Revision as of 18:20, 22 October 2004 editStratofortress (talk | contribs)58 edits →/* Liberal or Democratic Socialist?: */← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:06, 28 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,445 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Bertrand Russell/Archive 4) (botNext edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header |noarchive=yes |search=no}} | |||
--- | |||
{{Article history|action1=FAC | |||
I've been trying to dig up information about Russell's views on eugenics. It's hard because to a non-native english speaker like myself it can be very hard to see if he is using some subtle sort of british irony (in other cases he certainly does, but I'm not so sure about eugenics). Look at this: | |||
|action1date=July 2, 2005 | |||
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Bertrand_Russell/archive1 | |||
|action1result=Failed | |||
|action1oldid=18958978 | |||
|action2=GAN | |||
|action2date=December 19, 2005 | |||
|action2result=listed | |||
|action2oldid=31826256 | |||
|action3=GAR | |||
|action3date=May 25, 2007 | |||
|action3result=delisted | |||
|action3oldid=133362606 | |||
|action4=GAN | |||
|action4date=October 28, 2007 | |||
|action4result=failed | |||
|action4oldid=167531485 | |||
|action5=GAN | |||
|action5date=April 8, 2008 | |||
|action5link=Talk:Bertrand Russell/GA Review | |||
|action5result=failed | |||
|action5oldid=204269208 | |||
|currentstatus=DGA | |||
|topic=philrelig | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|listas=Russell, Bertrand|vital=yes|living=no|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=High|auto=inherit|needs-infobox=no|needs-picture=no}} | |||
{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=Mid|theoretical=yes|philosophy=yes|needs-image=no}} | |||
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|philosopher=yes|analytic=yes|logic=yes|language=yes|epistemology=yes|metaphysics=yes|social=yes|science=yes|contemporary=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject Mathematics|priority = Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=High|peerage-work-group=yes|peerage-priority=High|needs-infobox=no|needs-image=no}} | |||
{{WikiProject Chicago|importance=Low|needs-infobox=no}} | |||
{{WikiProject California|importance=Low|la=yes|la-importance=Low|needs-infobox=no}} | |||
{{WikiProject Atheism|importance=High}} | |||
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=High|needs-infobox=no}} | |||
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=high}} | |||
}} | |||
{{section sizes}} | |||
{{annual readership}} | |||
"Passing from quantity to quality of population, we come to the question of eugenics. We may perhaps assume that, if people grow less superstitious, government will acquire the right to sterilize those who are not considered desirable as parents. This power will be used, at first, to diminish imbecility, a most desirable object. But probably, in time, opposition to the government will be taken to prove imbecility, so that rebels of all kinds will be sterilized. Epileptics, consumptives, dipsomaniacs and so on will gradually be included; in the end, there will be a tendency to include all who fail to pass the usual school examinations. The result will be to increase the average intelligence; in the long run, it may be greatly increased. But probably the effect upon really exceptional intelligence will be bad. Mr. Micawber, who was Dickens's father, would hardly have been regarded as a desirable parent. How many imbeciles ought to outweigh one Dickens I do not profess to know." | |||
{{Archives |auto=short |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=6 |units=months}} | |||
to ward off accusations that I'm quoting out of context, the source is | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
Although he elsewhere in the text says that he views eugenics as an inexact science, if he did support it, in principle or in practice, I think it's important enough that it should be mentioned in this article. | |||
| algo = old(183d) | |||
| archive = Talk:Bertrand Russell/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| counter = 4 | |||
| maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
}} | |||
== 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. ] (]) 10:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:This sounds like an argument against eugenics, not for it. He does say that "reducing imbecility" is desireable, but I do not think this is meant to imply that eugenics would be a legitimate means to that end, merely that it would be good if there were (for whatever reason) less stupid people. The rest of the quote merely states Russel's opinion that eugenics would probably be somewhat successful in increasing average intelligence; again, this does not imply that he supports eugenics. Given that Russel strongly supported the right of people to criticise their governments, it seems unlikely that he would have supported eugenics if he thought that "in time, opposition to the government will be taken to prove imbecility". ] 19:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
:Suggest changing to: "{{tq|.. initially supported appeasement against Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, before changing his view in 1940, and refining it again in 1943.}}" ] (]) 10:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Languages == | |||
Just explaining what I did for the benefit of people who worked on this: | |||
# Moved links out of the body of the text, into the links section. We should not use links to supply content that we will ourselves have (someday). Please put external links in link sections. | |||
# Bolded text that needed to be bolded. | |||
# Added a few hyperlinks (more are needed). | |||
# Removed the extra title from within the article. The convention we've been following has been to let the article title be what's at the top of the page, then restate (if necessary, more completely) the title in bold, as part of a sentence. | |||
# Noted a few places where there are huge gaps, lest anyone think that we're done here. :-) | |||
# Reworded the statement of Russell's importance to emphasize his achievements in philosophy and logic. He was a famous popularizer of philosophy, but he was not a political philosopher. Among philosophers he was best known for his writings on logic, metaphysics, epistemology, and other technical aspects of philosophy. | |||
# General copyediting. | |||
# Removed picture of Russell. This was taken from someone else's server. We don't want to use their bandwidth. We should soon have a picture-uploading function. | |||
--] | |||
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. | |||
---- | |||
Did Russells' mother and father really die when he was young? This doesn't fit in | |||
with the accounts of his somewhat unorthodox sexual practices as a young man, which I thought I'd read in a biography (possibly auto-biography). It'd be good to get the facts verified. | |||
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TK9c-caEcw <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
] | |||
:Perhaps in "Education"? Do you have any better source(s)? Thanks. ] (]) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
: He was 2 years old when his mother died and 4 years old when his father died. -- ] 01:44 Nov 20, 2002 (UTC) | |||
== Short description == | |||
], 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. ] (]) 14:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
Russell pissed off T.S. Eliot because he was responsible for the sexual awakening of his wife, who was always frigid with her husband but not with smooth-talking Russell. Their affair should get a mention. Anyone else want to cover it or shall I? ] 17:56, 23 Sep 2003 (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) | |||
Misplaced Pages naming conventions seem to suggest that such an article ought to be entitled "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell": see ] for further discussion. - ] 23:49, Jan 4, 2004 (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. | |||
: I really don't want to be rude, but I really do think retitling every article whose subject has a peerage strikes me as an inordinate waste of effort. I don't think the article will be worse for the change you suggest, but it certainly won't be any better. -- ] 23:59, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
] 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. | |||
: One finds that consistency is always a fine goal to aim for, and at present, there is no consistency whatsoever in the titles of articles on peers. Indeed, it would appear that the article might not be better, but, whereas consistency will have been provided, the entire group of articles on peers would have been significantly improved. -- ] 01:58, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
::There are cases where the person is better known without the peerage, this being one of them (to me, anyway). Redirecting 3rd Earl Russell here would work, though. ] 21:32, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
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? | |||
::I agree that this is an article where the title is not needed behind his name. Bertrand Russell was already famous before he became an Earl. As the article notes, he was seldom known by the title. My opinion is that the article is better placed at "Bertrand Russell". -- ] 22:18, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
So that your views on the matter could be considered, please consider adding your comments to ], where the idea that all articles whose subjects are peers should have the peerage listed in the title is being discussed. -- ] 01:36, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC) | |||
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) | |||
==Advocate of social engineering?== | |||
::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"> ‥ </span>]</span> 08:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
The following text in the article: | |||
:::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 == | |||
:Politically he envisioned a kind of benevolent democratic socialism. He was extremely critical of the totalitarianism exhibited by Stalin's regime. But perhaps paradoxically, he was also an early advocate of social engineering: | |||
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) | |||
is followed by a quote which is clearly critical of social engineering, and seems to be a rather astute anticipation of the increased importance of propaganda in government control of the public (or more generally, control of the lower classes by the upper classes). Either the quote should be replaced with one which actually suggests that Russell was in favour of social engineering, or this paragraph should be removed. What does everyone else think? ] 11:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
: No comments on this, so I'm removing the paragraph. ] 15:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
==Name== | |||
This is the only page for a ] (who was not formerly a ]) that doesn't include the peerage in his/her name... ] 23:48, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC) | |||
:It's because he's never referred to by his peerage (especially as he only inherited it at the end of his life). I know the suggestion on ] is that only first holders should be excepted, but ] makes an exception for "individuals received hereditary peerages after retiring from the post of Prime Minister, or for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names", the latter part of which certainly applies here. There are other examples of peerages not being used in titles because they were only inherited at the end of someone's life and are never used to refer to them, like ] (not ]), ] (not ]) and ] (not ]). ] ] 11:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
== Add book == | |||
There should definitely be a mention of the History of Western Philosophy, which remains an important work to this day | |||
== Liberal or Democratic Socialist? == | |||
... was one of the most influential mathematicians, philosophers and logicians working (mostly) in the 20th century, an important '''political liberal''', activist and a populariser of philosophy | |||
Politically he envisioned a kind of benevolent '''democratic socialism''' | |||
So, what was his political affiliation? | |||
: What do you mean? Being a liberal (in the general sense of the word) and being a socialist are not incompatible. In any case, it's obviously not possible to reduce anybody's political affilitation to a couple of words. ] 18:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
== /* Liberal or Democratic Socialist? */ == | |||
Liberalism is diametrically opposed to collectivist, and socialism is by definition collectivism. | |||
:Liberalism isn't diametrically opposed to all non-market economic systems (e.g. free association/cooperation, as in anarcho-syndicalism), unless you take liberalism to refer to one particular political dogma instead of a broad range of views. Obviously economic coercion is generally illiberal, but not all socialist/collectivist ideologies are based on coercion or central organization. ] 19:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
First, I employ the term "liberal" in the sense attached to it every-where in the nineteenth century and still today in the countries of continental Europe. This usage is imperative because there is simply no other term available to signify the great political and intellectual movement that substituted free enterprise and the market economy for the precapitalistic methods of production; constitutional representative government for the absolutism of kings or oligarchies; and freedom of all individuals for slavery, serfdom, and other forms of bondage. | |||
Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, | |||
Introduction to the 3rd Edition | |||
:That's hardly an incontestible definition of liberal. Russell may not have been in favour of a free market, but in every other sense he was a liberal, both in the sense of classical liberalism and modern liberalism (whatever that is exactly). It's been common since the 19th century to associate liberalism with the free market, but it's not really a fundamental part of it. Indeed, there's also a liberal tradition which argues against wage slavery, etc. (see for example ], ], ]). ] 22:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
"I have been an active, consistent and absolute free trader, and an opponent of all schemes that would limit the freedom of the individual. I have been a stancher denier of the assumption of the right of society to the possessions of each member, and a clearer and more resolute upholder of the rights of property than has Mr. Spencer. I have opposed every proposition to help the poor at the expense of the rich. I have always insisted that no man be taxed because of his wealth, and that no matter how many millions a man might rightfully get, society should leave to him every penny of them" (A Perplexed Philosopher, pp. 70-71). - Henry George | |||
"In all my publications, where the matter would admit, I have been an advocate for commerce, because I am a friend to its effects. It is a pacific system, operating to cordialize mankind, by rendering nations, as well as individuals, useful to each other..." - Thomas Paine | |||
Neither Henry George and Thomas Paine argued against free markets, but argued for as with Henry George for land tax (single tax on land) and Thomas Paine for social security. | |||
"Liberalism utterly denies the whole creed of socialism". Herbert Hoover, The Challenge to Liberty | |||
Liberalism is against anarcho-syndicalism if it is not voluntary, but any type of voluntary association is compatible with liberalism: | |||
"Your property is that which you control the use of. If most things are controlled by individuals, individually or in voluntary association, a society is capitalist. If such control is spread fairly evenly among a large number of people, the society approximates competitive free enterprise -- better than ours does. If its members call it socialist, why should I object? Socialism is dead. Long live socialism." - David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism | |||
But that's beyond the point, Russell was an Fabian socialist (statist) and not anarcho-syndicalist or a liberal.--] 21:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
:Read the article on Henry George. Although he was in favour of free markets generally, he also advocated extensive social programs funded through taxation and regulation of natural monopolies. This is no so different from what Russell himself sometimes advocated (e.g. read "In Praise of Idleness", where he argues that a small amount of regulation could create dramatic improvements in quality of life). You also have to remember that the free markets adovcated by (for example) George really were ''free'' markets. It's debatable whether markets dominated by corporations are free in the classical liberal sense (i.e. in the sense of free markets existing in a context of "perfect liberty", as analysed by Adam Smith). | |||
:The Friedman quote entirely misses the point: it is precisely the distribution of ownership that separates many political philosophies, and it shouldn't be trivialised. Anyway, it's still the case IMHO that you can be a liberal in a broad sense (or in a specific sense, e.g. a social liberal, which Russell certainly was) without favouring free markets. I'd be willing to concede that many people think that free markets are inherently a part of liberalism, but this would still leave Russel's undoubted social liberalism to be contended with. ] 16:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) | |||
In the United States, where liberalism most clearly reversed its meaning, in common parlance, it was the socialist John Dewey who openly promoted the idea of stealing the liberal label. Dewey, in his book Individualism Old and New argued that liberal individualism had in fact disappeared and been replaced by state capitalism and that collectivism already existed in America. But he noted the collectivism of that day was a “collectivism of profit” and not a “collectivism of planning”. He said the only way liberalism could return to its true meaning was to adopt socialism as the means by which liberal goals would be achieved. As he put it central economic planning was “the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.” | |||
Peter Witonski, in his essay The Historical Roots of American Planning said: “Dewey was the first to argue that the world ‘liberal’—which once stood for liberal, free-market capitalism—could better serve the needs of social democracy in America than the world ‘socialism’. The liberalism of Adam Smith was out-of-date Dewey argued.” In his book Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey suggested that the goals of a free society could best be obtained “only by a reversal of the means to which early liberalism was committed.” But the means of liberalism were fundamentally connected to the basic premises of liberalism. A reversal of means, while keeping similar goals in mind, also changed the premises of liberalism. The “new wisdom” of Keynes with the “reversal of means” of Dewey really meant stealing the name of liberalism and applying it to another very different species. '''The famed economist Joseph Schumpeter noted that “the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.”''' | |||
Today a great deal of confusion reigns because socialists decided to deceptively call their own ideology liberal. And, to a very large degree, the academics who wrote the recent texts on liberalism were socialists. Hence they were quite willing to pretend that socialism was a modern form of classical liberalism. But in some places old labels didn’t shift as readily. There the word liberal describes individuals supporting free markets, private property, profit management and limited governments. In other parts of the world so-called “liberals” support socialism, state ownership, bureaucratic management and statism. | |||
But, just as calling a giraffe a dog won’t make him a dog, calling a statist by any other name won’t make him a liberal. The psuedo-liberals, should be left to cling to the accurate, label of socialism. --] 18:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
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. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives |
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 ‥ 论 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)
- Yes, WP:SDESC says this: "
- 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 ‥ 论 08:08, 13 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:- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- High-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- B-Class Linguistics articles
- Mid-importance Linguistics articles
- B-Class Theoretical Linguistics articles
- Theoretical Linguistics Task Force articles
- B-Class philosophy of language articles
- Philosophy of language task force articles
- WikiProject Linguistics articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class philosopher articles
- High-importance philosopher articles
- Philosophers task force articles
- B-Class metaphysics articles
- High-importance metaphysics articles
- Metaphysics task force articles
- B-Class epistemology articles
- High-importance epistemology articles
- Epistemology task force articles
- B-Class logic articles
- High-importance logic articles
- Logic task force articles
- B-Class social and political philosophy articles
- High-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- B-Class philosophy of science articles
- High-importance philosophy of science articles
- Philosophy of science task force articles
- High-importance philosophy of language articles
- B-Class Analytic philosophy articles
- High-importance Analytic philosophy articles
- Analytic philosophy task force articles
- B-Class Contemporary philosophy articles
- High-importance Contemporary philosophy articles
- Contemporary philosophy task force articles
- B-Class mathematics articles
- Top-priority mathematics articles
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (peerage) articles
- High-importance biography (peerage) articles
- Peerage and Baronetage work group articles
- B-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- High-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Chicago articles
- Low-importance Chicago articles
- WikiProject Chicago articles
- B-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- B-Class Los Angeles articles
- Low-importance Los Angeles articles
- Los Angeles area task force articles
- WikiProject California articles
- B-Class Atheism articles
- High-importance Atheism articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- High-importance sociology articles
- B-Class socialism articles
- High-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles