Talk:The 48 Laws of Power/Archives/2014

Removal of the 48 laws

A list of the 48 laws has been part of this article since its creation in 2006. User:Edward321 has recently removed the entire list on at least two occasions. Although I believe the article is more useful for readers if the list is included, I believe other editors should decide whether the list should remain as part of the article. Personally, I find the article to be fairly useless without the list. What are the opinions of other editors? --JHP (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Chapter titles give the reader a general overview of the book. The list should be left on the page. There should be a discussion / debate. Furthermore, there should be a more widespread discussion concerning User:Edward321's mass removal of the examples and chapter summaries on the The 33 Strategies of War and Thirty-Six Stratagems pages. The Art of War and On War have chapter lists, does that qualify as a copyright violation, excess detail, and/or an ad promotion?174.22.9.134 (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned that the list is a copyright violation. This view has been stated since 2006 by Jdotpitts, Tyrenius, Iamunknown, and Meeg. Removing it does not make the article useless, it makes the article more concise. The article could probably use a better range of sources, right now it reads like and advertisement for Greene's work.Edward321 (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Art of War does have chapter lists. On War does not. On War was written in the 1830s; Art of War was written thousands of years ago - both works are well out of copyright. Neither of those works is written in a promotional manner. This article reads like a press release. It is full of celebrity endorsements and only presents positive views of the subject. Edward321 (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Are there any examples of chapter titles alone being taken to be copyright violation? I don't know, but without the titles, this article looks pretty scant in terms of useful content. I would prefer to see them returned to the article. Saint91 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no value in having a list of the book's chapter titles in the article. Nor do I see any value in some uncited statements about the structure of each chapter in the book. However there is value in constructive criticism of this self-help book given in reliable sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I gather from third party sources that at the time this book was published, some of the reviews were less than favourable. For example:

• Business Week: "the moral advice adds up to a grim portrait of a ruthless, duplicitous universe"
• Newsweek: "one of the best arguments since the New Testament for humility and obscurity"

We should try to find the issue dates, etc. for these so that they could be added to the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)