Talk:Might is Right

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] merge Ragnar Redbeard with this article

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)