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.
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 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. 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 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 [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
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).
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. 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 articles
The lead section was recently trimmed here with the edit summary "Because these are the areas that he is most well-known of. Don't dilute the focus of the article with so many qualifiers". I'm not sure some of the key areas of Russell's work can simply be discarded from the lead so easily. What do other editors think? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is in MOS:LEAD, and for convenience, I will quote the parts I like best here, though most of you are already familiar with this:
The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
Let's look at some of the wikilinks trimmed in turn.
Logic: Russell's co-authorship of Principia Mathematica is discussed in the Early Career section, so it can certainly be mentioned in the lead paragraphs, even in the first paragraph. I would draw your attention, however, to the fact that "logic" appeared twice in the first paragraph and four times in the second paragraph before the trim. Could this be rewritten to be less repetitious?
Set theory: Russell's paradox is discussed in the Early career section, so it can certainly be mentioned in the lead paragraphs, even in the first paragraph. In the Early career section, could it clarify things to rearrange the text to explicitly call Russell's paradox a set-theoretic paradox?
Artificial intelligence: This field of study is not mentioned anywhere in this article. Thus, it is certainly a no-no to mention it in the lead paragraphs, let alone in the first paragraph.
Computer science: This field of study is mentioned in only one place in the article, in the See Also section. As with artificial intelligence, we cannot bring up computer science in the lead paragraphs until and unless we have established in the body of the article that Russell made an acknowledged contribution to computer science. By the way, I have to be skeptical of the entry for Russell in List of pioneers in computer science, as it does not cite any sources. Even if (for example) type systems were described in Principia Mathematica, and type systems are used in computer science, it is WP:SYNTH to infer from these two facts that Russell made a contribution to computer science. For us to state that, we must have a reliable source stating that Russell made an acknowledged contribution to computer science.
Cognitive science: Same as with Artificial intelligence.
You get the idea? The first paragraph is not the place to make unsubstantiated claims about Russell. Everything in the lead paragraphs has to be substantiated, with cited sources, in the main body of the article; and everything in the first paragraph in particular, has in addition to be crucial to the article, as it may be the only thing someone reads when they (first) visit this article. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bold thing for me to do would have been to just add back logic and set theory, and maybe one or more of the branches of philosophy (I haven't looked at them more closely). But I am not a Russell expert, and I wanted to see if other editors would want to argue about this, and also, I have been kind of busy in real life, so I held off. But I will get to it by and by, unless somebody gets there first. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added back logic and set theory, but removed linguistics and cognitive science. Regarding the branches of analytic philosopy, it looks to me from the cited source that he indeed made contributions in these branches, but we have to provide more explicit support for that in the sections about his career, before we can bring them up in the first paragraph. Note, by the way, that the cited source is an encyclopedia (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). We aren't supposed to be citing other encyclopedias, since we ourselves are an encyclopedia; we should be using secondary sources. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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."[84][85]" 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.[4]". 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
Only if you tell me how any of the above improves this article about Bertrand Russell on Wikipedia.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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]