![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
I was just about to post the same thing as Fourthgeek. The book has no basis or connection with any aspect of Satanism and should be removed. Keeping the template muddies what the book is about and almost acts in a slanderous way. 68.198.148.246 ( talk) 21:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Ragnar Redbeard has no notability or verifiability outside of the book Might is Right, so that article should be merged with this one. — coel acan — 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Tolstoy quote as it was 3/1/13 is hardly a reaction, it's simply a summary of the arguments made in the text. I would imagine if that summary alone must be incorporated, it should be introduced differently. It could easily be misread as supporting the arguments of the author, whereas Tolstoy's actual reaction which follows is a scathing critique. It is a good summary and maybe someone else has another idea on how to incorporate it in full, but as it stands I've replaced much of it with the actual reaction. The content of Wikipedia articles is "booty for the bold" :) 24.91.23.219 ( talk) 06:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved per request. Closed by Tiggerjay; see closing comment at the end of the discussion. Favonian ( talk) 13:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Might is Right → Might Is Right – Per MOS:CT, in the titles of compositions all verbs should be capitalized. Is is a verb and should therefore be capitalized. Although some (not all) sources do not capitalize Is, Wikipedia should capitalize according to its own style guidelines. ShelfSkewed Talk 04:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Which section would be most appropriate to include information about this? Given that it's a recurring topic in criticism of TST and Greaves, people who search for information about it and find this article as a result could benefit from the inclusion of a short summary. Ezqel ( talk) 17:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
I was just about to post the same thing as Fourthgeek. The book has no basis or connection with any aspect of Satanism and should be removed. Keeping the template muddies what the book is about and almost acts in a slanderous way. 68.198.148.246 ( talk) 21:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Ragnar Redbeard has no notability or verifiability outside of the book Might is Right, so that article should be merged with this one. — coel acan — 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Tolstoy quote as it was 3/1/13 is hardly a reaction, it's simply a summary of the arguments made in the text. I would imagine if that summary alone must be incorporated, it should be introduced differently. It could easily be misread as supporting the arguments of the author, whereas Tolstoy's actual reaction which follows is a scathing critique. It is a good summary and maybe someone else has another idea on how to incorporate it in full, but as it stands I've replaced much of it with the actual reaction. The content of Wikipedia articles is "booty for the bold" :) 24.91.23.219 ( talk) 06:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved per request. Closed by Tiggerjay; see closing comment at the end of the discussion. Favonian ( talk) 13:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Might is Right → Might Is Right – Per MOS:CT, in the titles of compositions all verbs should be capitalized. Is is a verb and should therefore be capitalized. Although some (not all) sources do not capitalize Is, Wikipedia should capitalize according to its own style guidelines. ShelfSkewed Talk 04:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Which section would be most appropriate to include information about this? Given that it's a recurring topic in criticism of TST and Greaves, people who search for information about it and find this article as a result could benefit from the inclusion of a short summary. Ezqel ( talk) 17:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)