Talk:Bertrand Russell

I am sure his ignorant antisemitism is mentioned somewhere ...

... but I can't find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.84.208 (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Minor edit suggestion: 1916 fine of £100 in today's value seems incorrect

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.

Chamblis (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I checked the Bank of England site, and I am wrong. It is close to the article’s original. BOE says 6000.

Chamblis (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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:

• Bertrand Russell leads anti-nuclear march in London, Feb 1961.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

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)

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)

Thanks for that critique. I was expecting a reply from User:CactiStaccingCrane. Perhaps a slightly longer edit summary might have helped? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

So do you think any of those should be replaced in the first paragraph? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Nitpick: other tertiary sources are most often used in situations adjacent to this one, i.e. when weighing the due weight of different points. Remsense留 04:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)