Talk:Bertrand Russell.html
 
| ca | de | en | es | fr | it | nl | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | fi | sv | tr | vo |


 

This is the discussion/talk page for article: Bertrand Russell.

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Former good article Bertrand Russell was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
 This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics      (Rated B-Class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theoretical Linguistics 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Wales      (Rated B-Class)
Wales portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Chicago      (Rated B-Class)
Chicago portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy      (Rated B-Class)
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Mathematics     (Rated B-Class)
WikiProject Mathematics
Mathematics portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.
Mathematics rating: B Class High Priority  Field: Mathematicians
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.
This article has an assessment summary page.
Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Archive
Archives
1, 2

Contents

Talk-page subpages:
- Talk:Bertrand Russell/Archive_1
- Talk:Bertrand Russell/Archive_2
- Talk:Bertrand Russell/Comments
- Talk:Bertrand Russell/GA Review

Topics from 2006

Quotation sections

It is my recommendation that the quotations in the sections "Russell summing up his life", "Comments about Russell", and "Quotations" be either removed and transferred to WikiQuote, or incorporated into the overall narrative about Russell's life and views. Such selective quoting is not only a violation of WP:NPOV, but is also fundamentally unencyclopedic. -Silence 02:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree- i pretty much unwittingly repeated what you said below. unless i hear some sort of good justification in the near future, i am going to delete them. the quotes already exist on wikiquote. Acornwithwings 20:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Atheist?

Russell summed himself up, as quoted, as an agnostic. He was a fundamentally anti-religious agnostic, except for the period of "A Free Man's Worship"; but Category:Atheist mathematicians, Category:Atheist philosophers ,Category:Atheist thinkers and activists, and Category:British atheists are excessive and misleading. Septentrionalis 17:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

An Agnostic, in the modern sense of the word, is someone who does at least think one of those "gods" might be real and he/she can't know. Russell clearly states that he does not think any of those to be existent as there is no shred of evidence. But he said that he does not think there in some omnipotent/omniscient being. He said that there might be super-human intelligence somewhere but you will find any atheist admitting to that as well, because atheists never claim to possess ultimate knowledge. The question is, if any god existed, would it have mattered for Russell? And I think the answer to that question is no. --SoWhy Talk 09:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Russell, as I understand him, is only an agnostic in the classical sense: he has a-gnosis ("lack of knowledge") regarding deities. He has described himself as an agnostic in philosophical theory (because he doesn't "know" that gods don't exist, lacking definitive proof that they can't exist), but an atheist for all practical purposes (because he does not believe in any deities, and, indeed, explicitly rejects claims that deities exist). By those standards, almost all atheists are agnostics too, because they don't claim to "know" with certainty that deities don't exist; they merely find it implausible that they do. For further information, see Russell's Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? -Silence 17:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing misleading about the atheist categories. As it has been noted, Russell (for practical and reference purposes) declared nothing wrong about being called an atheist. In fact, he fits the criteria for "Weak atheism", still nothing misleading. Furthermore, category:Atheist mathematicians states atheists or agnostics are being refered to. Canadianism 05:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I see this has been fixed. Calling an agnostic an atheist is misleading. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Labelling anyone either is misleading, as both terms are open to instense subjection. See wiki entries for both ## anon

His self-identification is Rationalist, and he found both terms problematic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it me or does this article not anywhere mention Russell's viewpoint on religion? This seems rather strange for an article about the man who authored 'Why I am not a Christian' and who was a champion of both rationalism and agnosticism. I see that previous page versions did include such a section, has it been vandalised out or is it a conscious decision not to discuss it Billsmith453 (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments section and Summation of Own Life

I have deleted these sections for the reasons myself and others have listed above: the article is very long, the Comments section is basically a laudatory quotes section and belongs (and already exists) in Wikiquote, and the summation of his life violates NPOV. I did this as these issues were brought up many times and there hasn't been much in the way of contestation. Additionally, the article would be more neutral, concise and informative if there were fewer quotes of Russell in the article, but I don't feel qualified to edit these as i have not read much Russell and don't know much about the context of these quotes. It does Russell no service to have a wikipedia article about him that violates NPOV. Acornwithwings 01:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Topics from 2007

m The Principles of Mathematics

this book is linked to four times along the page, and doesn't have an article. is it needed? and more generally, why not merge "writings online" into "selected bibliography"? trespassers william 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ontological Argument

The article seems to suggest that he fully "accepted" it, which I don't think was true. If this wasn't the intent of the section, then it should probably be better explained. --Jammoe 22:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics and race

The quotations in the section Eugenics and race of the article are simply irreconcilable among themselves, in spite of the admirable efforts displayed by the editor.

Let's face the facts: Bertrand Russel was a racist, to the point of advocating birth control targeted only at "coloured races" ("Lecture by the Hon. Bertrand Russell", Birth Control News, vol. 1, no. 8, December 1922, p.2), and to describe the extermination of “negroes” only, all considered (and “apart from questions of humanity” [sic!]), as “undesirable” ([sic!], Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals, 1929).

In the course of time, he partly "softened" his views, partly changed their expression, when, especially after the II World War (Bertrand Russell, New Hopes for a Changing World, London: Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 108), it would not have been “politically” correct” to display such outspoken racist and “eugenetic” views.

Also, probably Bertrand Russel realized that his former unrestrained racist and “eugenetic” views were not much in character with his post-war image of liberal, non-conformist, political agitator.
Miguel de Servet 17:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Miguel de Servet: You say that Russell changes his views after "it would not have been “politically” correct” to display such outspoken racist and “eugenetic” views. " Do you maintain that he changed his views when he did **because** it would have been unpopular not to? If you so maintain, you're committing a fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc.) If you do not so maintain, you're just stating the obvious; yes(I'll assume you're premises), he discarded his racist views after WWII, and after WWII was when racism and "eugenicism" became " 'politically' correct," - therefore Russell discarded his racist views when his racist views became "'politically' incorrect." So which is it? Are you making a bad inference, or is the law of identity just that fascinating? "probably Bertrand Russel realized that his former unrestrained racist and 'eugenetic' views were not much in character with his post-war image of liberal, non-conformist, political agitator." Either you have an inductive proof for this or you intuit it. A (cogent) inductive proof would be interesting. (In coming up with it, you'll have to account for the possibility that Russell actually believed what he said.) An intuition would not be so. But I'll assume what you say is interesting, and I'll consequently be waiting for your cogent inductive proof... Raimm 04:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Judging from chronology alone, it would seem that before 1929 he was unabashedly racist and from at least 1932 he was beginning to rethink that view.--Rob117 05:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not that hard to argue he was just using the language of the times and was commenting on the issues of the times. If those are the best examples, I don't think there is much of a case. --24.57.157.81 04:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe there is anything to face here - to counter the first comment. Russell did not believe that every men is equal, but he was not racist and I don't think the claim is justified looking at the time period and his comments. Here is a passage from Lincoln : "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race..." But still I do not think Lincoln was racist.

So, because of the "time period" they were not racist, no matter what they said or thought? That's very strange.--Fracastorius 09:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln was a supremacist; Bertrand Russell was a supremacist. Eugenics, British imperialism, tropical labor camps, the U.S. civil war, abolition, reconstruction, Western liberalism: all processes & ideologies undertaken by the Anglo-American elite to foster, protect & promulgate the global hegemony of those of European heritage. Hegemony - domination - supremacy. If rendered as such semantically, do any of you care to quibble with these historic truisms? sewot_fred 02:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rande M Sefowt: Your comment is an excellent piece of rhetoric, and it thus seems beautifully written. But like many other excellent pieces of rhetoric which (by their being excellent pieces of rhetoric) seem beautifully written, it has little substance; it contains phrases which (I think) are meaningless. In particular, what in Jove's name does "rendered as such semantically" mean? And what in Hera's is a "historic truism?" Raimm 04:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


