Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bertrand Russell: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:24, 10 September 2024 editMartinevans123 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers233,117 edits Short description: add← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:06, 28 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,767 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Bertrand Russell/Archive 4) (bot 
(17 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 49: Line 49:
| minthreadsleft = 4 | minthreadsleft = 4
}} }}

== I am sure his ignorant antisemitism is mentioned somewhere ... ==
... but I can't find it. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Lead section ==

The lead section was recently trimmed with the edit summary "Because these are the areas that he is most well-known of. Don't dilute the focus of the article with so many qualifiers". I'm not sure some of the key areas of Russell's work can simply be discarded from the lead so easily. What do other editors think? Thanks ] (]) 15:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

:The relevant policy is in ], and for convenience, I will quote the parts I like best here, though most of you are already familiar with this:
:{{blockquote|text=The average Misplaced Pages visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.}}
:{{blockquote|text=The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.}}
:Let's look at some of the wikilinks trimmed in turn.
:Logic: Russell's co-authorship of ''Principia Mathematica'' is discussed in the Early Career section, so it can certainly be mentioned in the lead paragraphs, even in the first paragraph. I would draw your attention, however, to the fact that "logic" appeared twice in the first paragraph and four times in the second paragraph before the trim. Could this be rewritten to be less repetitious?
:Set theory: ] is discussed in the Early career section, so it can certainly be mentioned in the lead paragraphs, even in the first paragraph. In the Early career section, could it clarify things to rearrange the text to explicitly call Russell's paradox a set-theoretic paradox?
:Artificial intelligence: This field of study is not mentioned anywhere in this article. Thus, it is certainly a no-no to mention it in the lead paragraphs, let alone in the first paragraph.
:Computer science: This field of study is mentioned in only one place in the article, in the See Also section. As with artificial intelligence, we cannot bring up computer science in the lead paragraphs until and unless we have established in the body of the article that Russell made an acknowledged contribution to computer science. By the way, I have to be skeptical of the entry for Russell in ], as it does not cite any sources. Even if (for example) type systems were described in Principia Mathematica, and type systems are used in computer science, it is ] to infer from these two facts that Russell made a contribution to computer science. For us to state that, we must have a ] stating that Russell made an acknowledged contribution to computer science.
:Cognitive science: Same as with Artificial intelligence.
:You get the idea? The first paragraph is not the place to make unsubstantiated claims about Russell. Everything in the lead paragraphs has to be substantiated, with cited sources, in the main body of the article; and everything in the ''first'' paragraph in particular, has in addition to be crucial to the article, as it may be the only thing someone reads when they (first) visit this article. ] (]) 03:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for that critique. I was expecting a reply from ]. Perhaps a slightly longer edit summary might have helped? ] (]) 08:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::So do you think any of those should be replaced in the first paragraph? Thanks. ] (]) 19:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
:::The bold thing for me to do would have been to just add back logic and set theory, and maybe one or more of the branches of philosophy (I haven't looked at them more closely). But I am not a Russell expert, and I wanted to see if other editors would want to argue about this, and also, I have been kind of busy in real life, so I held off. But I will get to it by and by, unless somebody gets there first. ] (]) 03:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
::::I added back logic and set theory, but removed linguistics and cognitive science. Regarding the branches of analytic philosopy, it looks to me from the cited source that he indeed made contributions in these branches, but we have to provide more explicit support for that in the sections about his career, before we can bring them up in the first paragraph. Note, by the way, that the cited source is an encyclopedia (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). We aren't supposed to be citing other encyclopedias, since we ourselves are an encyclopedia; we should be using secondary sources. ] (]) 04:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::Nitpick: other ] are most often used in situations adjacent to this one, i.e. when weighing the ] of different points. ]] 04:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


== Russell and appeasement == == Russell and appeasement ==
Line 92: Line 69:


:Also, regrading your recent edit . I assume that terms are supposed to be linked at their first appearance in an article? Is this not the case? Many thanks. ] (]) 15:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC) :Also, regrading your recent edit . I assume that terms are supposed to be linked at their first appearance in an article? Is this not the case? Many thanks. ] (]) 15:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::Might I suggest spending some time and perhaps ] as well, and I recommend reading the article about the logician ], his analytical reasoning ideas should definitely help. ] (]) 16:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::How about just answering the questions in my two edit summaries, before slapping an "edit warring" warning at my Talk page? Thanks. ] (]) 16:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Only if you tell me how any of the above improves this article about Bertrand Russell on Misplaced Pages.org for anyone on the World Wide Web who seeks information about the philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell? ] (]) 16:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::It isn't reasonable to expect editors to search through the edit history of an article in order to start or contribute to a discussion. I have searched edit histories myself, but it is thankless work with paltry rewards. Thanks, therefore, for bringing this argument to the talk page, and please write appropriate descriptions of your reasoning, rather than just waving your hands at the edit summary.
:::::I will try to contribute to this discussion myself, but I may be delayed by "real life". ] (]) 16:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::It is very reasonable to expect editors to search through the edit history of an article when they are making multiple reverts on well explained edits. This user felt the need to start this discussion only after I reverted their revert, and they had prior to that reverted multiple appropriately summarised edits. ] (]) 17:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::], I today reverted just two of your edits, on different things, once each. And you immediately came to my Talk page and accused me of being in an "edit war"? My last previous edits here were on 13 February 2024‎. ] (]) 17:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I am not making multiple reverts on well explained edits. I only want to get, and give, advice on the use of wikilinks and on the short description for this article. If you want my sympathy or assistance, you'll have to explain to me what you have in mind. ] (]) 19:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to say something constructive to get a discussion started. I will be traveling for a while and unable to follow up on this.

] does not say that the short description has to "reflect the opening sentence of the article", or even that it should do so. The main requirement is that it be short. A rough-and-ready test for adequate shortness, for the existing version of the article, is to get into the search box and type "Bertra". A list of articles whose names begin with that will appear, along with their short descriptions. If the short description of an article gets truncated on this list, it's too long. As I write this, the short description of ] is OK, but the short description of ] is getting truncated, so it's too long. Now you know.

Probably "British philosopher, mathematician and logician (1872-1970)" will make it under the wire, just barely, but I don't see anything wrong with "British philosopher and logician (1872-1970)", either. For readers who actually need a short description, e.g. to distinguish Russell from some other person with a similar name, it will be fine.

Regarding wikilinks, I have made many edits where I cited ], but I realize it is a slippery thing, and so I have gotten lazy about that. My own feeling about ], ], and ] is that they fall under the category of "common occupations", mentioned in ], and therefore they should not be linked. I note, by the way, that ] redirects to ], so linking to both of them qualifies as ], I would think. ] doesn't have a category for fields of study, such as ], ], and ], but I think that the first two should not be linked, either, because really, doesn't everybody think that they know what mathematics and logic are?

The larger problem is that the whole first paragraph is a dud. A dry recitation of one-word descriptions of Russell's occupations and fields of study does not tell the reader why he was notable, and does not describe anything he did that was notable. The lead paragraphs generally, and the first paragraph in particular, and especially the first sentence, are supposed to (a) tell the reader what is notable about the subject, and (b) get the reader's interest. Instead the first paragraph is a cure for insomnia. It should specifically mention the things that are currently mentioned in the second paragraph.

By the way, I am surprised that the lead paragraphs do not mention '']''. ] (]) 02:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

:Many thanks for your explanation and suggestions. I agree we should centre any discussion on ] and ]. You are right, it doesn't say that it has to "reflect the opening sentence of the article", or even that it should do so. Perhaps it's just my experience that in most cases it usually does. Yes, the main requirement is for it to be short. But I don't think it's a case of "the shorter the better". The template says "{{tq|This should be limited to about 40 characters}}". It seems the best course of action would be to first agree what's in the first paragraph. I also agree that the lead paragraphs should mention '']''. Hope you enjoy your travels. ] (]) 07:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::The purpose of a short description is to aid readers in navigation by <em>disambiguating</em> each article's subject as briefly and naturally as possible. This is naturally distinct from the purpose of an article's introductory sentence, which generally hews closer to beginning a definition of the article's subject. In this instance, both versions discussed seem perfectly suited for the task. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 08:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, ] says this: "{{tq|The '''short description''' of a Misplaced Pages article or of another namespace page is a concise explanation of the scope of the page. These descriptions appear in Misplaced Pages mobile and some desktop searches, and help users identify the desired article. When viewing an article, some mobile ] also display the description below the page title.}}" ] (]) 08:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:::So I really don't know what was so desperately wrong with the original. Or why my reverts were deemed "reckless". It seems we're not allowed to describe him as a "mathematician" in the short description, as that's covered by "logician". But we can still describe him as a "mathematician" in the opening sentence. I'm obviously having a problem with the logic here. ] (]) 19:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

== Needed new photo ==

Since we abruptly lost our infobox image, I picked a new one, but I pressed the wrong button and didn't leave so much as an edit summary. I picked this one because it looked OK, but if there is one that is better-known or just better, don't let me stop you from dropping it in there instead. ] (]) 19:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:06, 28 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bertrand Russell article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Former good articleBertrand 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 2, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 19, 2005Good article nomineeListed
May 25, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 28, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
April 8, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
More information:
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject iconLinguistics: Theoretical Linguistics / Philosophy of language Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Philosophers / Metaphysics / Epistemology / Logic / Social and political / Science / Language / Analytic / Contemporary High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Philosophers
Taskforce icon
Metaphysics
Taskforce icon
Epistemology
Taskforce icon
Logic
Taskforce icon
Social and political philosophy
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of science
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of language
Taskforce icon
Analytic philosophy
Taskforce icon
Contemporary philosophy
WikiProject iconMathematics Top‑priority
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
TopThis article has been rated as Top-priority on the project's priority scale.
WikiProject iconBiography: Peerage and Baronetage / Science and Academia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconChicago Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCalifornia: Los Angeles Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconAtheism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information and how you can help, click the link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity


To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Be consistent

  • Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
  • Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
  • Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Articles to improve

Create

  • Articles on notable atheists


Expand

Immediate attention

  • State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
  • False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
  • Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
  • Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.
WikiProject iconSociology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSocialism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Section sizes
Section size for Bertrand Russell (35 sections)
Section name Byte
count
Section
total
(Top) 12,150 12,150
Biography 14 90,960
Early life and background 5,575 5,575
Childhood and adolescence 7,455 7,455
Education 1,434 1,434
Early career 5,805 5,805
First World War 7,132 7,132
G. H. Hardy on the Trinity controversy 2,633 2,633
Between the wars 12,778 12,778
Second World War 5,794 5,794
Later life 14,117 14,117
Political causes 12,891 12,891
Final years, death and legacy 9,861 15,332
Marriages and issue 5,471 5,471
Titles, awards and honours 540 3,036
Honours and Awards 552 552
Scholastic 1,944 1,944
Views 40 21,036
Philosophy 3,264 3,264
Religion 2,311 2,311
Society 10,956 10,956
Freedom of opinion and expression 819 819
Education 3,646 3,646
Selected works 16,812 16,812
See also 489 489
Notes 26 26
References 185 1,117
Citations 29 29
General and cited sources 34 903
Primary sources 486 486
Secondary sources 383 383
Further reading 302 3,557
Books about Russell's philosophy 1,307 1,307
Biographical books 1,948 1,948
External links 6,432 6,432
Total 155,615 155,615



Archives

1, 2, 3, 4



This page has archives. Sections older than 183 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Russell and appeasement

In the article if says "and initially supported appeasement against Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, before changing his view in 1943" but elsewhere it says "In 1940, he changed his appeasement view that avoiding a full-scale world war was more important than defeating Hitler. He concluded that Adolf Hitler taking over all of Europe would be a permanent threat to democracy. In 1943, he adopted a stance toward large-scale warfare called "relative political pacifism": "War was always a great evil, but in some particularly extreme circumstances, it may be the lesser of two evils."" and on the article 'Russell's political views' it says "he supported the policy of appeasement; but by 1940 he acknowledged that to preserve democracy, Hitler had to be defeated. This same reluctant value compromise was shared by his acquaintance A.A. Milne.". It seems to be the consensus on the literature published about Russell by routledge that such changes happened in 1940, yet it is not described as such in the initial quote. 129.234.0.182 (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggest changing to: ".. initially supported appeasement against Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, before changing his view in 1940, and refining it again in 1943." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Languages

Russell spoke German (he expected his conversation with Vladimir Lenin to be in German rather than English). I don't know where to add this information to the page.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TK9c-caEcw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:867:5F90:6BE8:18EA:D818:5BC3 (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps in "Education"? Do you have any better source(s)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Short description

