| Revision as of 14:54, 5 December 2023 editCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,439,915 editsm Maintain vital articles and {{WikiProject banner shell}}: 10 WikiProject template(s). The article is listed in the level 4 page: Late modern period (27 articles). Configured as topic=People← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:15, 1 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,439,915 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 10 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (41 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| |topic=philrelig | |topic=philrelig | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|listas=Russell, Bertrand|vital=yes|1= | {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|listas=Russell, Bertrand|vital=yes|blp=no|1= | ||
| {{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=High|auto=inherit}} | {{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=High|auto=inherit|needs-picture=no}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=Mid|theoretical=yes |
{{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 |
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|philosopher=yes|analytic=yes|logic=yes|language=yes|epistemology=yes|metaphysics=yes|social=yes|science=yes|contemporary=yes}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Mathematics |
{{WikiProject Mathematics|priority = Top}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Biography |
{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=High|peerage-work-group=yes|peerage-priority=High|needs-image=no}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Chicago|importance=Low}} | {{WikiProject Chicago|importance=Low}} | ||
| {{WikiProject California|importance=Low|la=yes|la-importance=Low}} | {{WikiProject California|importance=Low|la=yes|la-importance=Low}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Atheism|importance=High}} | {{WikiProject Atheism|importance=High}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Sociology|importance=High}} | {{WikiProject Sociology|importance=High}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Socialism|importance=}} | {{WikiProject Socialism|importance=high}} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{section sizes}} | {{section sizes}} | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Russell and appeasement == | |||
| == "most famously known for the following opinions on education" == | |||
| 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 uncited section (https://en.wikipedia.org/Bertrand_Russell#Education) claims "Russell is most famously known for the following opinions on education, taken from Page 30 of "The Impact of Science on society".", but I've never seen this paragraph before, and think most people know of him for his work in foundation of mathematics. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :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) | |||
| == I am sure his ignorant antisemitism is mentioned somewhere ... == | |||
| ... but I can't find it. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Languages == | |||
| == Welsh, English, or British? == | |||
| 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. | |||
| A recent edit changed nationality (just in the lead section) from British (which is not in dispute) to Welsh (which is not clear) with support from two sources: and . The following edit removed a number of "English" categories, only one of which was replaced with "Welsh" and none with "British" Are these changes all agreed? The explanatory footnote, about Monmouthshire in 1872, in the infobox, remains. Thanks. ] (]) 09:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| 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--> | |||
| :Thanks for mentioning this on the talk page. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of which nationality he considered himself, but he is known to have been , and had his distributed over Welsh mountains. ] (]) 12:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sure, even today, many English people live and die in Monmouthshire, and it's now certainly part of Wales. But that doesn't make them Welsh? Additionally many people will want their ashes sprinkled in the place or places they have loved, but this doesn't confer some kind of retrospective nationality? Where does say he was Welsh? I'm not sure is sufficiently authoritative. Thanks. ] (]) 12:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::Corrected to English. Seems to refer to himself as English in his autobiography. ] (]) 00:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Does that mean he never refers to himself as British? Or that he thinks English is more accurate than British? Although the Autobiography is visible online, page 434 is not visible, so a quote might be useful. Many thanks. ] (]) 07:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<nowiki>"I think you are entirely right in what you say about the Labour Party. I do not like them, but an Englishman has to have a Party just as he has to have trousers, and of the three "Parties I find them the least painful. My objection to the Tories is temperamental, and my objection to the Liberals is Lloyd George. I do not think that in joining a Part}y one necessarily abrogates the use of one’s reason. I know that my trousers might be better than they are; nevertheless they seem to me better than none." ~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 08:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What a lovely quote and it does slightly suggest he ''may have'' thought himself English (for political purposes, at least). I assume that is from page 434. ] (]) 09:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::its the quote I found at page 434 yes (its p. 414 in some other editions). It seems to me to be some evidence against him very strongly thinking of himself as Welsh. I thought a it rather nice quote and worth sharing but wouldn't myself hang too much on it in choosing between "English" or "British" (personally I'd go with the latter). ] (]) 13:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::*British seems safer than English. — ] <small>]</small> 07:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :{{U|Titus Gold}} may be unaware of the many previous discussions on this point. Russell was unequivocally British. Whether or not he should be described as Welsh is disputable (as is whether he should be described as English - which is not really an argument I have much heard before). Monmouthshire is certainly part of Wales now, but its position at the time of Russell's birth was debated - there were different views (see ]). So, it is better to be unequivocally correct, rather than starting yet another round of tedious and pointless arguments. ] (]) 09:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps in "Education"? Do you have any better source(s)? Thanks. ] (]) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The status of Monmouthshire during Russell’s lifetime is indeed really not relevant to how he self-ID’d. Is this some irredentist English claim to Monmouthshire? I’ve not heard of it but looking into it I am not surprised some people hold fringe views. | |||
| ::Anyhoo The spirit of BLP carries over into a individuals long since deceased like BR. I suppose Russel would be the old equivalent of someone born in Wales to English second home owners today…. A-la not *really* Welsh… ] (]) 09:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::''"The status of Monmouthshire during Russell’s lifetime is indeed really not relevant to how he self-ID’d."'' Actually, it does have ''some'' relevance - per consistency with the guidance at ], so that, in the infobox, we describe the country ''at the time of the person's birth''. At the time of Russell's birth, Monmouthshire was ''legally'', and by many authorities and indeed English people generally, considered part of England (though, equally, many or most Welsh people considered it part of Wales). So... whether he was "really" "Welsh" is essentially a matter of opinion - he did not consider himself Welsh, and his legal nationality was certainly British. ] (]) 09:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think we can safely agree that neither his father nor his mother were Welsh, or in any way considered themselves Welsh. ] (]) 09:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think in these matters of national identity, how the individual identifies themselves should carry more weight than anything else and Russell seems to identify as English based on multiple quotes from various volumes of his autobiography. I think English is the most accurate in this particular case. ] (]) 10:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{U|Titus Gold}} - you seem determined to prolong this argument by being provocative. Please stop. You are flip-flopping between describing him as Welsh or English, but neither is necessary. He was British - that is unarguable. ] (]) 10:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So far we've seen one quote, which I have assumed is from the page of his Autobiography that you originally gave in your new source (is it?). Which are the other "multiple quotes from various volumes"? But has anyone actually searched for where he called himself "British"? Thanks. ] (]) 10:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It doesn't matter ''that much''. There is no dispute as to his legal nationality, and to our global readership "British" is just fine. ] (]) 10:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I tend agree. I see nothing wrong with "British". ] (]) 11:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Edits are made based on the best evidence. Look at what he calls himself: "English". British could confuse whether he was Welsh or English. I think it needs to be more clear. ] (]) 11:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::British cannot "confuse" between Welsh and English. What if he was not even clear himself (or did not think it mattered)? If you really want to set out your case, you'll need to provide all this "best evidence" where he "calls himself English." At the end of the day, we should be guided by how RS academic sources describe him. ] (]) 11:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::For example, this is important for categories and other Misplaced Pages articles which reference Welsh or English contributions. ] (]) 11:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I have provided a citation from his own autobiography. There's no better source than that. I will add some of the other citations if you wish. ] (]) 11:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You say you have more examples. Have you also looked for "British"? But most other editors here seem to disagree with you, or think it's not worth the effort. ] (]) 11:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I have no doubt that Russell considered himself British as well as English based on my recent reading. I maintain that using English avoids any confusion as to whether he was Welsh or not. He never describes himself as Welsh based on his autobiography volumes. | |||
| :::::::::::Perhaps a sensible compromise would be to mention that he identified as English somewhere later in the article. ] (]) 11:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Yes, that might be a sensible compromise. I'm not sure we need to expect a lot of effort in order to make it clear what someone wasn't. ] (]) 13:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Ok, I've adapted a sentence later on in the intro. ] (]) 16:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I'm not sure any statement is required in the lead section, especially if the claim "although he identified as English" is supported only by that one quote from his Autobiography (and the quote itself is not given). You might also wish to remember that the lead is meant to be a summary of the entire article and not contain anything that's no expanded (with sources) in the main body. Thanks. ] (]) 16:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I agree that a clause like "although he identified as English" (or "but identified as English") is unnecessary. Only Welsh nationalists would care - not a significant proportion of our global readership. ] (]) 20:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Use ''British'', as he was born & died in the UK. PS - The United Kingdom should be also used as ''both'' his birth/death place. ] (]) 22:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Short description == | |||
| :"Welsh nationalists"? No need to get political. England and Wales are also countries and nationalities. I don't see why Russell should not be mentioned as either Welsh or English. Otherwise, you're essentially suggesting that no one on Misplaced Pages should be called either Welsh or English, only British. That could be described as a very one-sided British nationalist view. ] (]) 23:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wales & England aren't independent, where's the United Kingdom is. Thus my position on the matter at hand. ] (]) 00:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::As far as I can see, nobody is "suggesting that no one on Misplaced Pages should be called either Welsh or English, only British." Editors here are suggesting that it's unclear if '''Bertrand Russell''' was born in Wales and that it's unclear if he should be described as being Welsh or English. No one has objected to some kind of discussion of this point in the main body of the article. But a few editors, seemingly the majority in this discussion, think it would be better to use "British " in the opening sentence. You proposed a compromise, which was supported, but then went straight away and added something else in the lead section? ] (]) 08:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::''"..you're essentially suggesting that no one on Misplaced Pages should be called either Welsh or English, only British. That could be described as a very one-sided British nationalist view.''." Absolutely not my position. But where it is ''debatable'', or ''contested'' - as it is here, the default position is to describe them as British. There is no overriding reason to describe them as anything different. ] (]) 08:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::Default British, suggests that English and Welsh should have a lesser priority as nationalities. In this particular example, it is clear based on the evidence that he considered himself English. ] (]) 20:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Anyway, I think it's fine as it is now. ] (]) 20:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Just like ], I think the clause "but identified as English" is unnecessary. And there's still nothing in the main body that discusses/supports it. ] (]) 20:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The "evidence" you have provided here so far is a non-visible quote, from one page in his Autobiography, when he discusses how "an Englishman" decides his political party allegiance. Hardly convincing? There's a very reasonable argument that English and Welsh ''do have'' a lesser priority as nationalities, as they are of constituent nations. ] (]) 20:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And you've now just added another source , to bolster your proposal, without yet addressing any of the objections in this discussion? That's really quite exasperating. The idea is that we reach a consensus here '''first''' and then adjust the article to match? That's how things usually work. ] (]) 22:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Welsh and English are not inferior nationalities to British. Nationality is not even necessarily associated with political structures. I have addressed your comment about the "non-visible" citation by providing a further citation. Ok, fair enough, what else do you want? ] (]) 22:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm not saying "Welsh and English are inferior nationalities to British", just that England and Wales are ''constituent countries''. (Whether Welsh and English were nationalities equivalent to each other in 1872 is a different question) When I said "non-visible quote" I was suggesting you simply add a quote from, page 434, into the ref. But in any case I think it's very weak support. A quick look at one of your new sources (page 184 of the pdf) shows that Russell is talking about the typical "Englishman" in comparison to the "Chineseman". I'd suggest that he's just using a typical English idiom and not that he is necessarily identifying as English himself. I've not checked the other two examples, as I don't think that claim should be in the lead section anyway. Thanks. ] (]) 08:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ], 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) | |||
| ::::::I don't think anyone suggests that Welsh or English are "inferior" in any way - but, Welsh and English people are ''also'', legally, British. More relevantly, there is no good reason for this minor point (of how he "considered himself") to be in the lead when it appears not even to be mentioned in the body of the text. The purpose of the opening section is to summarise the article - but (1) if it's not in the body of the article it shouldn't be in the opening section; and (2) there is no indication in reliable sources of its significance, or why it should be mentioned anyway. If no sources make any significant mention of his self-identification, it should not be in the article at all. | |||
| ::::::Do any other editors of this page - that is, apart from {{U|Titus Gold}} - support the inclusion of the words "but identified as English" in the opening section of this article? ] (]) 06:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::1. This matter is now discussed in the body of the text (Death and legacy). | |||
| :::::::2. I've given reliable sources from Russell's own account. | |||
| :::::::3. Russell is considered Welsh according to some sources (which is now clearly incorrect) and it's important to make his nationality clear to avoid confusion. | |||
| :::::::4. Russell was heavily focused on English issues, particularly English governance and English international relations if you read his autobiography, so yes it is relevant, significant and essential to mention. He actually seems more English focused than British based on his autobiography. ] (]) 12:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::What were "English international relations"? Why were they not "British international relations"? ] (]) 13:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If "Russell is considered Welsh according to some sources", are these only the two sources you recently suggested? If there are better ] sources, perhaps they should be provided? Thanks. ] (]) 13:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You would be best off just reading his autobiography than me talking through the whole thing. ] (]) 13:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm not asking you to take me through the whole of his Autobiography. I looked at the pages you quoted earlier and the support for him "self-identifying as English" looked very weak. I think it would be better if we rolled back all recent edits until this discussion has been concluded. There's simply no consensus for your changes. ] (]) 13:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry, but all this is nonsense, from both sides. A litmus test for who is here because they are interested in Russell vs nationalism is addressing why the lead is so weak- it is focused on accolades rather than substance, and has 78 refs at last count; dire warnings of agenda driven edit warring. Russell would be less than impressed by this behavior, were he not long dead. ] (]) 13:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{U|Ceoil}} is basically correct (apart from their change to a verbatim quote, which I've reverted). I see no further purpose in debating Russell's nationality or "identification". ] (]) 19:24, 23 June 2022 (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) | |||
| ::: This is not the only article Titus is going around changing "British" to "Welsh" on in the opening sentence. Along with other edits, the editor has a clear political agenda and it is impossible to assume good faith when taking into account the huge scale of changes he is making to so many articles, and how biased many of the edits in question are. ] (]) 09:36, 27 June 2022 (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) | |||
| ::::I see. I would have thought that Russell "self identifying as English" (although I'm not convinced that has yet been fully established - does anyone have access to as it doesn't seem to be viewable online?) would be '''less''' argument for calling him "Welsh". The latest recent re-run of the argument of where his ashes were sprinkled is quite absurd. ] (]) 10:10, 27 June 2022 (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) | |||
| ::::Do those sources added to support "Russell identified as English" bear scrutiny? I am looking now at page 253 of the Autobiography (page 277 of 452) and I see that the description of "this famous Englishman" actually appears in an "Extract from ''Unity'', Chicago", whatever that was, not from Russell himself at all. Page 292 (page 316 of 452) has the trousers quote, "an Englishman has to have a party", which I think is just a figure of speech. Page 320 (page 408 of 452) has, in a letter to ], "here in America an Englishman can only hold his tongue"; likewise that can be read as a figure of speech: we wouldn't expect Russell to write "a Britton can only hold his tongue"? ] (]) 11:39, 27 June 2022 (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. | |||
| == Minor edit suggestion: 1916 fine of £100 in today's value seems incorrect == | |||
| ] 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. | |||
| The 1916 fine amount is correct, but I think the recalculation for today should be closer to £2700. This just stands out because £7000 seemed vastly off. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] (]) 15:57, 20 August 2022 (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 checked the Bank of England site, and I am wrong. It is close to the article’s original. BOE says 6000. | |||
| ] (]) 12:35, 8 September 2022 (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. | |||
| == A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == | |||
| The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: | |||
| By the way, I am surprised that the lead paragraphs do not mention '']''. ] (]) 02:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2023-01-02T11:52:19.242514 | Bertrand Russell leads anti-nuclear march in London, Feb 1961.jpg --> | |||
| Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 11:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Many thanks for your explanation and suggestions. I agree we should centre any discussion on ] and ]. You are right, it doesn't say that it has to "reflect the opening sentence of the article", or even that it should do so. Perhaps it's just my experience that in most cases it usually does. Yes, the main requirement is for it to be short. But I don't think it's a case of "the shorter the better". The template says "{{tq|This should be limited to about 40 characters}}". It seems the best course of action would be to first agree what's in the first paragraph. I also agree that the lead paragraphs should mention '']''. Hope you enjoy your travels. ] (]) 07:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The purpose of a short description is to aid readers in navigation by <em>disambiguating</em> each article's subject as briefly and naturally as possible. This is naturally distinct from the purpose of an article's introductory sentence, which generally hews closer to beginning a definition of the article's subject. In this instance, both versions discussed seem perfectly suited for the task. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 08:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, ] says this: "{{tq|The '''short description''' of a Misplaced Pages article or of another namespace page is a concise explanation of the scope of the page. These descriptions appear in Misplaced Pages mobile and some desktop searches, and help users identify the desired article. When viewing an article, some mobile ] also display the description below the page title.}}" ] (]) 08:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::So I really don't know what was so desperately wrong with the original. Or why my reverts were deemed "reckless". It seems we're not allowed to describe him as a "mathematician" in the short description, as that's covered by "logician". But we can still describe him as a "mathematician" in the opening sentence. I'm obviously having a problem with the logic here. ] (]) 19:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Needed new photo == | |||
| Since we abruptly lost our infobox image, I picked a new one, but I pressed the wrong button and didn't leave so much as an edit summary. I picked this one because it looked OK, but if there is one that is better-known or just better, don't let me stop you from dropping it in there instead. ] (]) 19:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:15, 1 January 2025
| 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 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