As someone mostly ignorant of Russell's work, I am perhaps in a good position to judge the section on race and eugenics as confusing and poorly written. One paragraph in particular (the one with all the ampersands) sounds like a hectoring rant about what an evil racist man Russell was - which is in complete disagreement with the other, more moderate paragraphs which attempt to rationalise the seeming contradictions in his views on other races. I particularly enjoy how the paragraph calls a preceding argument 'wholly ridiculous'. If someone who is knowledgeable on the subject wants to edit it to present in a fair and NPOV the various interpretations of his views on race, that would be very useful. ApathyAndExhaustion 09:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have radically rewritten the section in question. Nothing in the text seriously supports an argument that he favored eugenics; advocating birth control in the third world and expressing concern over population growth does not qualify by any measure. The rest--on racism--is simply bunk, complete and total fabrications hinging on a deliberate misinterpretation of a few key passages in contradiction to Russell's own statements and longstanding views. The only people I know of who take that position at all seriously are extreme fringe groups such as followers of Lyndon Larouche; their views do not belong anywhere in the article. I support reducing the accusations of racism down to a single passage, perhaps a sentence or two, and will do so shortly unless citations from credible commentators accusing him of racism can be produced. We cannot simply say that 'some people' have accused him of racism; we must cite who. If we cannot produce that (or if it is only fringe maniacs such as Larouche), the view does not belong in the article. Interpreting quotes ourselves (or trying to arrange selectively-chosen quotes in order to imply an interpretation) is original research; only interpretations cited to a credible source can be present in the article. --Aquillion 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Influences and Influenced

I have started a discussion regarding the Infobox Philosopher template page concerning the "influences" and "influenced" fields. I am in favor of doing away with them. Please join the discussion there. RJC Talk 14:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal

I have removed the following:

Millions looked up to Russell over the course of his long life, holding him to be a prophet of the creative and rational life; at the same time, his stances on many topics were controversial, and millions more hated him. Both positions may be summarized by the epithet he earned: "Hammer of the Christians"citation needed.

... because it is weaselly and, as long as it remains unsourced, meaningless. The fact of the controversy surrounding him should be stated as such, rather than with such silly unattributed bits of rhetoric like "a prophet of the creative and rational life". The nickname is interesting but again unsourced; Google gives no support to it whatsoever. — Dan | talk 22:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all nonsense. The nickname is made up. --Dannyno 15:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I have nominated this for WP:GA/R due to inadequate referencing. I hope the article gets the attention it deserves during this process to retain its quality rating. Please see discussions at Wikipedia:Good_article_review#Bertrand_Russell. I also hope someone will add an {{ArticleHistory}} template to this page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This article Bertrand Russell seems to be suffering from tag-itis. The number of citation tags etc makes the article look unprofessional.

The article is a good article, but it can and should be improved. The mention of views which were on occasion expressed by Russell and which have been characterized as racist needs to be handled delicately, NPOV, which needs a good editor, not necessarily better references. That Russell lived through most of the century, therefore influencing nearly everyone, and being influenced by many, is beyond dispute, but not necessarily supported by a hundred references. So much work has gone into this article, perhaps some little tidying or freshening is needed? This would be work for experienced editors (much more experienced).

suggestions?--Newbyguesses 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

ps, the thought just occurred to me that the two citations needed in the firstpara could probably be answered with source Russell's last letter, read at a conference on the day after his death. Can't remember where that source is just now? --Newbyguesses 17:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Considering it is in the scope of eight WikiProjects, possibly we could get at least one of them to begin work. Something for the main contributing editor/s of this article to consider. I would leave messages on project pages.
Regards, LaraLoveT/C 18:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Delisted GA status

This article was beyond GA review and, thus, has been speedily delisted. Its current state is no where near GA quality. There needs to be many more references and inline citations for an article of this length and, as a biography, there really needs to be a high standard with those references. Once the quality of this article has been improved, it may be renominated for GA. If it is felt that this decision was made in error, remediation may be requested at WP:GA/R. Regards, LaraLoveT/C 17:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Two citations for a 77k long article is ridiculous, especially for a biographical article!—Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 18:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Error in paragraph Second World War?

After the Second World War, Russell taught at the University of Chicago,

Shouldn't that rather be Before ...? (as I understand other pages about Russell and given that it seems out of place if after is really meant) --84.152.2.218 01:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins influenced by Russell?

The article says that biologist Richard Dawkins is influenced by Bertrand Russell. I don't see the influence philosopher Bertie has on biologist Dawkins. There are plenty people who have undergone more influence of Russell.

Dawkins borrowed the orbiting teapot argument off Russell for a start. If there's a deeper, philosophical, influence the claim should be sourced. --Dannyno 10:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC
I should think that all teapots are orbitting the sun, unless NASA has sent one outside the solar system at vast expense. --Philogo 02:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Dawkins also quotes Russell numerous times in his books, including The God Delusion. h3h (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
That said, almost all modern critics of religion have been influenced by Russell due to his popular and compelling arguments against it. I think a mention of Russell's influence on Dawkins belongs in Richard Dawkins, not here. h3h (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

English or Welsh?

The main article states that he's Welsh, but the categories at the bottom of the page have him in "English Philosophers" and "English anti-communists". So which is it? —77.101.35.67 (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a rather silly attempt to "claim" him for the Welsh. He was born to an aristocratic English family, brought up in England and spent nearly all of his working life in England. He is well known as an English philosopher and there are plenty of references to this. I will change it to British, as a compromise position, but in all honesty I think it should be English. There is more to nationality than simply birthplace. --Archstanton 09:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Change to English, which is his own usage; we've had this before. Even claiming Monnouthshire as Wales in 1872 is eminently disputable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed someone had changed it to Welsh again. Have reverted. --Archstanton 12:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Just stumbled across this thread. Monmouthshire is, and always has been, part of Wales. I understand that Monmouthshire has been referred to differently from the rest of Wales (as in 'Wales and Monmouthshire') because it was part of the Oxford judicial circuit for purely administrative purposes. This and, more thoroughly, this explains much better than I have, why people have been confused about Monmouthshire. And if you're not convinced after that, have a look at the names of Monmouthshire's towns and villages and compare them to placenames in England. Q.E.D. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Please add new comments to the end! The Oxford Judicial Circuit evidence is important, but the placename evidence is essentially irrelevant. There are plenty of Welsh placenames in Shropshire, and there are a fair few English placenames in Wales — we wouldn't want to say that Wrexham is English because its name is. But John Davies is a highly reputable source. That said, a person's birthplace alone does not dictate their nationality. garik (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, place name evidence is irrelevant to Bertram Russell's nationality. I'm not claiming he was Welsh, nor am I claiming he was English. The reason for my post was to correct the misinformation posted, and left without correction, as people reading it might believe it to be true. By the way your contention that "There are plenty of Welsh place names in Shropshire" doesn't seem to agree with Category:Towns in Shropshire - of the 22 towns listed only on has a Welsh name - Clun - and that's named after the river - or Category:Villages in Shropshire - of the near 400 villages listed, only 13 have Welsh names. And all of those are either around Oswestry (well known as an area with a strong Welsh presence) or straddle the border. Yours Daicaregos (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Wales belongs to England. England conquered it. Now Wales has funny little street signs and people trying to relearn a dead language. P.s. I'm American.TCO (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you're an American. You probably know all about British history then. Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your research into, and understanding of, history and linguistics, on the country pages - Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It's not really the place for it here, is it. Yours Daicaregos (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
England, Britain. It's all Limeys. And Scotland and Wales are just parts of it. They're not contries. Do they have their own armies? No.TCO (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls. garik (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Louis Pojman

It's a bit strange to see Louis Pojman referred to in this article as a theologian. Pojman was a philosopher, not a theologian. His academic positions were in philosophy, and his contributions to the field of philosophy are indisputable. I know of no contribution from him to the field of theology. Parableman 17:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Renom

I've replaced the remaining {{fact}} tags with references, and it looks like those and the rest should cover everything. I've put it up for another GA Review, hopefully it'll make it this time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

GA quick fail

This article is obviously very detailed, but currently a user cannot verify any of that detail (there are even uncited direct quotations). Much more of this article needs to be sourced using inline citations or some other form of citation. The editors might take a moment to peruse some of wikipedia's FA biographies, such as Balzac, and some of its other GA biographies, such as W. H. Auden, to get a sense of what is required. Awadewit | talk 03:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

Is it possible that he suffered from Asperger syndrome? —143.117.23.221 (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

All I could find were rather speculative pieces. I found a bit more though on Wittgenstein though. Come to think of it I'm not surprised especially considering the whole Popper/Poker incident.

Exiledone (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

He quite possibly did have Asperger, but you need a good cite before including it in the article.  Randall Bart   Talk  21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Everybody quite possibly has Asperger, and quite possible owns a teapot in orbit round the sun. Not really worth mentioning in everybody's biography though, is it? --Philogo 23:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Minds, Great Thinkers

The page on Bertrand Russel at [1] is nearly word-for-word identical to this entry. I assume it is the one plagarising, rather than the other way round, but I thought you all should knowIsaac Benaron 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Many sites suck up Wikipedia's content, which is freely redistributable under the GFDL license. But thanks for posting! --Lquilter (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I think the article would benefit from a section devoted to criticism of some of his theories. Many Analytic philosophers disagree with some of his theories especially his theories on epistemology. It would also make the article more neutral. Exiledone (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In general, separate criticism sections are not a good idea; a separate section simultaneously ghettoizes and decontextualizes criticism, and serves as a troll magnet. It's far better stylistically and content-wise to embed and contextualize critiques in the appropriate sections. I suggest that you add some material directly to those sections--it would be great to have a bit of information describing the impact & reception & continuing assessment of Russell's contributions to epistemology. --Lquilter (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Topics from 2008

Between the wars, and second marriage

There is a problem in this section which is simple but I don’t know how to solve it and thought someone else could. The problem is in the following text and its link: “Russell's marriage to Dora grew increasingly tenuous, and it reached a breaking point over her having two children with an American journalist, Griffin Barry.“ When you click on the link to Griffin Barry or look Griffin Barry up with the search engine, it goes to the article on Dora Russell. Barry is mentioned near the end of the article but does not seem to have an article of his own.Jgmccue (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Barry has no article of his own right now. The article he originally had was short, and was redirected to Dora Russell, probably due to him being non-notable. I've removed the links to Griffin Barry to avoid the confusion. You may argue to delete the redirect altogether at WP:RFD. –Pomte 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Empiricist-rationalist

The into sentence of this article described Russell as, among other things, a "prominent rationalist." I noticed this didn't completely gel with what I personally have learned (I'm an undergraduate philosophy student) so I ran a quick Google search to see if either the article or myself were off base. The vast majority of online sources describe Russell as something in between[2], such as a "rational empiricist," or even primarily as a logical empiricist (Hjørland, "Journal of documentation," 2005 p. 131) This own article even talks about Russell's own strains of empiricism in the "Logical atomism" section. I realize that the two are not mutually exclusive, but I feel describing Russell solely as a "prominent rationalist" in the first sentence with no empiricist counterbalance is misleading. I've removed the words "prominent rationalist" from the end of the sentence. Thoughts? 134.69.168.154 (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"anti-communist"

