Talk:Bertrand Russell/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Importance of An inquiry into meaning and truth,chapter 20 entitled The law of excluded middle.

(84.100.243.211 (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)) If the symbol (l) represents a priori necessity, (l) p w ~p means that the fact p and the fact not-p are a priori necessarily contradictory. On the one hand, they are necessarily in-compatible in reality, on the other hand they cannot be both excluded from reality.

Hence the fact p ≡ ~~p. That means that the fact p is the fact excluding the fact not-p as the fact not-p is the fact excluding p. The author of this remark refers the potential reader to An inquiry into meaning and truth, chapter 20 by Bertrand Russell and to what is devoted to the said chapter entitled The law of excluded middle in the following papers: KNOLmnc 1 To defend his views about modal logic and strict implication, Jean-François Monteil utilizes the chapter of Bertrand Russell’s An inquiry into meaning and truth entitled The law of excluded middle.

KNOLmnc 1 Modal logic. The three ingredients of strict implication. Calcutta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.243.211 (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

To my mind, the twentieth chapter entitled The law of excluded middle, constitutes a sort of climax in the celebrated An inquiry into meaning and truth. In light of Tarski and thanks to the use of the logical hexagon of the Frenchman Robert Blanché in modal logic, a lot of problems raised by Russell in his book and particularly in the twentieh chapter can be solved. Tarski said: the proposition “Snow is white” is true, if and only if snow is white. One may conclude that instead of saying the proposition p is true, one must say that the fact p is certain and symbolize the certainty of the fact p by Lp. If we are in a position to assert: ‘It snowed on Manhattan Island on the first of January in the year 1 Anno Domini’, the fact p in question must be symbolized by Lp, to be read It is a certain fact that it snowed on Manhattan Island on the first of January in the year 1 Anno Domini. If we are in a position to assert: ‘It did not snow on Manhattan Island on the first of January in the year 1 Anno Domini’, the fact not-p in question must be symbolized by L~p, to be read : It is a certain fact that it did not snow on Manhattan Island on the first of January in the year 1 Anno Domini. If we are in a state of ignorance concerning the two contradictory facts p and not-p, in other words, if we are unable to assert ‘It snowed on Manhattan Island on the first of January in the year 1 Anno Domini’ as well as ‘It did not snow on Manhattan Island on the first of January in the year 1 Anno Domini’, we experience a fact, the fact that neither p nor not-p is certain. This third fact can be symbolized by ~L~p & ~Lp, both the certainty of the fact not-p and the certainty of the fact p are excluded. I emphasize here that the third fact I mention must be given as much importance as the facts Lp and L~p we are led to consider when we are in a state of knowledge. The third fact is the fact we have to envisage when we are in a state of ignorance. It corresponds to what is called the bilateral possible. ~L~p, the non-certainty of the fact not-p is equivalent to the possibility of the fact p to be symbolized by Mp, ~Lp, the non-certainty of the fact p is equivalent to the possibibity of the fact not-p to be symbolized by M~p. There exist three situations corresponding to the case envisaged by Bertrand Russell in the chapter 20 of his An inquiry into meaning and truth and entitled The law of excluded middle. One of three things, either Lp the certainty of the fact p or L~p the certainty of the fact not-p or Mp & M~p the possibility of both p and not-p to the extent that both are non-certain. In any of the three situations, the law of excluded middle is preserved. This law can be represented thus: (l) p w not-p. The facts p and not-p are necessarily, by definition ( this is the meaning of the symbol (l) here used) contradictory. They are incompatible and they cannot be both excluded of reality.

The author of these lines thinks that the solution of the Russellian problem renders possible a consistent formula of strict implication

http://mindnewcontinent.wordpress.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.243.186 (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

V.K Krishna Menon

The article says V.K Krishna Menon was Secretary of the All-India Muslim League. This is incorrect, he was secretary of the India League, a different organisation. The Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._K._Krishna_Menon agrees with my correction. Since the page is locked, I couldn't correct this error myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.142.41 (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Essayist

I propose inserting 'essayist' between 'mathematician' and 'historian' at the top of his page. (intending to include his journalism under this heading too) He produced many books of essays on many subjects, and was a great master of prose, one of the greatest of the 20th century - arguably among the greatest of essayists, full stop. And there needs to be a section about this - it wasn't (outside the philosophical world - or even inside it, after WW2) primarily his 'views' that mattered, or for which he won the Nobel prize, but the qualities of his prose, and the values that shone from it - clarity, precision, love of short words, hatred of obfuscation and humbug, biting yet (usually) restrained wit, humour and playfulness, intelligence, use of reason etc. His prose is simply inspiring, and a joy to read. (I'm not sure if 'historian' comparatively is even worth mentioning, though by ordinary mortal standards, writing a few excellent works of history would qualify one for that moniker. I don't include History of Western Philosophy, it's - to be brief - not good.) Yesenadam (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2014

Introduction: Why is Russell described as being first a "nobleman"? Was he not a philosopher, logician, mathematician, etc. first and a nobleman second—or probably last? Ironically enough, that very first sentence concludes by also calling him a social critic. Besides, the use of "nobleman" as a description of a person seems quite peculiar, and in Russell's case (he was so much else!) it could, probably, be profitably omitted altogether. 128.84.126.119 (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Surely British nobilty is a matter of birth, not one of choice or training. So I assume that the term "nobleman" is simply a qualification of his nationality. Indeed, even nationality itself may be changed later in life, whereas ancestry may not? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It is bizarre, though, to have "nobleman" listed first. That is not the primary reason for his notability. It was added without any explanation here. I'll remove it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess that such a deletion aligns more closely with his own socialist sympathies. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It aligns with his own practice of referring to himself throughout his life as plain (Mr) Bertrand Russell, not Lord Russell. He himself would want it omitted from that sentence. ('Socialist sympathies' is nothing to do with it.) Yesenadam (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Making Wikipedia Remain a Joke

"Russell described himself as an agnostic, "speaking to a purely philosophical audience", but as an atheist "speaking popularly", on the basis that he could not disprove the Christian God similar to the way that he could not disprove the Olympic Gods either." This line is ridiculous and nonsensical. This is the reason everyone knows not to trust Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.195.72 (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

So... change it. And, in future, please add new comments to the bottom of the page, not the top. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not my problem, but....

   While i did archive my own talk page, manually, for a few years, i'm ignorant of the skills that would make it tolerable to implement a more typical approach to this talk page. (I might not have commented, but for the fact that there are two archives, i assume for about our first half decade.) What i am doing is:

1. conforming the currently unarchived portion to the by-years scheme that's been applied at least sporadically since 2007
2. adjusting (at least) one instance (which i've already noticed) of construing a discussion that runs into the next calendar year as belonging to the new year: unless you automate it, or manually move discussions between sections bcz (perhaps years later -- i think i responded to a 2007 talk contrib in the past week) it's pretty hard to drive a stake thru the heart of a WP discussion
3. correcting the stereotyped wording of the master sections to include the words "begun in"

--Jerzy•t 23:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell and logic

(While i haven't yet confirmed it in the history, the immediately plausible explanation for it is that the second contributor to the section was not satisfied with the first editor's title, perhaps bcz the second saw the first's contrib as being suitable (perhaps "also suitable", or with a little louder hint of philosophical bullying, "more suitable") as a contribution to a wider discussion.
--Jerzy•t 00:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change (with citation) of sentence about interaction with John F. Kennedy during Cuban Missle Crisis.

Sentence now reads

Russell also wrote to John F. Kennedy, who returned his telegram unopened.[citation needed]

It was quite easy to find a citation that shows JFK did read and reply to the telegram.

I propose the sentence be changed to

Russell also wrote to John F. Kennedy, U Thant, Harold Macmillan, and others.

Tod222 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The following footnote was misplaced (in an unneeded separate section) near the bottom of the page, probably for years, probably bcz of failure to use {{reflist-talk}})
--Jerzy•t 03:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 00:45, 8 July 2014 (listing template only)

Parents' first names

Surely his parents' first names (John and Katharine) should be included in the article. (I won't add them myself, as whenever I try to edit Wikipedia I get jumped upon.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffw1948 (talk • Jonpatterns (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems he had rotten teeth. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry

There seems to be something wrong with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.11.251 (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

One thing that is wrong is that Lady John Russell's mother (#11) is given the male name of John Stanley. ==>Milt, 2016.1.24.

After Physical Death

Russell is one of the figures that Charles Hapgood documented in his books as coming through the "trance" of Elwood Babbitt. With regards to his religious beliefs, Russell said through Babbitt "I was an atheist. I found my God, but my God was myself." . This is one of the best quotes of all time from Bertrand Russell, but ironically, because of the religious beliefs of wikipedia Admins/editors, this section is always removed as it doesn't agree with their beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berwin (talk • contribs) 07:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

How ironic. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Read and undersand WP:Fringe before attempting to add in that section.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 12:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't tend to include quotes that people are alleged to have made after they have died. Even if they're really good ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

References

remote Visiting scholar for McMaster University (possible emphasis Bertrand Russell)

• See Wikipedia:Visiting Scholars/Apply. Emphases in areas such as peace and war (with a particular emphasis on the Holocaust and resistance), Bertrand Russell, Canadian literature and popular culture, among other areas.• Lingzhi♦(talk) 05:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bertrand Russell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100126090302/http://richarddawkins.net:80/articles/4833 to http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4833
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080212100048/http://www.philosophyprofessor.com:80/philosophers/bertrand-russell.php to http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophers/bertrand-russell.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Identity and naming of nationality and national territory

With reference to User:Martinevans123's edit regarding Russell's ancestral history, UK is British... but I accept your point about the era and the various names of national territories during the rise of the British nation state known today (in short form) as the UK. I hope my latest edit will be an acceptable alternative to either of our previous edits. Here is a explanation:

The paragraph includes dates (and inferences of time periods) which cover "several centuries", by which we might assume 1539 might be the latest date during which we can assume (the year of creation of the first Earl of Bedford). At that time, while the island was known as Great Britain (a part of the larger geographic and historical entity known as the British Isles), there was no all-island jurisdiction. The jurisdiction to which Russell's specific ancestors lived and served (Henry VIII) was England and Wales, though the monarch was head of England (and Wales) and Ireland. So it would be inaccurate to suggest 'Britain' for a time when it did not yet exist. When the Whig Party formed, it was still the case whereby the country had not yet solidified into the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The paragraph also mentioned 1536, which is only three years prior to the installment of Russell as the Earl of Bedford.

After 1707, the country was referred to (though certainly not always and not exclusively) as the United Kingdom in parliament and by the monarch. The paragraph mentions the dates 1688-9 and 1832, by which time the Whigs were campaigning and being elected in both Scotland and Ireland, as well as England & Wales. The country by 1801 was now the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Ireland), and the Whigs therefore had influence throughout the whole of the UK.

So, it's complex enough, given the changes to jurisdiction and naming conventions throughout that long period of time! One suggestion would be that we stick with 'English', though that would deny the apparent Welsh connection of the Russell ancestry. So we would be left with actually using the term 'British' itself. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

In the context of that sentence, I'd certainly agree that "British" is a better approximation to "England and Wales" than is "UK". I'm still left a little surprised that no-one has challenged, or even reverted, the previous global change of "Britain" to "United Kingdom" as I think, in Russell's era, the name "Great Britain " was the far more widely-used term. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think perhaps because Russell was born at a time when "United Kingdom" became more popular, and certainly lived until well after the current borders of that country had been set. United Kingdom is a much more unambiguous term than "Britain" or "Great Britain", and certainly Russell lived all of his life in the country that was known officially as the United Kingdom.--98.122.20.56 (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wallenchinsky et al.

Note 87 cites Wallenchinsky et al. (1981), "Famous Marriages Bertrand...Part 1". This publication is non-scholarly and derivative. It isn't good enough to serve as evidence of the facts it is used to support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milt (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Bertrand Russel's birthplace in the article is named as " Ravenscroft " but is now called " Cleddon Hall "

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/nobel-winner-bertrand-russells-welsh-2027377

" ... The 140-year-old birthplace of Russell, Cleddon Hall, nestling in the countryside near Trellech, Monmouthshire, has been put up for sale by its owners after two years of being renovated to replicate the style of the philosopher’s childhood home. ... The current owner of Cleddon Hall – previously called Ravenscroft – said the illustrious philosopher was born and grew up there because his parents, Viscount and Lady Amberley, were “driven out” of London because she was an early Suffragette. ... "

http://humanistheritage.org.uk/articles/bertrand-russell/

" ... Russell was born in Cleddon Hall, Trellech, Monmouthshire ... "DaiSaw (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

When he was born it was called "Ravenscroft". But I guess a footnote could be added, if it's really that important. Certainly not important to Russell's life. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Republican?

Bertrand Russell is categorised under English republicans but no sources proving this are given throughout the article. Dr Harare (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I have just been making these notes - as far as I am concerned he advocated facts and arguments against populism = a Republican stance.

http://www.openculture.com/2013/03/bertrand_russells_ten_commandments_for_living_in_a_healthy_democracy.html Bertrand Russell’s Ten Commandments for Living in a Healthy Democracy

1: Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.

2: Do not think it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.

3: Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to succeed.

4: When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.

5: Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.

6: Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.

7: Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

8: Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.

9: Be scrupulously truthful, even when truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.

10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/britain/probs/russell.htm Problems of the British Revolution - Appendix 2 : Bertrand Russell - Trotsky on Our Sins

" Trotsky’s new book is one of the most interesting that I have read for a long time ... What is more important is his complaint that the Labour Party lacks a coherent theoretical outlook. Take, for example, the question of Republicanism. ... To proclaim a socialist programme, and at the same time declare that the royal authority “does not hinder” and works out cheaper, is absolutely the same as, for example, acknowledging materialistic science and making use of the incantation of a sorcerer for toothache, on the ground that the sorcerer is cheaper. ... To hope to achieve Socialism without Republicanism is the sort of thing that could only occur among English-speaking people; it would hardly be possible for men with any profound knowledge of history, or any understanding of the economic and psychological links between different institutions. ... " DaiSaw (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Welsh or English?

Was Bertrand Russell Welsh, or English?Varnebank (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Welsh - born in Wales. Does the article claim he was English? I see him referred to as British, which is correct - Wales being part of Britain. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You are so right. Best to describe him as British. This is by far the best default description for an encyclopedia for anyone born in the United Kingdom and a British citizen. Once we get into all this stuff about 'English' and 'Scottish' and now 'Cornish' that way lies madness (and endless know-it-all non-British claiming it depends on 'self identification'. Or people with some other axe to grind. I mean, Alex Salmond IS British, whether he thinks he is or not. At least for now! 81.157.242.183 (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

He was born in Monmouthshire. At the time of his birth, the area was regarded by some as part of England and by others as part of Wales. (It's clearly in Wales now, but that's not relevant here.) In any case, there is no dispute that he was British. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell was born in Wales and died in Wales and he clearly identified with Wales but probably viewed himself as himself ... in all probability he may have wrestled with this in " Russell's Paradox " - ? ...

... Incidentally Monmouthshire was always in the Principality of Wales : the idea that somehow it was at some time part of England arose after the Principality finally ceased to be a separate realm in 1624. The confusion arose out of the mess created by The Annexation of Wales in the aftermath of The Reformation during which Henry VIII created thirteen shires and new boroughs in Wales in order to pack Parliament with MPs who dared not disobey him because he still kept Wales as a separate realm which he could plunder with arbitrary taxes. In wealthier and bigger England he had to submit his taxes to the MPs in Parliament which is why he packed it with Welsh MPs to either ensure that his demands were met in England or otherwise they would have to face being plundered. James I plundered Wales so thoroughly that the Welsh MPs finally rebelled and made a deal with the English MPs to vote against his demands in exchange for also relieving them of The Penal Laws in Wales - these disadvantaged the Welsh before The English Law which had been imposed by The Annexation of Wales in order to encompass The Reformation in Wales which was a Catholic country with deep harbours sympathetic to and ready to receive a French or Spanish or even Irish invasion force. In order to be able to repeal The Penal Laws in Wales they coerced the bankrupt James I to surrender his control over The Principality of Wales to Parliament by repealing the " Henry VIII clause " and thus Wales entered into full political union with England on condition that the English MPs voted to repeal The Penal Laws in Wales and then once James I consented to this the Welsh MPs voted for his new taxation. These arguments over Parliament refusing to grant further taxation to James I were the precursors to the arguments which led into The English Civil War which then spilled over into Wales because they had become one realm - and that is why Monmouthshire came to seem not to be in Wales any more : Henry VIII created thirteen counties and the Quarter Session judges visited one county each month - which left one Welsh county as the odd one left over ... Monmouthshire was the thirteenth county and more English'd than the rest and so it became one of the counties in a Quarter Session where the other three counties were in England - because Wales and England had become a single legal jurisdiction ( even though Parliament occasionally still made laws which applied only in Wales - hence despite The Principality of Wales having ceased to be a separate realm " Wales " continued to exist in English Law which is very odd ... I really ought to now copy this over to here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Parliament_of_King_James_I DaiSaw (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, you should copy it over as it's not that relevant to what happened on 18 May 1872. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I copied it over because that page ought to be corrected - but it was an answer to the idea that Monmouthshire has ever been in England - it was not because it was created out of several Marcher Lordships ... I decided to see if anybody authoratative identifies Russell as " Welsh " : The Telegraph is of the opinion that he was - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/best-writers-from-wales/best-writers-from-wales/ ... The real question is not whether anybody claims him as a Cymro but what he classified himself as - hence my joke about Russell's Paradox above - and I have found no information as to that besides the fact that he chose to visit and live in various places in Wales and that I know that in one of his Reith Lectures he made a point of fondly mentioning Welsh bards : on the one hand he had a good sense of humour on the other insisted upon dry facts so he would probably have defined himself either by a wry joke or very precisely.

These webpages are about one of his homes in North Wales - in Ffestiniog, the old school house of Penyralltgoch - http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/wa-4691-penralltgoch-ffestiniog#.V9dP8vlVK1E DaiSaw (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the Old School House at Penralltgoch was listed mainly because Russell lived there. There is also a listing here. There are two pictures here (numbers 25 and 26) as well as some of Ravenscroft, by David Lewis Hodgson. Unsurprisingly Penralltgoch is still a redlink, but I see that Russell was probably in tune with Tanymarian who attended school there. Surprising that there is no mention of Penralltgoch in the article here. He was certainly living there in March 1948 when he wrote to Lucy Donnelly. See also the note in Vol 2 of the Selected Letters here. As regards his nationality, I think it's much more satisfactory to stick with "British" rather than English or Welsh. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Martin Evans - I think that your point of view is extremely tenable - I do not know if your surname indicates that you are a Cymro - but in modern times I would argue that how we decide our identities can be extremely complex and should basically be a matter of personal declaration - if Bertrand Russell made any such declaration we should abide by that if we can find him recorded as doing so ... for my own part I am like many others in that I make sense of my life in terms of what has happened to me and I object to Nationalism because of its crude stereotyping. I believe that being born in Wales, living in Wales and dying in Wales is of no consequence to a person whose sense of identity is derived from something else which they think more important : hence I doubt that Bertrand Russell would be pleased to be claimed as " Welsh " when he clearly would not see this as very important to his sense of identity ... but ... :-) ... nevertheless I note that he was fond of North Wales if not South Wales and chose to make a series of homes there ... I do not have the time to research this but I note that one of his homes seems to have been rented from Bertram Clough Williams-Ellis and so unmentioned in this article may be something more important to Bertrand Russell's sense of identity if his attraction to North Wales was a certain intellectual circle ? DaiSaw (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there may be more to said of Russell's connection to North Wales. But I'm 100% certain he did not see himself as "Welsh". It's too bad you don't have time to research a bit as you obviously have a strong interest in this topic. Dymuniadau gorau a phob lwc i chi. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bertrand Russell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050622001026/http://www.positiveatheism.org:80/hist/russell8.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061119081311/http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050622001026/http://www.positiveatheism.org:80/hist/russell8.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Chronology of the Lede

