Talk:Arthur Desmond

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arthur Desmond article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

New Zealand: Politics Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Australia: Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Arthur Desmond is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Connection with Ragnar Redbeard

"Desmond’s Illinois death certificate provides the telling link between the man and the infamous “Ragnar Redbeard” when the name of deceased is listed as "Arthur Desmond, alias Richard Thurland"."

I fail to see the connection... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.156.235.159 (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship of Might Is Right

I think that the authorship of might is right is disputed some mention of this should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.104.250 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. From the article:

According to the preface of the 1896 edition of Might Is Right, which was published with the sub-title of The Survival of the Fittest, it was in the aftermath of his 1887 parliamentary bid that Arthur Desmond first conceived of and began writing Might Is Right.

If the 1896 edition is agreed to be the first edition, and its preface point-blank describes Desmond as the author, why is the authorship of the book controversial at all? Worse, what's the point of using a pen name when the preface reveals the author's identity? It doesn't add up. Does the original 1896 edition really have an original 1896 preface naming Desmond? That's hard to believe.

Something is seriously wrong with this article – it blatantly contradicts Might Is Right by treating (in the body/bulk of the article) the authorship of the book as a cut-and-dried affair, while the article about the book itself describes the issue as unresolved. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I must also note that Sidney E. Parker states: "There is no certainty as to who the author, Ragnar Redbeard, is." I suspect that the article misleadingly refers to this "introduction", published by S. E. Parker in 1982/1983, not in 1896 and certainly not part of the original 1896 edition! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An alleged authorship mostly described as fact but not without contradicting itself. Something is seriously wrong with this article, you put it very well. --132.187.232.6 (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it has its contradictions. Zezen (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

Something is seriously wrong with this article's tone. This thing is a mess. It's overly familiar and partisan. It would take a long time for someone to correct it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3bd8:5e30:ad9d:ff3:4b11:3b94 18 November 2014