User:Smiloid added the "anti-communist" category to this article and Emma Goldman, based on their ultimate opposition to Soviet state Communism. This is a confusion between "communism" and "Communism". The category currently is "anti-communist" -- small c -- denoting opposition to communism as a philosophical and political position. It was historically inaccurate to describe Goldman as anti-communist, although of course she did end up being critical of capital-C Communist. A similar problem exists for use of this category here. It's my understanding that Russell was a socialist, and although opposed to the Soviet state, was not in any sense "anti-communist" (lower-c). I suggest removing the category, but post here for discussion by regular editors first. --Lquilter (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Some socialist are anti-communist. I think Russel was an anti-communist. I will try to find a source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Comments have been moved to Talk:Bertrand Russell/GA Review

-[ Derek.cashman 18:44, 8 April 2008]

Lead

I think this article is very good. However, the lead of the article should be expanded. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Split

I'm proposing to split this article. Creating a new page Philosophy of Bertrand Russel or Philosophical work of Betrand Russel. The first paragraphy in section 2 (Philosophical work) could stay as an intro, but the rest could be moved... Comments:

Done. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is a good idea. While there may not be any other major philosophers with quite as active and varied a public life as Russell had, it's standard for biographies of philosophers to, y'know, feature their philosophical work. I'd like to see what other people think about this split. Moreover, we should certainly include more information on the main page even if we leave the bulk of it on another page. JustinBlank (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not a good idea. His philosophical work should be featured in this biography, not in any other article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It would surely be just nonsense to write an article about a philosopher and a matehhematican without decribing their work. Would we similarly split the "split" the biographies of say Newton, Hitler, Alexander the Great and Beethoven so that their biographies said nothing about their scientific work, political activities, military conquests and music respectively?--Philogo 23:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Good point. The split was done without consensus. Russell is known mainly for his philosophical work. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I've redirected Philosophical work of Bertrand Russell to Bertrand Russell#Philosophical work. The biography is incomplete with his philosophical work. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
What should be done is moving his highly notable philosophical work to its own article, which then ought to be summarized in the biography - just as is done with other philosophers of high renown i.e. Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, Philosophy of Max Stirner. the skomorokh 17:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not thnk we should MOVE this article's "remarks on his highly notable philosophical work" to its own article and substiture a summary here. It is already just a bare summary. If an editor is knowlegable enough about Russell's philosophical work to write a full article then be bold and go for it. The put a link to the new article in this article. --Philogo 02:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

bad photo choice

I hope this is the right venue for sharing this opinion I don't want to edit the article, but would like to suggest that wikipedia consider using a different photo of Russell. There is a universally accepted image of Russell (older, with the unkempt hair) which you are avoiding with that ridiculously early picture. To me, it makes the whole page look laughably esoteric, like an annoying fan who says he stopped paying attention after the band's first album.

Why use that photo? The worst sin you can make, as an encyclopedia, is provide information to new readers that will actually make them look like a fool if they use it. A person who describes Russell with your picture will be laughed at. —99.145.165.198 (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We are basically restricted to using "free" images, i.e. those which have been released with very few restrictions on their use. David Underdown (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
A better picture is further down in the article, but it's a book cover, so it can only be used where the book is discussed, not at the top of the article.  Randall Bart   Talk  21:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
We need to find a better picture. The image of Russell in the infobox is poor. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The first photo shown is a good choice because it shows Russell as he was at the time when he was younger and wrote his most important work. I cannot see why anybody would laugh at that rather than be interested.--Philogo 23:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where else to put this comment, so I'll put it here. Russel's picture needs to seriously be changed. He SHOULD NOT be looking like a man from the 1880s, when there are other, better pictures of him suavely in his older years without that ridiculous mustache. I demand there be put up a more contemporary photo of Bertrand where he a) he has no mustache, b) he has white, gray hair, and c) he is smoking a pipe. This will give wikipedia, which is somewhat the point of wikipedia, a more use-friendly feel to Russel. Thank you. —131.212.128.99 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving this comment to a new section. garik (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I heartily agree with our anonymous colleague. Any chance of a free photo? the skomorokh 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should stay for the sake of female Wikipedia readers. It's painful to think there are people out there who are anti-mustache. He looks quite handsome and sophisticated. Erudecorp ? * 23:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should stay because it is a less common photo and taken nearer the time when he was doing his most important philosophical work. I feel the saem about Einstein really, we keep seeing that silly cliche photo of him sticking a tongue out at the press. Boring and predicatble! I agree he looks handsome and sophisticated, which is only right and proper because he was. --Philogo 01:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving the more recent photo comments to this paragraph because there seems no good reason to have more than on paragraph on this same topic. --Philogo 02:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hero??

P O V!! The article really sounds like a fan letter... i didn't think such a whitewash could last so long on this site. How can someone who postulates such thing as these...

The Society of Experts and the Oblivious Masses

“The society of experts which I am imagining will embrace all eminent men of science except a few wrong-headed and anarchical cranks. It will possess the sole up-to-date armaments, and will be the repository of all new secrets in the art of war. There will, therefore, be no more war, since resistance by the unscientific will be doomed to obvious failure. The society of experts will control propaganda and education. It will teach loyalty to the world government, and make nationalism high treason. The government, being an oligarchy, will instil submissiveness into the great bulk of the population, confining initiative and the habit of command to its own members. It is possible that it may invent ingenious ways of concealing its own power, leaving the forms of democracy intact, and allowing the plutocrats to imagine that they are cleverly controlling these forms. Gradually, however, as the plutocrats become stupid through laziness, they will lose their wealth; it will pass more and more into public ownership and be controlled by the government of experts. Thus, whatever the outward forms may be, all real power will come to be concentrated in the hands of those who understand the art of scientific manipulation.” -236

This idea of concealing the real power structure from the masses was later described by Bertrand Russell in his book The Impact of Science on Society[2] (1952):

“Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen [...]” - 41

...someone who thinks that.. be regarded as humanitarian and freethinking?? And then go on to postulate that he is somehow Anti-communist, Anti-Hitler, and Anti-Stalin?? The ideas he champions are the blueprints for every textbook dictatorship set up in the history of civilization! —66.235.86.73 (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fellowship of Trinity College?

I'm pretty sure that Russell did not hold a fellowship at the time of his anti-war activities and therefore could not be deprived of it: I don't have the sources by me but am changing it to "position" until someone can check. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad mistakes

I quote: "What is certain is that in 1901 Russell's own reflections on the issues raised by the paradox that takes his name Russell's Paradox, formalised 30 years later by Kurt Gödel's 'Undecidability' Theorems, led him to doubt the certainty of mathematics. This doubt was perhaps Russell's most important 'influence' on mathematics, and was spread throughout the European universities, even as Russell himself laboured (with Alfred North Whitehead) in a futile attempt to solve the Paradox."

Almost everything is wrong here; the complete lack of competence of the author is testified by the mere claim that Russell's Paradox was formalized "30 years later by Kurt Gödel's 'Undecidability' Theorems". This is in fact a trivial mistake, it's actually a pack of mistakes. However, the following claims are much worse. The claims about the alleged doubts on the certainty of mathematics and the alleged "futility" of the attempt to solve the Paradox are unbelievable. No decent student or honest beginner could say anything like that. What could I say. Just go and study, read a bit. Mainly, do not use Wikipedia as a chair for pretending to teach subjects which you don't have the least idea of. Articles like this are simply harmful. Why does the people in Wikipedia not simply ask some competent scholar (but even an average teacher would do much better than the author of this stuff) to write down a draft, or to correct this one? As an alternative, why don't you ask, say, Stanford Encyclopedia for a permission to publish an abridged version of their articles? That would be ---- honest. -[ 151.16.54.236 17:24, 30 October 2008]

  • 11-Nov-2008: It took me a few days to check the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) and analyze the above remarks. Perhaps the Wikipedia (WP) article has some unsourced opinions, but the Stanford Encyc. articles for Russell & Wittgenstein were also crammed with tons of opinions in them. Neither of those articles would work on WP because they are far too narrow: it's the "Stanford Encyc. of Philosophy" only, and not biographies of 4 marriages and protest marches. Because Wikipedia covers everything, the WP article on Russell is 10x to 100x times more information than the SEP. As for the Stanford Encyc. on "Wittgenstein" (uber-famous guy) - that article was a bunch of opinions with very few quotes from Wittgy or his reviewers having "conundrums" about his "covering all by being silent about the rest" and other stuff typically said by a smart-alec word prankster. I would hope an article on Wittgy would quote notable people saying he played word-games trolling philosophers during his "troll period" (or such), but don't even let Stanford Encyc. try to tell intelligent people that "Wittgy was the greatest" without attempting to quote sources that Wittgy tried punking the world, when realists were "educating" philosophers that time slows down in a strong gravitational field, and atomic clocks on airplanes flying east ran 59 nanoseconds slower than clocks on Earth, etc. And, I wouldn't blame Wittgy going bonkers about time dilation or computers injected via needles: no single person fully understands all that. Bottom line: the Einstein/Bohr revelations by 1922 had made "philosophers" obsolete unless they spoke tensor calculus (etc.) to model reality: the English language could no longer represent truth about Life, the universe, and everything. So let's update the Wikipedia "Russell" & Wittgy articles about tensor calculus, which Stanford Encyc. of Philosophy probably won't cover. Thus, WP will not benefit by getting all article content from the Stanford Encyc. (which seems 10x to 100x more narrow than WP). -Wikid77 (talk)

I am not sure this is the right place for posting this comment; I apologize for being unfamiliar with Wikipedia discussions. Wikid77's remarks above are straight unbelievable. I do hope that her or his stuff is read by someone who knows something about the topics she or he frantically touches upon. If you are one who is responsible for Wikipedia's reliability, please, please give this stuff to read to anyone who has a basic knowledge about Russell's thought -- there are plenty of university teachers who would be happy to contribute a comment. Sure, biography is not merely intellectual biography. But this does not give a biographer a right to make enormous mistakes. For example, someone should tell Wikid77 that Russell's paradox has nothing to do with Goedel's 1931 proof. This is not a matter of "unsourced opinions"! It is an elementary mistake that no student in logic would make. I find it incredible -- and a bit disquieting -- that nothing is said about Russell in Wikid's reply, but a lot is said by her or him about Wittgenstein; a mass of incongruous data none of which is to the point. I have studied Wittgenstein during much of my life, taught Wittgenstein courses for several years, published several books and papers etc. This is not to boast, only to plead my case. Wikid's stuff on Wittgenstein shocked me as entirely inconsistent and conceited. I warmly recommend that everything he or she contributed to the article on Russell be seriously revised by competent readers.

Analytical Philosophy

If user(s) 134.226.1.229 at Trinity College Dublin doubts that Russell was a founder of what came to be called Analytic philosophy, please read the article Analytic philosophy and relevannt sources and then take the debate up on its talk page. Note 134.226.1.229 has had many warning about vandalism. --Philogo 01:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Improving this article

Please read Talk:Bertrand Russell/GA Review where there are number of suggestions and criticisms that could be usefully pursued. So fas as I can see they do not include changing the photo. --Philogo 02:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Verbosity

Quote:

First, it is way too long, and the writing and prose is very verbose and could be pruned and paraphrased in a lot of ways to shorten the article.

Talk:Bertrand Russell/GA Review: [emphasis added]

I consider the following an example of the verbosity which make this article painful to read (like an essay padded out to acheive the requiried number of lines for a term paper:

Perhaps Russell's most systematic, metaphysical treatment of philosophical analysis and his empiricist-centric logicism is evident in what he called Logical Atomism, which is explicated in a set of