As a reader, I found it odd that the 3rd paragraph of the lede describes (first) Russell's opinions on nuclear warfare, then his World War 1 activism, then his opinions on WW2, then the Vietnam War, then nuclear disarmament. Is there something amiss here? Seems to me the nuclear stuff should be post-WW1. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Ralph Schoenman

It is very odd (and slightly suspect?) that this long article makes no mention of Ralph Schoenman, who worked closely, and sometimes controversially, with Russell towards the end of his life - see Wikipedia's article on Schoenman. 86.168.39.47 (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Descendant of John Russell, 1st Earl Russell?

This isn't an area where I have any expertise so does anyone know if he was he a descendent of John Russell, 1st Earl Russell? If so it would be worth including. Regards JRPG (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he is the grandson of John Russell. This is in the text already as: "His paternal grandfather, the Earl Russell, had been asked twice by Queen Victoria to form a government, serving her as Prime Minister in the 1840s and 1860s." WikiParker (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Combined apologies and thanks WikiParker :) I added the "In Our Time" link and then headed to Ancestry, wrongly expecting John Russell to be at least 3 generations back and hence in this section. Of course Russell himself was a Victorian. FWIW I think John Russell, 1st Earl of Bedford as the oldest known ancestor and John Russell, 1st Earl Russell should be in a "main ancestors" section as otherwise the blank section's mere existence is disinformation. Has this been discussed & rejected? I did look on the talk page originally. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Nationality in categories

The categories in which Russell is included, at the foot of the article, include some which describe him as British - "British mathematicians", "British pacifists", etc. - and others that describe him as Welsh - "Welsh philosophers", "Welsh atheists", etc. Should there not be consistency in this? I thought that the consensus in this article was to describe him as British. He was born in Monmouthshire, in Wales (though at the time of his birth some considered it to be part of England), but that he is best described as British. I've raised this with Apollo The Logician, who made these edits, some which have later been reverted, but without a clear answer on their talk page other than "this is how it is done". Do other editors agree with me that, in this article and indeed others where nationality is established by consensus in the opening paragraph, the categories should reflect that consensus? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Russell wasn't Welsh in exactly the same way that James Connolly wasn't Scottish. As Apollo The Logician pointed out when making that edit, how a person identified is what counts. So you're correct, Ghmyrtle - British should be used for Russell. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Take my user page of your watchlist you creep.Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

1) Read WP:CIVIL. Not just for your line above, but your general attitude to engagement with other editors, globally. 2) Your page wouldn't be on my watchlist if I hadn't had to add 3RR warnings on several occasions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Get a consensus if you want to change his things are done. If nit it stays.Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you be civil and avoid claiming "ownership" over any part of the article ("If not it stays"). Again.... where is the guidance, or consensus, that supports what you have claimed to be "the way things are done"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I didnt mean for it to sound like that. I have given you multiple examples. Literally look at the cats of any British person. if you want to change how cats are done then please get a consensus. There is no harm in having a discussion.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

For the last time - where is the guidance or consensus that states that your approach is "how cats are done"? You have not yet demonstrated anything other than it is your opinion. Where do you think the discussion on this point has taken place, or should take place? The past consensus adopted on this article clearly suggests that your approach is misguided and inappropriate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The wikiproject discussion page for the United Kingdom would be the best place. Or the WP:UKNATIONALS talk pageApollo The Logician (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I've raised it at both. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I've again reverted Apollo's edit here, to restore the established wording categorising him as British rather than Welsh. The long-established consensus categories were changed without discussion in these edits on 25 February. The editor concerned has been warned for edit warring, Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: The issue is now at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The argument is that he was Welsh because he was born in Wales. While that might have been the case when Wales was an independent country, there is no Welsh nationality law today, and we need to use discretion in determining if someone is Welsh. I expect it would mean someone who was culturally Welsh, which Russell was not. TFD (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

A suggestion: Put all British people in British categories. Alright, alright, I know, we can't do that on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be a problem because of the complexity of Britiah nationality law, which has changed over time. It would for example mean categorizing all Canadians before the 1947 citizenship act as British. TFD (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Moral justification for the use of nuclear weapons

