Talk:Arthur Desmond

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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

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