Talk:Might Is Right

POV

Point of view (This artical seems to only be dominated by Darwinistic Randroids). Can their be at least SOME critical reviews as well? -- 69.248.43.27 21:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the bottom link is quite critical of it. Being as it is the foundation for the Satanic Bible, and such an obscure text, reviews are likely to be skewed towards or against it, anyways. I don't really see a problem here, though. If you think it's a problem, just find a negative review and tack it onto the bottom. Fourthgeek 05:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Download Might is Right

Since the text of the Might is Right is in public domain for long time, does anybody know where one may download the full original text? Perhaps somebody can OCR the book without the copyrighted introduction and afterword? I would definitely appreciate this. Memediver 10:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm (slowly) working on uploading it to Project Gutenberg. My copy is pretty poor so OCR won't really work well. :/ Fourthgeek 06:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Satanism

Although LaVey used this in his work, I don't think this should necessarily be listed within the Satanism template. You could just as well put it under a Nazism template, an Evolutionary Theory template, or any other. It has contributed to much more than just Satanism, misinterpreted and reinterpreted to fit the aims of many groups. Fourthgeek 06:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

merge Ragnar Redbeard with this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Ragnar Redbeard has no notability or verifiability outside of the book Might is Right, so that article should be merged with this one. — coelacan — 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As this has already been taken care of I'm going to archive this conversation for purposes of organization. --129.71.73.247 (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content

• There is no clear-cut explanation on the page about the relation of the book with Satanism. This needs to be rectified.
• There are no examples of why it was considered "incendiary".
• There are no examples of its "glaring contradictions".
• Ragnar Redbeard should be merged into this, because it is lacking in content. Whatever little it does have, is subjective and unreferenced.

In view of these points, I'll go ahead with the merge and cleanup of these two pages in 48 hours if there are no objections. Thanks xC | ☎ 04:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Initial merge has been completed. Will complete the cleanup and re-write (where neccessary) asap. xC | ☎ 17:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Discuss links here

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!)--VS ^talk 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

VS ^talk has removed an external link to a website which I publish containing information and on Arthur Desmond. I believe this link is still relevant to the article, and in fact is an important citation. To avoid a conflict of interest, I should not post the link to the article myself unless it has been discussed on this page. Other editors are free to post the link if they think it is relevant.--Takver 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Arthur Desmond - Ragnar Redbeard and "Might Is Right"

Correct Publication Date

Article says book was published in 1986, yet the publication history shows this entry: "Auditorium Press, 1890." Is this a typo? Kasyapa (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point—the infobox showed the date as 1896 (not 1986), but the text had it as 1890, as well as did the item that you mentioned in the table. The later publication date seems to be given in several sources, including the Tolstoy essay. However, the earlier date seems more likely; while I couldn’t find a reliable source that actually stated that the original publication date was 1890, I found a National Library of Australia catalogue entry and a Google Books page for an 1896 third edition by Auditorium Press, making it likely that the first edition was published by the company some years earlier. I referenced the National Library of Australia web page in the table.

—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Authorship

If you read the well-documented article on Arthur Desmond, it would appear that there is no question whatsoever about the book's authorship.170.71.252.34 (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The stuff about Jack London seems unlikely. London's first short story was published five years after Might is Right. His second short story was eight years afterwards. London's first novel was twelve years after Might is Right.

And, by the way, Jack London turned 14 years old the year Might is Right was published.

London's age and the length of time between Might is Right and his first short story create a high presumption that he is not the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.228.120 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about reading this, but...

This book seems to get published by ideological publishers. I am wondering if any versions have taken liberty with the text in order to promote different agendas. And if not, which versions are recommended as authentic. --67.54.235.190 (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a link to SATIRE in this article so that idiots who believe this not to be a work of satire understand what satire is

RAGNAR REDBEARD as a pen name, no matter who it is in actual reality, means it is a satire automatically, period.

This is a satire.

End of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.251.152 (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Broken links tag

A recent edit added the "broken link" tag to two external links (labeled "EGO No 6 1985 Twenty Five Pence", a link to the internet archive wayback machine capture of the original link and one label "the original"). The first link works for me, it takes a moment for the wayback site to load. I added the first link because the second one died, so I don't believe it has to be tagged as dead. AFAIK, I followed standard procedure for link to internet archive versions of dead links, if someone knows any better, speak up.--Sus scrofa (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)