The article states that Russell argued that: "...it was morally justified and better to go to war against the USSR using atomic bombs while the USA possessed them and before the USSR did. After the USSR exploded the atomic bomb, Russell changed his position and advocated the total abolishment of atomic weapons." This is not a change of Russell's position. It is the exact same position, maintained under different circumstances. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

   "Position" is sufficiently flexible in its meaning as to make each of the descriptions of the situation unacceptably vague.
--Jerzy•t 19:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"Between the wars ..." section

   I've retitled the Between the wars and second marriage section to Between the wars: the syntax was ambiguous; also "and second marriage" singles out one salacious aspect as if it were comparable in his bio to a 20-year period of world history. (I'd not object to "between the world wars", but it should be clear without that, to anyone who knows some history, and bothered to look at his decades of birth and death in the lead.)
   My deeper concern relates to the use of sources in the following 'graph (the 2nd of the "Between the wars..." section). (The ref numbers and -- immediately below the 'graph -- the list of refs both appear here differently numbered than on the article's page, and with only the footnotes that are linked from this 'graph displayed; in particular, one ref (The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, p. 38) is first cited within a previous graph, and i "pre-cite" it right here rather than butcher the 'graph's original markup to otherwise work without the rest of the article being present:

Russell subsequently lectured in Beijing on philosophy for one year, accompanied by Dora. He went there with optimism and hope, as China was then on a new path. Other scholars present in China at the time included Rabindranath Tagore, the Indian Nobel laureate poet. While in China, Russell became gravely ill with pneumonia, and incorrect reports of his death were published in the Japanese press. When the couple visited Japan on their return journey, Dora notified the world that "Mr. Bertrand Russell, having died according to the Japanese press, is unable to give interviews to Japanese journalists". The press, not appreciating the sarcasm, were not amused.

References

   The relevant actual text of the autobio passage cited is available on-line at G-Books, and the relevant context begins at the middle of p. 363, with the start of the 'graph that continues onto the next page.
   "[S]ubsequently" is a confusing substitute for keeping the temporal context usefully clear: the word also subliminally suggests (however illogically) that it entails more causal relationship than "later" does,

• perhaps bcz the word "consequently" differs only in the first 3 letters and phonemes, and occurs (IM-unfounded-O) substantially more frequently,
• and/or bcz there must be some better reason than mock-erudition to use a four-syllable synonym for "later".

Fortunately, we know when they went.
   He was accompanied by her to and (even while absent from each other's sight) in Peking, but it is unreasonable to assume that she accompanied him in lecturing, as the wording clumsily asserts.
   I'm moving "as China was then on a new path" outside the scope of the reference that i found following it, as it appears in the volume cited, but in its introduction, which is attributed to someone else. (The effective license Google got in the big settlement is too restrictive for me be sure who that was, without probably more travel than i care to undertake for this.) Provenance aside, our colleague accepts (barely implicitly) something that the Russell circle asserts as fact, tho it is too subjective to be verifiable -- that China was "on a new path". Professional historians, and armchair or off-duty intellectuals are appropriate in expressing what they judge true in language this vague (even in writing in the first case, and anywhere in the other), but we are not the first, nor can anyone fit the second role when "on duty" contributing to WP.
   The text does get around to clarifying reasonably well that "[Dora] notified the world" means something like "... risked having some reporter who should never have been on an English-needed beat make a second blunder that could conceivably also have been picked up by the Western press", but unless we have a colleague whose best skill is irony, why equivocate?
   In the same 'graph, "The press, not appreciating the sarcasm, were not amused." is ironic; i analyze that conviction of mine as reflecting:

1. its use, twice, of litotes ("not appreciating" for "resenting, and "not amused" for "annoyed")
2. the conventional but contradictory juxtapostion of "appreciate" (which is -- at least literally -- about valuing, not about comprehending) and "sarcasm" (the root, meaning to bite IIRC, contradicts the mock expectation of gratitude),
3. my own reading, perhaps poorly informed, that
   1. the government in Tokyo were hostile to socialists like Russell, and to the Chinese for being more numerous, nearby, and not Japanese, and
   2. even if the gov. did not directly instigate the false report (e.g., to harm progressives' morale), the press may have been encouraged to be hostile to them on their arrival (bcz of his views, or bcz of his finding their "mere"-Chinese neighbors worthy of his attention, or bcz of construing the apparent request for retraction and the now sneering tone as serious insults). Russell, and/or his later editorial colleague (who was presumably far from the scene), even if not intending to offend (in print) via the later irony, has/have made an ambiguous remark (tho they could not plausibly know whether whether any reasonable ways of construing it were true), and unless they have explained elsewhere how they could know an actual fact, that they intended to express, we should not say more about it than to name the individual (and IMO unambiguously indicate that the only fact we know is the utterance and the verifiable utterer(s)).

   In the next 'graph, i was tempted to wonder whether the speculation about Russell and Eliot's first wife involved the woman who would later become Eliot's first, was then his first, or had previously been his first wife. Others among our articles clarify: after the marriage and before the separation (and there was no divorce). If we are going to mention this bit of speculation, we certainly should clarify the hypothetical circumstances, and i hope i have succeeded in starting that process.
--Jerzy•t 08:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The speculation about Russell and Eliot's wife is chronologically out of place, and the cited source (Monk in the Oxford DNB) does not suggest that the affair took place in the early years of Russell's marriage to Dora. -- Milt (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jerzy: In the time it took you to write all this, and to add your citation-needed rationale to the article itself, you could have just fixed it. With the greatest of respect, you made it so complex and daunting a task, no one has wanted to take it on. Hence why it's sat unfixed for THREE (3) YEARS. You are clearly an articulate, capable writer. Why not just re-write the paragraph as you see fit? Remember: BE BOLD!! After all, editorial boldness is a hallmark of Wikipedia. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 17:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

   @SpikeToronto:[sigh!] Sorry you wasted effort in mustering even great let alone greatest respect; it's pretty much wasted on me, who i guess in the back of his mind claims something meta-paradoxical along the lines of the height of self-respect being to consider self-respect an unforgivable weakness.

   A little more to the point, i'll study what i wrote in that ancient and by-me-forgotten era. My wits have long been in decline, and especially so as the 6th month-iversary of my (party-free) New Year's Eve heart attack approaches. (Come to think of it, i was in the midst of editing or researching for a proposed edit when i realized that i needed to cross the living room, and couldn't do so under my own power.) (But save the sympathy: i'm still climbing mountains -- and scaling some vertical rock-faces, which mainly "takes a cool hand and a keen eye ..."). There's an excellent chance that i'll agree with you, and it could be there's nothing like a little (non-self-)respect (feigned or not) for a change, to motivate me ... feels that way for now. I have to move some work-in-progress from edit windows to addressable storage before the next crash, but your note is the shiniest WP thing to catch my attention for some time. Thanks!
--Jerzy•t 21:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bertrand Russell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120117062625/http://musicandhistory.com/music-and-history-by-the-year/178-1917.html to http://musicandhistory.com/music-and-history-by-the-year/178-1917.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130328000343/http://pw20c.mcmaster.ca/case-study/remember-your-humanity-and-forget-rest-russell-einstein-manifesto-and-pugwash-movement to http://pw20c.mcmaster.ca/case-study/remember-your-humanity-and-forget-rest-russell-einstein-manifesto-and-pugwash-movement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bertrand Russell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080119030738/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUrussellD.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUrussellD.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

A Wikipedia Entry or a Hagiography

It behoves the authors to add a section, however small, that contains some criticisms. At the very least, he displayed an ignorance of the nature of the Olympic gods and misunderstood what the Greeks meant when then talked about them/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.135 (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Error en la biografía?

"he asked the philosopher John Stuart Mill to act as Russell's secular godfather.[80] Mill died the year after Russell's birth".

According to that statement, Russel was at most two years old when he made that petition... is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose Icaza (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Agnostic

In the very short section on "Religion", the article says that Russell described himself as "an agnostic" and that he regarded religion as "little more than superstition." He was a Humanist. Does this really justified all the Categories he has as "Critics of ..."? Why do we limit ourselves to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and the Catholic Church? Why not also Category:Critics of Buddhism, etc.? These categories look to me a bit like WP:SYNTH. One might expect to see open criticism or hostility to specific religions or denominations. But there is none. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Most of them seem to have been added by a single-purpose categorization editor, without explanation. Critics of religion and Christianity remain after another editor reverted. Since Russell wrote Why I Am Not a Christian, it is probably fine to retain Criticism of Christianity, though more information supporting the category would be a benefit. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Republican?

Is there actually a reliable source which verifies Russell was a republican? The Category:British republicans has been added, but I can't find evidence of this. -- TrottieTrue (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Removed sentence from lead on race

I have removed the following sentence from the lead: "Nevertheless, some scholars have argued that Russell held a deeply "colonialist mindset," citing anti-black, white supremacist comments embedded in a number of his works.

I think the following points need to be taken into account:

• The sentence does not summarise anything that appears in the body of the page
• "some scholars" in this instance means William T. Ross
• Russell's views on race are discussed in more detail at Bertrand_Russell's_political_views#Race. The discussion includes one of the examples Ross mentions in his paper. The sentence that I removed does not adequately summarise Russell's views which may have changed over time. Nor does it provide Russell's responses to criticism.
• It may be appropriate to include this sentence at an appropriate point in the body. However, I would suggest changing it to "William T. Ross has argued that Russell held a deeply "colonialist mindset", citing anti-black, white supremacist comments embedded in a number of his works".