AradhanaChatterjee, I wonder could you offer a response about your recent edits to the short description? I had assumed that, in general, the short description should reflect the opening sentence of the article. Is there any reason why this should not apply here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, regrading your recent edit here. I assume that terms are supposed to be linked at their first appearance in an article? Is this not the case? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Might I suggest spending some time here and perhaps this page as well, and I recommend reading the article about the logician Bertrand Russell, his analytical reasoning ideas should definitely help. AradhanaChatterjee (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
How about just answering the questions in my two edit summaries, before slapping an "edit warring" warning at my Talk page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Only if you tell me how any of the above improves this article about Bertrand Russell on Misplaced Pages.org for anyone on the World Wide Web who seeks information about the philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell? AradhanaChatterjee (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
It isn't reasonable to expect editors to search through the edit history of an article in order to start or contribute to a discussion. I have searched edit histories myself, but it is thankless work with paltry rewards. Thanks, therefore, for bringing this argument to the talk page, and please write appropriate descriptions of your reasoning, rather than just waving your hands at the edit summary.
I will try to contribute to this discussion myself, but I may be delayed by "real life". Bruce leverett (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
It is very reasonable to expect editors to search through the edit history of an article when they are making multiple reverts on well explained edits. This user felt the need to start this discussion only after I reverted their revert, and they had prior to that reverted multiple appropriately summarised edits. AradhanaChatterjee (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
AradhanaChatterjee, I today reverted just two of your edits, on different things, once each. And you immediately came to my Talk page and accused me of being in an "edit war"? My last previous edits here were on 13 February 2024‎. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I am not making multiple reverts on well explained edits. I only want to get, and give, advice on the use of wikilinks and on the short description for this article. If you want my sympathy or assistance, you'll have to explain to me what you have in mind. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to say something constructive to get a discussion started. I will be traveling for a while and unable to follow up on this.

WP:Short description does not say that the short description has to "reflect the opening sentence of the article", or even that it should do so. The main requirement is that it be short. A rough-and-ready test for adequate shortness, for the existing version of the article, is to get into the search box and type "Bertra". A list of articles whose names begin with that will appear, along with their short descriptions. If the short description of an article gets truncated on this list, it's too long. As I write this, the short description of Bertrand Russell is OK, but the short description of Bertrand Russell's philosophical views is getting truncated, so it's too long. Now you know.

Probably "British philosopher, mathematician and logician (1872-1970)" will make it under the wire, just barely, but I don't see anything wrong with "British philosopher and logician (1872-1970)", either. For readers who actually need a short description, e.g. to distinguish Russell from some other person with a similar name, it will be fine.

Regarding wikilinks, I have made many edits where I cited MOS:OVERLINK, but I realize it is a slippery thing, and so I have gotten lazy about that. My own feeling about mathematician, logician, and philosopher is that they fall under the category of "common occupations", mentioned in MOS:OVERLINK, and therefore they should not be linked. I note, by the way, that logician redirects to logic, so linking to both of them qualifies as MOS:REPEATLINK, I would think. MOS:OVERLINK doesn't have a category for fields of study, such as mathematics, logic, and set theory, but I think that the first two should not be linked, either, because really, doesn't everybody think that they know what mathematics and logic are?

The larger problem is that the whole first paragraph is a dud. A dry recitation of one-word descriptions of Russell's occupations and fields of study does not tell the reader why he was notable, and does not describe anything he did that was notable. The lead paragraphs generally, and the first paragraph in particular, and especially the first sentence, are supposed to (a) tell the reader what is notable about the subject, and (b) get the reader's interest. Instead the first paragraph is a cure for insomnia. It should specifically mention the things that are currently mentioned in the second paragraph.

By the way, I am surprised that the lead paragraphs do not mention A History of Western Philosophy. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for your explanation and suggestions. I agree we should centre any discussion on Template:Short description and Misplaced Pages:Short description. You are right, it doesn't say that it has to "reflect the opening sentence of the article", or even that it should do so. Perhaps it's just my experience that in most cases it usually does. Yes, the main requirement is for it to be short. But I don't think it's a case of "the shorter the better". The template says "This should be limited to about 40 characters". It seems the best course of action would be to first agree what's in the first paragraph. I also agree that the lead paragraphs should mention A History of Western Philosophy. Hope you enjoy your travels. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of a short description is to aid readers in navigation by disambiguating each article's subject as briefly and naturally as possible. This is naturally distinct from the purpose of an article's introductory sentence, which generally hews closer to beginning a definition of the article's subject. In this instance, both versions discussed seem perfectly suited for the task. Remsense ‥  08:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, WP:SDESC says this: "The short description of a Misplaced Pages article or of another namespace page is a concise explanation of the scope of the page. These descriptions appear in Misplaced Pages mobile and some desktop searches, and help users identify the desired article. When viewing an article, some mobile Misplaced Pages apps also display the description below the page title." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
So I really don't know what was so desperately wrong with the original. Or why my reverts were deemed "reckless". It seems we're not allowed to describe him as a "mathematician" in the short description, as that's covered by "logician". But we can still describe him as a "mathematician" in the opening sentence. I'm obviously having a problem with the logic here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Needed new photo

Since we abruptly lost our infobox image, I picked a new one, but I pressed the wrong button and didn't leave so much as an edit summary. I picked this one because it looked OK, but if there is one that is better-known or just better, don't let me stop you from dropping it in there instead. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: