Talk:Bertrand Russell: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:53, 24 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 editors2,296,459 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)


	"Taxation and regulation of natural monopolies."
	Taxation of land was even proposed by Adam Smith:
	"A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent." - Adam Smith

	"regulation could create dramatic improvements in quality of life"
	"Governmental interferences and regulations and bonuses are in their nature restrictions on freedom, and cannot cure evils that primarily flow from denials of freedom" (A Perplexed Philosopher, p. 66). - Henry George

	"This is no so different from what Russell himself sometimes advocated"
	Henry George was a fierce anti socialist and as he himself said:
	"At the opposite extreme are the Anarchists, a term which, though frequently applied to mere violent destructionists, refers also to those who, seeing the many evils of too much government, regard government in itself as evil, and believe that in the absence of coercive power the mutual interests of men would secure voluntarily what cooperation is needed. The Philosophical Anarchists of whom I speak are few in number. '''It is with Socialism in its various phases that we have to do battle.'''" - Henry George

	"where he argues that a small amount of regulation could create dramatic improvements in quality of life"
	Apparently he moved into a more radical position later and didn't belive into ''small ammount of regulation'' but into a transformation of society into Democratic Socialism.

	"It's debatable whether markets dominated by corporations are free in the classical liberal sense"
	I didn't say that liberalism is or has supported corporatism, but that free market is and has been a fundamental part of liberalism and it wasn't until 20th century this was challenged.
	Bertrand Russell was an Democratic Socialist (Fabian) and not even social liberal (wikipedia entry about social liberalism says that all liberals, even social liberals, tend to believe in a far smaller role for the state than would be supported by most social democrats, let alone socialists or communists.)
	--] 19:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

	:Free trade is a fundamental part of liberalism, but the free market has always been questioned to some degree by liberalism. Liberalism was created in opposition the capitalism that had been absolute until that point. This is difficult, because liberalism and socialism developed out of the same movement. The line between them is thin, and is sometimes blurred completely.

	What are you talking about? Are you saying that liberalism developed in Great Depression when goverments moved away from laissez-faire to end the economic recessions?
	Or are you saying that French Physiocrats were not liberals (making Montesquieu not a liberal wich would be absurd) and later thinkers like Bastiat, Destutt de Tracy and Jean Baptiste Say not liberals? And liberalism was created in opposition to laissez-faire? Where do you get that idea, I think you are confusing social liberalism with classical liberalim.
	Socialism and liberalism have same movement? I don't get that, liberal thinkers were all in support of laissez-faire (some like Tom Paine added just more government functions than other liberals) and opposed against socialism the same way as against mercantilism.

	:Liberalism did not develop until the 1830s, out of the radical movement which also gave rise to socialism and to modern conservatism. You are applying the term liberal to earlier movements and people like Paine who were influential upon liberalism but came before it. That is not usual in history or political study. The first liberals opposed government intervention that favoured the rich not government intervention in and of itself. They opposed corruption and aristocratic rule and advocated democracy. They advocated free trade but they attacked the arbitrary excise of authority and that included laissez-faire management as well as protectionism. The physiocrats were agrarians and their influence on liberalism is extremely slight.

	Liberalism did develop out of enlightment thinkers like John Locke, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, David Hume and others, and even if your definition would be correct then you fail to include Frédéric Bastiat and others from French Liberal school and British Manchester School (both supported radical liberalism in economic policy: laissez-faire, free trade, government withdrawal from the economy, and an optimistic stress on the "harmonious" effects of free enterprise capitalism) into your version of liberals, who were fighting socialism and defending laissez-faire in 19th century. What about Herbert Spencer, as he was a radical laissez-faire supporter he is not a liberal?

	"They opposed corruption and aristocratic rule and advocated democracy."
	Most liberals were not democrats. Neither Locke nor Voltaire had believed in universal suffrage, and even most 19th-century liberals feared mass participation in politics, holding that the so-called lower classes were uninterested in the principal values of liberalism, that is, that they were indifferent to freedom and hostile to the expression of diversity in society.

	"They advocated free trade but they attacked the arbitrary excise of authority and that included laissez-faire management as well as protectionism."
	At best you are confusing individual anarchism with liberalism, or you are completley wrong.

	"Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!
	And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Frederic Bastiat, The Law (that would make everyone in the French Liberal school not liberals by your standards)

	"The physiocrats were agrarians and their influence on liberalism is extremely slight."
	Baron de Montesquieu can be identified as the first Physiocrat, thinkers like Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot (who deeply influenced Smith), François Quesnay and Marquis de Condorcet were Physiocrats and thir influence on liberalism is anything but slight.--] 09:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

	I think for you to better understand what calssical liberalism is, and differences of negative and positive liberalism, you better look into these entries:
	http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552311/Liberalism.html
	http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/
	even the wikipedia article is pretty good if you haven't looked into yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/Liberalism
	--] 11:53, 24 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 2, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 19, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
May 25, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted
October 28, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 8, 2008	Good article nominee	Not 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.

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance

This 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

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	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.

Linguistics: Theoretical Linguistics / Philosophy of language Mid‑importance

	Linguistics portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Metaphysics / Epistemology / Logic / Social and political / Science / Language / Analytic / Contemporary High‑importance

This 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

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Metaphysics
	Epistemology
	Logic
	Social and political philosophy
	Philosophy of science
	Philosophy of language
	Analytic philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Mathematics Top‑priority

	Mathematics portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-priority on the project's priority scale.

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Science and Academia

	Biography portal This 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
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as High-importance).

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Atheism High‑importance

This 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

High

This 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.

Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt-an-article.
Help out with this to-do list.

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.

Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references).
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly.
Always write for an encyclopedia.

Articles to improve

Agnosticism

Create

Articles on notable atheists

Expand

an atheism stub

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.

Sociology High‑importance

	Society portal This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism High‑importance

	Socialism portal This 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
High	This 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	20,242
Philosophy	3,264	3,264
Religion	2,311	2,311
Society	10,162	10,162
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	154,821	154,821

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 ‥ 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)

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: