Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Bertrand Russell/archive1: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:36, 2 July 2005 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →[]: comment about User:Cognition← Previous edit Revision as of 04:55, 2 July 2005 edit undoCognition (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users999 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 18: Line 18:
***I am not attacking the editors. I am criticizing the article for omission of vital information, which, according to the instructions on FAC, is an essential part of this process. ] 2 July 2005 02:38 (UTC) ***I am not attacking the editors. I am criticizing the article for omission of vital information, which, according to the instructions on FAC, is an essential part of this process. ] 2 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
****'''Comment'''. {{user|Cognition}} is a follower of the ], which teaches that Bertrand Russell is, literally, evil. Two arbitration committee cases have ruled that editors may not act in a way that appears to promote the views of ]. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> July 2, 2005 04:36 (UTC) ****'''Comment'''. {{user|Cognition}} is a follower of the ], which teaches that Bertrand Russell is, literally, evil. Two arbitration committee cases have ruled that editors may not act in a way that appears to promote the views of ]. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> July 2, 2005 04:36 (UTC)
*****You are replying to my argument by addressing the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself, which is a logical fallacy. Further, you have no evidence that I am a follower of the LaRouche movement. While my user page expresses my admiration of Lyndon LaRouche, he is just one of many people I admire. ] 2 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:55, 2 July 2005

Bertrand Russell

Long, well-written and more important accurate article about one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century. --ThomasK June 28, 2005 12:30 (UTC)

  • How about references? If works were used from the bibliography to write the article, they need to be cited properly. And inline citation would be a real help as well for an article of this scope. --Spangineer (háblame) June 28, 2005 13:07 (UTC)
  • Object, a good and comprehensive article but the formatting needs to be improved. There are too many one sentence paragraphs, and why is the succession box in the middle of the article? Personally I would also like to see the quotes section moved to Wikiquote. - SimonP June 28, 2005 15:15 (UTC)
    • Right, I fixed the succession box. But in my opinion there should be a few quotes in the Misplaced Pages article. --ThomasK June 28, 2005 16:24 (UTC)
  • Object. It needs to be made clearer what information comes from which documents: footnotes and separation of Bibliography (works by Russell) and References/Further reading (works about Russell used to fact-check/write the article. I don't really have a problem with the few one-line paragraphs SimonP mentions, but I agree tthe quotes belong in Wikiquote, unless they are used in the text to underline some aspect of Russell's persona. Phils 28 June 2005 19:34 (UTC)
  • Comment. I recommend adding more info about Russell's support of world government. See http://www.vcn.bc.ca/wfcvb/whywf.htm, http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Bertrand_Russell/future.htm . Nathan256 29 June 2005 11:48 (UTC)
  • Minor object. This looks extensive, but it has several problems. In addition to mentioned above lack of references, the text needs careful going over ilinks - some terms are linked only in their second/third/etc. usage or not at all - examples (Principia Mathematica (which I linked now), World War One, Pacifism, 20th century). I am sure with a little editing work this can be a FA, but now it is still a work in progress needing some editing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 29 June 2005 19:04 (UTC)
  • Object, the copyright on the images needs to be established and the article should have references--nixie 30 June 2005 08:48 (UTC)
  • Object, yes, long, long, too long. Nobody will be interested to read an article of 7919 words.--Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:36:59 (UTC)
    • Image tag fixed. Deryckchan, maybe you are not interested to read this article. Russell did extensive work, to summ up is actually not possible. --ThomasK July 1, 2005 05:00 (UTC)
    • I, for example, do like my articles long and comprehensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)
  • Object in the strongest possible terms. This article is a puff piece for an unmitigated scoundrel widely regarded by those familiar with him, barring his small albeit influential circle of devotees, as one of the worst monsters in recent history. Inadequate attention is paid to his advocacy of world dictatorship through nuclear terrorism. Inadequate attention is paid to support of eugenics and against populations with darker skin-hues. I will not support until the said problems are corrected. Cognition 1 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)
    • Cognition, I repeat the protest i made at the Carl Friedrich Gauss vote. Please use a civil tone and don't attack the editors who put up their baby articles here. And again, please note that aggressive edit summaries are an especially bad idea. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 2 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)
      • I am not attacking the editors. I am criticizing the article for omission of vital information, which, according to the instructions on FAC, is an essential part of this process. Cognition 2 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
        • Comment. Cognition (talk · contribs) is a follower of the LaRouche movement, which teaches that Bertrand Russell is, literally, evil. Two arbitration committee cases have ruled that editors may not act in a way that appears to promote the views of Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin July 2, 2005 04:36 (UTC)
          • You are replying to my argument by addressing the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself, which is a logical fallacy. Further, you have no evidence that I am a follower of the LaRouche movement. While my user page expresses my admiration of Lyndon LaRouche, he is just one of many people I admire. Cognition 2 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)