a cause
 * A clear sense of purpose (or mission) - clear goals - focus - commitment
 * Results-orientation - directing every action towards a mission - prioritizing activities to spend time where results most occur
 * Cooperation - work well with others
 * Optimism - very few pessimists become leaders
 * Rejection of determinism - belief in one's ability to "make a difference"
 * Ability to encourage and nurture those that report to them - delegate in such a way as people will grow
 * Role models - leaders may adopt a persona that encapsulates their mission and lead by example
 * Self-knowledge (in non-bureaucratic structures)
 * Self-awareness - the ability to "lead" (as it were) one's own self prior to leading other selves similarly
 * Awareness of environment - the ability to understand the environment they lead in and how they affect and are affected by it
 * With regards to people and to projects, the ability to choose winners - recognizing that, unlike with skills, one cannot (in general) teach attitude. Note that "picking winners" ("choosing winners") carries implications of gamblers' luck as well as of the capacity to take risks, but "true" leaders, like gamblers but unlike "false" leaders, base their decisions on realistic insight (and usually on many other factors partially derived from "real" wisdom).
 * Empathy - Understanding what others say, rather than listening to how they say things - this could partly sum this quality up as "walking in someone else's shoes" (to use a common cliché).
 * Integrity - the integration of outward actions and inner values.
 * Sense of Humour - people work better when they're happy. "

Suggested qualities of leadership
Checked this reference and this is a list of leadership qualities that the Bristow company looks for. Questionable and not according to Wikipedia standards. Reference is an internal journal. Any objections? --Editor br (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In 2008 Burman and Evans published a 'charter' for leaders:

 * 1) Leading by example in accordance with the company’s core values.
 * 2) Building the trust and confidence of the people with which they work.
 * 3) Continually seeking improvement in their methods and effectiveness.
 * 4) Keeping people informed.
 * 5) Being accountable for their actions and holding others accountable for theirs.
 * 6) Involving people, seeking their views, listening actively to what they have to say and representing these views honestly.
 * 7) Being clear on what is expected, and providing feedback on progress.
 * 8) Showing tolerance of people’s differences and dealing with their issues fairly.
 * 9) Acknowledging and recognizing people for their contributions and performance.
 * 10) Weighing alternatives, considering both short and long-term effects and then being resolute in the decisions they make.

Leadership cycles
If a group or an organization wants or expects identifiable leadership, it will require processes for appointing/acquiring and replacing leaders.

Traditional closed groups rely on bloodlines or seniority to select leaders and/or leadership candidates: monarchies, tribal chiefdoms, oligarchies and aristocratic societies rely on (and often define their institutions by) such methods.

Competence or perceived competence provides a possible basis for selecting leadership elites from a broader pool of potential talent. Political lobbying may prove necessary in electoral systems, but immediately demonstrated skill and character may secure leadership in smaller groups such as gangs.

Many organizations and groups aim to identify, grow, foster and promote what they see as leadership potential or ability - especially among younger members of society. See for example the Scouting movement. For a specific environment, see leadership development.

The issues of succession planning or of legitimation become important at times when leadership (particularly individual leadership) might or must change due to term-expiry, accident or senescence.

General references

 * Argyris, C. (1976) Increasing Leadership Effectiveness, Wiley, New York, 1976 (even though published in 1976, this still remains a "standard" reference text)
 * Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research: Permission Set. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.
 * Bennis, W. (1989) On Becoming a Leader, Addison Wesley, New York, 1989
 * Crawford, C. J. (2005). Corporate rise the X principles of extreme personal leadership. Santa Clara, CA: XCEO. ISBN 0-976-90190-0 9780976901907
 * Greiner, K. (2002). The inaugural speech. ERIC Accession Number ED468083.
 * House, R. J. (2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2004.
 * Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 * Laubach, R. (2005) Leadership is Influence
 * Machiavelli, Niccolo (1530) The Prince
 * Maxwell, J. C. & Dornan, J. (2003) Becoming a Person of Influence
 * McGovern, George S., Donald C. Simmons, Jr. and Daniel Gaken (2008) Leadership and Service: An Introduction, Kendall/Hunt Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7575-5109-3.
 * Nanus, Burt (1995) The visionary leadership
 * Ogbonnia, SKC. (2007). Political Parties and Effective Leadership: A contingency Approach
 * Pitcher, P. (1994 French) Artists, Craftsmen, and Technocrats: The dreams realities and illusions of leadership, Stoddart Publishing, Toronto, 2nd English edition, 1997. ISBN 0-7737-5854-2
 * Renesch, John (1994) Leadership in a New Era: Visionary Approaches to the Biggest Crisis of Our Time, San Francisco, New Leaders Press (paperback 2002, New York, Paraview Publishing
 * Renesch, John (2001) "Conscious Leadership: Taking Responsibility for Our Better Future," LOHAS Weekly Newsletter, March 1, 2001
 * Roberts, W. (1987) Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun
 * Stacey, R. (1992) Managing Chaos, Kogan-Page, London, 1992
 * Stogdill, R.M. (1950) 'Leadership, membership and organization', Psychological Bulletin, 47: 1-14
 * Terry, G. (1960) The Principles of Management, Richard Irwin Inc, Homewood Ill, pg 5.
 * Torbert, W. (2004) Action Inquiry: the Secret of Timely and Transforming Leadership, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
 * Warneka, P and Warneka, T. (2007). The Way of Leading People: Unlocking Your Integral Leadership Skills with the Tao Te Ching. Asogomi Publications Intl. Cleveland, Ohio. website
 * Warneka, T. (2006). Leading People the Black Belt Way: Conquering the Five Core Problems Facing Leaders Today. Asogomi Publications Intl. Cleveland, Ohio. website
 * Warneka, T. (2008). Black Belt Leader, Peaceful Leader: An Introduction to Catholic Servant Leadership. website
 * Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspective. American Psychology, 62 (1), 7-16.
 * Zaleznik, A. (1977) "Managers and Leaders: Is there a difference?", Harvard Business Review, May-June, 1977

Text that have citations but need strong revision
The text bellow is written in an essay-like manner, and seems original research. I kept the transformational/transactional part until I find time to rewrite them. Weber is an important theorist and I will reinsert this text once I improve it under the "Behavior & Style Theory" section. Editor br (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gendered leadership theories are conflicted. See: Collins, Burris & Meyers (2014); Eagly and Carli (2003); Vecchio (2002); etc. This section is poorly written and unacademic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.201.228 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Definition
'Leadership has been described as the "process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task'.

I would delete the word 'common' since the task itself might be only on the leader's list of objectives. The task would then only be 'common' in the sense that every follower helps deliver it.

It is important to recall that people who are 'good' at leading may be evil or disturbed - and are merely very skilled at leading their followers over a cliff.

Being good at leading is very different from being a good leader.

Historically an awful lot of so-called 'great' leaders, (maybe most of them) seem to have got their followers killed in very large numbers - and lots of other folk too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.92.240 (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Narcissistic leaders and leadership
There needs to be material on narcissistic leaders and leadership.--Penbat (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Leadership
Ladies and Gentlemen,

After much thought and research, in reading many peoples theories on leadership, I have determined that the definition of Leadership is, "Guiding Intent with Integrity."

In your own research, and on the discussion of Leadership, there primary theme is organizing people to reach a common goal. Or, put another way, "Who is guiding who where, when, how and why for what reason and what purpose." This algebraic expressing creates over 100,000 styles of leadership, that promote growth, retards growth, and / or maintains the status quo.

For clarity, it should be understood that Guiding, Intent and Integrity are ranges that run a scale from "100% for" - "0 / neutral" - "100% against". They should never be expected to be in a positive aspect, as leaders can/will/do use subterfuge to achieve needed / wanted results. (this goes back to style).

To insure that this definition is solid, I have sent it to many people who have written books on leadership, and have posted a blog articles about it. No one todate has refuted the definition. However, I would like to make sure that there is agreement before I take command and update the page on leadership with the definition. In the scientific community, if 3 scientists can reach the same conclusion about an experiment independently or through recreating ones experiment, then it moves from a hypothesis to a theory. Moving to a law is more work that I choose to take on at this time.

I look forward to your comments.

71.202.46.180 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Michael J. Fuhrman E Net Arch mfuhrman@enetarch.net

Leader
I think a good leader should have some characteristic which includes ''responsibility,motivation, diversity'' and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.121.23.152 (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Parsimonious"
"This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive and parsimonious picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. "

The word parsimonious is used completely incorrectly here. It means extremely frugal or thrifty. I doubt this person is saying that the research was inexpensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.9.168 (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

 * One could take it in the sense of 'using a minimal number of assumptions', but I agree that it seems like extraneous rhetoric and adds no real value to the sentence. I've removed it. Hyarmendacil (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Major Changes Coming
A class of students who are working on a project with the Wikipedia Ambassador Program at James Madison University will soon be taking on this article to make improvements. If you have any issues or concerns please let me know; as I am serving as the campus ambassador for the class. Please keep in mind that the students who are working on this article are newcomers to the Wikipedia Community; and may make a few mistakes along the way. -dean (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Anything that produces greater coherence here would be welcome. I suggest that any revision needs to engage with:

 * >the history of leadership theory
 * >whether leadership is a part of business studies or military studies or politics or history or psychology or philosophy or...
 * >how far there are empirical cross-cultural data to support ideas on leadership, and how far they are little more than individual opinion and assertion
 * >whether strategic leadership differs from supervision
 * >the "leadership" vs "management" debate
 * >transactional and transformational leadership
 * >the consensual vs authoritarian debate
 * >distributed leadership and "followership"
 * >trait theory
 * >behaviourist approaches
 * >contingency approaches

 * It may well be that more than one article is needed. Deipnosophista (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Submission for external link
Hi,

I did not realise that you can't put links to your own site under wiki rules. I was therefore wondering if anyone here would see if they think that the blog helps the reader with leadership. There is no advertising or selling on the page that the link goes to, but it is a business website.

Ocinternational (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)23rd Oct 2012Ocinternational (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Ocinternational (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)OCinternationalOcinternational (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't link to blogs per WP:ELNO point 11. - MrOllie (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Intended Edit from York College Student
Hello! My name is Nika. I am a York College student working on a class assignment and I have intentions to edit this article on leadership. I invite you to please review my intended edit located in my sandbox. I will post the link below. Thank you. (MsNika349 (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC))

MsNika349 Sandbox

 * Hi Nika. there is already some coverage of transactional leadership in the article. Any edits pertaining to that topic should therefore be an improvement upon the current content. With this in mind, at this stage I would be concerned with the lack of references in your own writing. I would also be interested in how you see the content you propose as fitting in with the current Wikipedia article dedicated to transactional leadership. Cheers and best of luck with the assignment Andrew (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Hi Andrew, first and for most thank you for responding. Although there is some coverage on "transactional theory," I think that there is room for extra information on the transactional style of leadership, hence why I chose to make the edit to the leadership section. I think it gives somewhat of a better understanding on the specific of transactional leadership styles. Thank you for your wishes on my assignment as I now have to ask my peers to review my edit. Thank you again for your response. (MsNika349 (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC))

Edit coming: adaptive leadership
I am a student at Harvard Kennedy School and would like to edit a short reference to the model of adaptive leadership which has been taught by Heifetz and others at Harvard for around 30 years. It will refer to a new article on the subject "adaptive leadersip."

Marburgmichi (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Hi Marburgmichi. Welcome to Wikipedia and I look forward to seeing your contribution. One I suggestion I would like to make is to be careful to craft your edits such that they don’t come across as spam|spam. Spam is a major problem in Wikipedia; particularly in fields related to the cooperate world, where every man and his dog wants their pet theory and latest publication to feature prominently in Wikipedia. In fact, it might be worth double checking with yourself whether this particular approach warrants inclusion in the article in the first place.

 * Beyond this, two ways in which to avoid the perception of spam is to use older well cited sources (as opposed to a new article as you suggest), and to suitably embed the relevant content within the existing article structure. In other words, I would caution against simply tacking on another ‘theory of leadership’ to the article. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Hi Andrew, thank you for your feedback. I will ensure proper sourcing and relevance. I will focus on Heifetz main work, ensure neutrality and include criticism. I was intending to open a separate Wikipedia article with around 1.500 words and link it to this more general article on leadership. This work is part of a requirement I am taking for a media policy class at Harvard Kennedy School.Marburgmichi (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The ontological-phenomenological model for leadership?
Hi all. I am just looking at this section that has been added back into the article after recently being removed. Now the original removal was not explained, and so in terms of procedure I have no problem with MLKLewis's decision to add it back in (hi MLKLewis). In terms of content though, I am not sold on its appropriateness. Specifically, I am concerned that the paragraph a) is giving undue weight to a highly niche perspective, b) is a departure from the article topic (e.g. the definition raised essentially boils down to coordination rather than something resembling mainstream conceptions of leadership), c) has readability issues, and d) is an exercise in promotion. Do other editors share this concern? Or can other editors reassure me that the content is appropriate? In terms of the latter, it would be particularly reassuring to see evidence that this perspective on leadership has some substantial 'take up' in academic circles. Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Titles emphasizing authority
removing this section from article as it's unreferenced, OR-ish and adds little. Bacchiad (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

At certain stages in their development, the hierarchies of social ranks implied different degrees or ranks of leadership in society. Thus a knight led fewer men in general than did a duke; a baronet might in theory control less land than an earl. See peerage for a systematization of this hierarchy, and order of precedence for links to various systems.

In the course of the 18th to 20th centuries, several political operators took non-traditional paths to become dominant in their societies. They or their systems often expressed a belief in strong individual leadership, but existing titles and labels ("King", "Emperor", "President", and so on) often seemed inappropriate, insufficient, or downright inaccurate in some circumstances. The formal or informal titles or descriptions they or their subordinates employ express and foster a general veneration for leadership of the inspired and autocratic variety. The definite article when used as part of the title (in languages that use definite articles) emphasizes the existence of a sole "true" leader.

Charisma
Charisma is an important aspect of leadership. I will ponder how to add this to the present article. Meanwhile, how would one add to "See also" a reference to the "Personality charisma" section of the article on charisma? Pring (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Charisma is the main quality of a leader in the sense that one cannot lead without having positive moral inbeding skills Sylvia Savage (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Leadership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131101163340/http://ehis.ebscohost.com.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c5e54625-1ac1-4cb4-b934-0ca10456da86%40sessionmgr13&vid=6&hid=2 to http://ehis.ebscohost.com.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c5e54625-1ac1-4cb4-b934-0ca10456da86%40sessionmgr13&vid=6&hid=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a psychology article. That's not a very nice thing to say about leadership.
Maybe the person that made the decision to cast this as psychology was abused by their boss. They're misguided to accuse their boss of insanity, but I don't really blame them for that. I would have accused that boss of feigning mental illness, as if in all the ways that are important there could be such a thing as mental illness. 203.215.118.62 (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Ha ha. Good observation. But psychology concerns itself with all aspects of behavior and the mind, not just illnesses. SnailsSpace (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Addition of a Journal Reference
As a newcomer to wikipedia I tried to add a journal reference to this page as a small contribution and starting point. It was * and it was removed by another editor who advised me on this talk page that it was not notable enough. The first sentence of this leadership article states that leadership is both a research area and practical skill yet the article seems to be mostly a compendium of theories. Wikipedia describes an encyclopedia as a compendium holding all branches of knowledge and in the knowledge article states that knowledge can either be theoretical or practical. The leadership article seems to miss the practical part. The journal reference I tried to add focuses on the practical elements of leadership. After reading some of the other journal references I noticed that When I click on House Robert it takes me to a blank wiki page. The first House article cited is a discussion of a theory that the author states shows promise and should be furthers tested. The second House article is a review of a theory from that one persons perspective. When I click on Vroom Victor it takes me to a page with very little content on a business school professor. The article cited is nothing more than a very general discussion on a page promoting the sale of the article. I replied to the editor with these observations and he suggested that I go to the talk page of this article and seek advice. Why was what I added not considered notable when other journal references that are already there seem to be even less so? I am a bit confused. Before trying to make any other contributions I thought it best to seek advice on this page. thanks AFHistoryBuff (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As all of those "journals" are contained in the references section of the article, they should be directly supporting material in the article itself and cited as such. For example, the House works are cited in footnotes 40 and 41. There are probably stray books/references that have creeped in over time and we'd likely need to prune those. Why were you wanting to add a reference without any material?  Kuru   (talk)  18:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Im looking to add different styles of leadership
Im looking to add different styles of leadership, I do not really see a section for different styles. Does anyone have any input? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaparralCote (talk • contribs) 17:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up over all article
Hello I would like to try to just clean up article. One thought is to try to join common thoughts under different headings. Any imput as to how to accomplish? Also I found an article titled leadership styles my thought is that this article should be brought into the leadership article, it also needs some work, any thoughts?--ChaparralCote (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leadership. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170222013842/http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=256 to http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=256
 * Added tag to http://amj.aom.org/cgi/doi/10.2307/20159921

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue
— Assignment last updated by YW5634 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Ritalyo (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Leadership


text:
Benedetto Pistrucci

Benedetto Pistrucci (29 May 1783 – 16 September 1855) was an Italian gem-engraver, medallist and a coin engraver, probably best known for his Saint George and the Dragon design for the British sovereign coin. Pistrucci was commissioned by the British government to create the large Waterloo Medal, a project which took him thirty years to complete.

Born in Rome in 1783, Pistrucci studied briefly with other artists before striking out on his own at age 15. He became prominent as a cameo carver and was patronised by royalty. In 1815, he moved to Britain, where he would live for most of the rest of his life. His talent brought him to the attention of notables including William Wellesley-Pole, the Master of the Mint. Pole engaged Pistrucci to design new coinage, including the sovereign, which was first issued in 1817 to mixed reactions. Although Pole probably promised Pistrucci the post of Chief Engraver, the position could not be awarded as only a British subject could hold it. This slight became a long-term grievance for Pistrucci.

Talented but temperamental, Pistrucci refused to copy the work of other artists. When in 1823 George IV demanded that an unflattering portrait of him on the coinage be changed with a new likeness to be based on the work of Francis Chantrey, Pistrucci refused and was nearly dismissed. The Mint did not dismiss him, lest the money already spent on the Waterloo Medal be wasted. Pistrucci kept his place with the Mint for the rest of his life, eventually completing the Waterloo Medal in 1849, though because of its great size it could not be struck. After Pistrucci's death, the George and Dragon design was restored to the sovereign coin, and is still used today.

Early life and career (1783–1815)
Benedetto Pistrucci was born in Rome on 29 May 1783, second child and son of Federico Pistrucci, Senior Judge of the High Criminal Court under the papal government, and Antonia (née Greco). His elder brother Filippo displayed artistic tendencies from a young age, but Benedetto showed mainly a disinclination to study. Federico Pistrucci wanted his sons to follow in his footsteps and sent them to Latin schools. Benedetto began his education in Bologna, where the family had property, but the Pistrucci family was forced to move to Rome in 1794 when Napoleon invaded Italy, and the boys were enrolled in the Roman College.

Napoleon had put a price on Federico Pistrucci's head, as he had prosecuted Bonapartist rebels, so the family fled Rome when the French advanced towards it, stopping in Frosinone, where the boys were again put into an academic school. Filippo satisfied his father with enough academic achievement that he was allowed to take a job with a painter named Mango. Deprived of his brother, Benedetto became despondent and was eventually allowed to work at Mango's. There, he quickly displayed his artistic talent. Mango told Benedetto of his brother Giuseppe Mango, a cameo engraver in Rome. With the Pope and the French having made peace, the family was able to return there, and Benedetto Pistrucci began his training as a cameo carver. He advanced quickly, also taking lessons from Stefano Tofanelli, and soon Giuseppe Mango was selling Pistrucci's carvings as his own. Realising that his works were being sold as counterfeit antiques, Pistrucci began placing a secret mark, the Greek letter λ (lambda) on his creations.

Pistrucci's obvious talent made his fellow apprentices envious, and one provoked a fight with him, stabbing him in the abdomen before Pistrucci fended off the attack. Recovering at home, he taught himself to model with wax. Federico Pistrucci decided his son would be better off with a new master, and secured a position for him with Giuseppe Cerbara, but the boy refused, believing that he would have to work in poor conditions. A place with gem-carver Nicolo Morelli was secured, and Pistrucci also attended the scuola del nudo art academy at the Campidoglio, where in 1800 he took the first prize for sculpture. Pistrucci felt Morelli was seeking to profit from his ability while giving him little training, and left his position at the age of 15, working from the family home. He was able to pay rent, as from the beginning he had ample commissions for cameos.

Pistrucci's early clients included two of Rome's major art dealers, Ignazio Vescovali and Angelo Bonelli, and Napoleon's three sisters, Elisa, Pauline and Caroline. Pistrucci gained prominence by winning a competition to make a cameo of Elisa (the Grand Duchess of Tuscany), working nearly nonstop for eight days to complete it. The Grand Duchess was so impressed by his work that she gave him studio space at her palace. Pistrucci felt secure enough with this patronage that in 1802, he married Barbara Folchi, daughter of a well-to-do merchant; they had nine children together. He continued working in Rome, turning out portrait cameos and engraved gems, until 1814.

Bonelli returned from a successful trip to Britain in 1814 and proposed that Pistrucci go back with him, arguing that the artist's future was there. Pistrucci was willing, and after making provision for his family left Rome with Bonelli. They first stopped in Perugia so that Pistrucci could say farewell to his brother Filippo, but found him willing to accompany them. By Turin, Filippo Pistrucci had decided that Bonelli was not to be trusted, and so informed his brother. When they reached Paris in December 1814, the brothers refused to accompany Bonelli further, and after making threats, the dealer departed. Filippo soon returned to Italy, but Benedetto Pistrucci found his name and art were known in Paris, and set to work. He was there when Napoleon returned from Elba, beginning the Hundred Days, but worked on, unaffected by the war. He saw Napoleon in a garden, and always having a ball of wax with him, quietly modelled the emperor, the last portrait of him done in Europe. After the Battle of Waterloo in June 1815, Pistrucci began preparations to move on to Britain, but it was not until 31 December that he arrived there.

Rise to prominence (1815–1819)
On arrival at Dover, Pistrucci had difficulty with Customs, possibly caused by Bonelli's malice. Once he was able to, he journeyed to London. He had letters of introduction to several people, and Charles Konig, Keeper of Minerals at the British Museum, proved a loyal friend. Through Konig, Pistrucci met the famous naturalist, Sir Joseph Banks, who commissioned the artist to do a portrait of him. While Banks was sitting for Pistrucci, the connoisseur Richard Payne Knight came by, anxious to show Sir Joseph a cameo fragment he had purchased, and which he dated to Ancient Greece. After Banks praised it highly, Pistrucci, on examining it, identified it as his own work, displaying the secret mark he had placed on it. The incident increased Pistrucci's reputation in London.

Pistrucci was introduced to Lord and Lady Spencer by Banks. Lady Spencer showed Pistrucci a model of Saint George and the Dragon by Nathaniel Marchant and commissioned him to reproduce it in the Greek style as part of her husband's regalia as a Knight of the Garter. Pistrucci had already been thinking of such a work, and he produced the cameo. The model for the saint was an Italian waiter at Brunet's Hotel in Leicester Square, where he had stayed after coming to London.

Sir Joseph commissioned Pistrucci to craft a cameo of King George III. As the King was ill with porphyria, Pistrucci modelled the likeness from Marchant's three-shilling bank token, and cut it in red jasper for a fee of 50 guineas. Banks showed the cameo to William Wellesley-Pole, elder brother of the Duke of Wellington and the Master of the Mint, who was greatly impressed by the quality of what he saw. At this time, the Royal Mint was preparing to issue new gold and silver coins as part of the Great Recoinage of 1816, and in June of that year, Pole decided to hire Pistrucci to make models in stone for the new coinage that could be converted into steel dies by the Mint's engravers.

Pole had Pistrucci create three portraits of the King in different sizes. Only two were used, one for the obverse of the half crown, and the other for the shilling and sixpence. Both were modified by Thomas Wyon of the Mint, who engraved the designs in steel. What was dubbed the "bull head" of the King on the 1816 half crown was disliked by the public, and it was replaced by another in 1817. The criticism incensed Pistrucci, who blamed Wyon for bungling the design, and who set about learning to engrave in steel himself.

After completing Lady Spencer's commission, by most accounts, Pistrucci suggested to Pole that an appropriate subject for the sovereign, a new gold coin equal to one pound that was to be struck, would be Saint George. Until the early 20th century, gold coins were struck for circulation, rather than as bullion pieces. Kevin Clancy, in his volume on the history of the sovereign coin, doubted whether the Spencer commission was truly the inspiration for the George and Dragon design which that coin has long featured, and that the idea might not even have come from Pistrucci. Clancy argued that such motifs were common at the time and that the story originated with Pistrucci, whom he deemed an unreliable witness on his own past.

For a fee of 100 guineas (£105), Pistrucci created the sovereign's design, engraving it himself. He depicted the saint atop a fiery steed which is trampling the wounded dragon. George has a broken spear in his hand; part is in the dragon and another fragment lies on the ground. Pistrucci's original design, used for circulation in 1817–1819 and reprised by the Royal Mint in 2017, has the ribbon of the Order of the Garter surrounding the George and dragon design, with its motto HONI SOIT QUI MAL Y PENSE. The design, with Saint George bearing a sword rather than a spear, is ordinarily seen on the sovereign, and was also used for the crown from 1818. Clancy noted of the design process for the crown, "what emerges is the presence of Pole at each turn. He bombarded the young artist with suggestions and instructions on how the design should be changed from the shape of the sword to the perceived ferocity of the dragon." Pistrucci had placed his full last name on both sides of the crown, for which he was criticised by the public, and some said the saint would surely fall off his horse with the next blow.

After the death in 1817 of Thomas Wyon Sr, the father of the man who had adapted Pistrucci's designs, Pole most probably offered Pistrucci the post of chief engraver at the Royal Mint, with a salary of £500 per annum. and a house within the grounds of the Mint. However, it soon appeared that a law passed under William III barred foreigners from the post, and so Pole left it vacant, while granting Pistrucci the salary and emoluments of the office. Sir John Craig wrote in his history of the Royal Mint: "The arrangement was not put into writing, and misunderstanding was easy for a foreigner. Pole categorically denied any commitment beyond the grant for the time being of a salary for coinage designs as cheaper than payment of fees. The Italian persistently contended that he was seduced into Mint service by a promise of formal appointment to the chief engravership". According to H.W.A. Linecar in his book on British coin designs and designers, "the arrangement might have worked very well, even though it was against accepted procedure, had Pistrucci been other than he was."

In 1819, Pistrucci was awarded the commission to design the Waterloo Medal, a huge piece some 5.3 inch in diameter that the government planned to award to the victorious generals and national leaders who had defeated Napoleon. Such a medal had been proposed by the Prince Regent (later George IV) soon after the battle. Pistrucci's price was £2,400, and the down payment allowed him to bring his family from Italy. The medal was originally supposed to be a design by John Flaxman, but Pistrucci refused to engrave the work of another artist, and Pole allowed him to design his own medal, a decision that antagonised London's art establishment against Pistrucci. A gigantic undertaking, the medal would take Pistrucci 30 years to complete.

Conflict at the Mint (1820–1836)
After the death of George III in 1820, Pistrucci prepared the coinage bust of the new King, George IV. The King despised Pistrucci's work for its bloated expression—according to Clancy, "its full features implying something of the appetites of the monarch". The King and Pistrucci also came into conflict over the Coronation medal, with the King objecting to being placed on the same level as the allegorical representations of his kingdoms. Pistrucci stated, "I shall elevate His Majesty", and did so. The King's toupee also caused difficulty in the engraving process. On the coinage, the sovereign was modified to remove its garter, and the saint's broken spear was replaced by a sword. Thus, it became very similar to the design used on modern-day sovereigns but for the lack of a streamer on Saint George's helmet. This version of the reverse was struck from 1821 to 1825, but Pistrucci's design would be thereafter absent from the sovereign from 1825 to 1874, after his death.

Aware of King George's dissatisfaction with the coinage effigy, the Mint played for time. Pole's resignation in 1823 deprived Pistrucci of a friend and supporter at the Mint. Sculptor Francis Chantrey had prepared a bust of the King which the monarch liked, and ordered that it be placed on the coinage. Pistrucci would not copy the work of another artist, and refused. The new coinage of 1823–1825 was engraved by Pistrucci's assistant, Jean Baptiste Merlen, and by William Wyon; Pistrucci was thereafter excluded from work on the coinage. The Mint considered sacking Pistrucci, but realised that if it did, the £1,700 advanced for fees and expenses on the Waterloo medal would probably be wasted, and he kept his position and pay on condition he focused on the completion of the medal. Despite this, by 1826, only a portion of one side had been completed. Though the banishment of the George and Dragon design from the sovereign after 1825 was more part of a general redesign of the coinage than an attack upon Pistrucci, according to Clancy he "cannot have masked the sense he must have felt of tides turning against him".

There was conflict at the Mint between Pistrucci and William Wyon, that sometimes involved Merlen. According to Graham Pollard in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, "Pistrucci's temperament did not foster good relations with his colleagues at the mint; the insecurity of his position there was deepened by a spasmodic but bitter campaign conducted through the newspapers by his partisans and those of William Wyon." Pistrucci appealed to each new Master of the Mint for appointment to the post of chief engraver. In 1828, the incumbent Master, George Tierney, worked a compromise that satisfied no one. Wyon was appointed as chief engraver, and Pistrucci as chief medallist, with the salaries of the top two engraving positions divided between them. Of Pistrucci's salary of £350, £50 was conditional on his training an apprentice. Pistrucci in succession named two of his sons, but the allowance was stopped after 1830 as it had come to light that each resided abroad, and one was not a British subject and so was ineligible for regular Mint employment. Pistrucci's understanding of the arrangement was that he would create such medals as might be ordered by government departments, with each medal a separate fee in addition to the annual salary.

This effectively left Pistrucci with little to do at the Mint. He created several medallic works, for example, a small memorial medal for the King's brother, Frederick, Duke of York in 1827 that was popular, in royal circles, mounted in rings. He was asked to design the Coronation medal after King William IV came to the throne on George's death in 1830, but declined as he was asked to copy a bust by Chantrey, and the King refused to sit for him. He created, in 1830–1831, the Army Long Service and Good Conduct Medal, the first non-campaign medal of the British Army. He took twelve months to do so, a period of time Craig found unduly long. He continued to cut cameos, and to work, slowly, on the Waterloo Medal. Pistrucci's biographer, Michael A. March, tied his disinclination to work on the Waterloo Medal to his unhappiness about his position at the Mint, and he may have concluded that he would be sacked if he finished the medal. In 1836, the new Master, Henry Labouchere, stated that he felt the medal could be finished in 18 months, and offered Pistrucci payment if he would take on four apprentices and finish it. Pistrucci declined.

Later career and death (1837–1855)
Pistrucci enjoyed a friendly relationship with Princess Victoria of Kent, the niece and heiress presumptive of King William, and cut several cameos of her. After she succeeded to the throne as Queen Victoria in 1837, Pistrucci was selected to sculpt her Coronation medal, which he did; the Queen granted him several sittings. Although the Queen was pleased, there were mixed reviews. When questions were asked in the House of Commons, Labouchere stated that Pistrucci may have been ill. Joseph Hume opined that the reverse was no better done than the cheap medals sold in the streets for a penny each. In 1838, Pistrucci made the silver seal of the Duchy of Lancaster, using a new process by which the punch or die could be cast in metal directly from the original wax or clay mould, rather than having to be copied by hand engraving. The following year, Pistrucci left for Rome to take up a position as chief engraver at the papal mint, but returned to London a few months later, deeming the salary too low.

By the early 1840s, the Audit Office was questioning the amount spent on Pistrucci. In 1844, the Master of the Mint, William Gladstone restored Pistrucci's salary to the full £350 and offered him £400 to complete the Waterloo Medal. Pistrucci moved his residence from the Mint on Tower Hill to Fine Arts Cottage, Old Windsor, and set to work in full earnest. He was slowed by injuries from a fall, and it was not until the beginning of 1849 that he submitted the matrices of the medal, and was paid the remaining balance of £1,500. The matrices were so large no one at the Royal Mint was willing to take the risk of hardening them and possibly ruining three decades' work. So only soft impressions were taken, with no medals in gold, silver and bronze as intended, though replicas have since been minted from other dies. Even if the government had struck the medals, there was almost no one to present them to, for of the intended recipients, all were dead but the Duke of Wellington.

The conflict between Pistrucci and William Wyon continued into the late 1840s, and was sometimes featured in the press, contributing to the feeling that all was not well at the Mint. A Royal Commission on reform of the Royal Mint was appointed in 1848. Pistrucci submitted a report, in which he settled some old scores. The reforms abolished the positions of chief engraver (Wyon died in 1851) and chief medallist, with Pistrucci appointed a modeller and engraver to the Mint, to receive a salary in addition to payment for any work done.

Pistrucci in 1850 moved from Old Windsor to Flora Lodge, Englefield Green, near Windsor, where he lived with his daughters Maria Elisa and Elena, both gem engravers. He continued to accept private commissions for cameos and medals. Pistrucci died there of "inflammation of the lungs", on 16 September 1855, and is buried at Christ Church, Virginia Water, Surrey.

Appraisal
Pistrucci is probably remembered most for his George and Dragon design for the sovereign. Not greatly liked at the time of its origin, it has come to be celebrated. The Deputy Master of the Mint who restored the design to the sovereign in 1871, Charles Fremantle, stated his view that "it is hardly possible to over-rate the advantages accruing to a coinage from an artistic and well-executed design". By 1893, it was on all of Britain's gold coins; The Art Journal described Pistrucci's design as having "triumphantly borne the test of time". Marsh noted, "it is indeed a tribute that his wonderful design should still adorn the gold coinage of our current Queen Elizabeth II. It is one of the finest ever in our coinage history, and has certainly stood the test of time. Long may it continue." Pistrucci's design has also appeared on a non-circulating £20 silver coin in 2013 and on the crown in 1818–1823, 1887–1900, 1902 and 1951.

Roderick Farey, in his biographical articles on Pistrucci, described him as "an Italian with a fiery disposition, he had numerous arguments with the authorities but no-one could doubt his genius firstly as a cameo cutter and later as an engraver and medallist." Those disputes, and a perceived slowness to complete his works (especially the Waterloo Medal) have been sources of criticism by later writers. Howard Linecar, in his book on British coin designs and designers, wrote, "there is little doubt that Pistrucci held the cutting of these dies as a bargaining counter in his relentless efforts to obtain the post of Chief Engraver at the Royal Mint ... On balance it is perhaps fair to say that Pistrucci, having probably been promised that which he could not have ... squeezed the last drop of blood out of the situation." According to Clancy, "With great talent can often come controversy and throughout his career Pistrucci was acclaimed and reviled in equal measure, maintaining a series of tense relationships with his colleagues, the most pointed of which [was] with his fellow engraver William Wyon." Craig concluded, "Apart from the George and Dragon design, which was less esteemed then than now ... this artist's Mint works, unlike his private commissions, were failures".

The Waterloo Medal is regarded by many as a masterpiece on par with his St George and the Dragon. Pollard stated that the Waterloo Medal, "shows Pistrucci's command of the types (or figures) of cameos, an understanding of the figurative language of the Roman Renaissance, and an appreciation of the antique sculptured relief—his types, none the less, were always original". Marsh also praised the medal: "no better piece of intaglio engraving or design has surely ever been seen before or since. It contains as much as thirty ordinary-sized medals, and this alone is more than most medalists achieved in a life time."

Farey concluded his study of Pistrucci,

"By his own admission, Benedetto Pistrucci argued readily with his peers and lost work by refusing point blank to copy the efforts of another artist. He remains an enigmatic figure whose genius is represented especially in the Waterloo medal and survives unsurpassed to this day in his portrayal of St George and the Dragon."

title: Benedetto Pistrucci