Burrobert (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Information Research Department

Hello Astrophobe, it looks like your recent edit here was fully justified. But there is a whole paragraph on Russell at Information Research Department#Bertrand Russell that might be worth integrating. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It's very possible that material about this could be worked into the article, and I definitely have no objection to that! I encourage you to work some of that material in. I think the best way to do it, in a way that's not undue, would be to associate it with material on the specific books in question, Why Communism Must Fail, What Is Freedom?, and What Is Democracy? Unless there are RS supporting some association between a much larger body of Russell's work with the IRD, then I highly doubt that it will belong in the lead. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Quite agree not lead-worthy. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Omit "United Kingdom" infobox

Should I omit "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" on birthplace and death place parameter on the infobox, I really don't know what I should replace instead of "United Kingdom" parameter? --49.150.116.127 (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Wales is perfectly fine - that's where he was born and died. No one would ever refer to these places as being in the UK in common usage, so per COMMONNAME we're good with Wales. I shall change it now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact Wales, for his place of birth, is problematical (see footnote [b]). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

So, was Monmouthshire in Wales in 1872? We previously had a form that was an acceptable compromise. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

UK is perfectly acceptable in this case. Whether Monmouthshire was "in Wales" in 1872 was a contentious matter, and there is no obvious need to include it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The only slight issue is that including UK after Monmouthshire suggests that Wales, after Caernarfonshire, was not in UK? 15:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It might be unquestionable for removing the "UK" from birthplace parameter. --Aesthetic Writer (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

The most notable combined effect of these edits yesterday and today was to remove most of the lead section. I've reverted them so there can be further discussion here, if necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be some ongoing disagreement as to whether Russel should be described as British or Welsh, although he could easily, of course, be both. I'd just like to point out that, despite this, the article has no fewer than 28 categories that use "English" and only 6 that use "British". The only one that uses "Welsh" is Category:English people of Welsh descent. So some basic consistency is lacking. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

controversy?

I read that besides the claims of racism he was also a womanizer and egotist. (Just Googled russell womanizer and came up with this).

A long list of writers wrote about this: For example A Genius for Foolishness, Book review on The Philosophy of Philandering, Bertrand Russell on Sex and Love (the last one refuting the notion that he was a "womanizer") etc.

So I think a section on controversy, with references to claims of colonialism and racism mentioned above on this talk page, would be appropriate. I was originally exposed to this controversy in an article in Hebrew about Witgenstein in the Segula magazine. If I remember correctly they wrote that today in the Me2 era he would have become ostricized.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not a very "long list", is it? I'm a bit concerned by the somewhat sensationalist tone of that Los Angeles Times review, e.g. "In his personal life, however, Lord Russell was a man of ruthless egotism, a womanizer capable of uncommon callousness and a father in later life whose behavior led to devastation and tragedy for his descendants (his oldest son went mad; his granddaughter committed suicide)." Use of the phrase "his oldest son went mad" does not really inspire confidence. And that review is 26 years old now. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Philosopher or Polymath? Or both?

An older version of Russell's article had him classified as a polymath. While it is true that Russell was a philosopher, he wrote on divers subjects throughout his long life. At any rate, he had polymathic interests.

Aristotle is listed as a philosopher and polymath on his Wikipedia article; shouldn't the same be said for Russell? SpicyMemes123 (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

'Polymathic interests?' I've never heard that term in my life, could you clarify it (and does it justify calling someone a polymath? For instance, I have interests in physics, does that mean I'm a physicist?). Apart from that, I highly doubt that even his fields of interests went beyond philosophy, mathematics and logic, which in Russell's case were of course related, so we're basically talking about one thing: the foundation of mathematics. Apart from that he had certain interests with regard to social issues, but this does not define a polymath. A polymath is someone like Goethe, who was apart from a poet/novelist, also a scientist and a statesman, which are completely different fields.

Last but not least: what's of importants are the sources on which you're basing this. The majority of sources are simply referring to Russell as a philosopher. I've never read a source referring to Russell as a polymath. Have you? 213.124.174.59 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I see that Russell is mentioned at Polymath, but not in any way that supports such a description of him. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

150th anniversary

BBC Radio 4's Today played an excerpt from a previously unreleased recording of Russell reading aged 93 and interviewed Ray Monk, at the end of the programme (2:58:35) this morning : [1]. I would add it but I can find no secondary source. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

At least put it in the ext links. Ceoil (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there an agreed format for designating a time code? Unlike YouTube, it's no longer possible to incorporate a code into iPlayer links. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Why not say..."begins at 2:58:35" Ceoil (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Have added. But there are now 18 there and that BBC clip is a very compressed one. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Trimmed a few, though more could go. I suspect the clip will be on YouTube soon enough. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"most famously known for the following opinions on education"

This uncited section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.108.159.91 (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Welsh, English, or British?

A recent edit here 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: BBC and WalesOnline. The following edit here 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. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

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 born in Monmouthshire, Died in Merionethshire and had his ashes distributed over Welsh mountains. Titus Gold (talk) 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 that BBC source say he was Welsh? I'm not sure the WalesOnline source is sufficiently authoritative. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Corrected to English. Seems to refer to himself as English in his autobiography. Titus Gold (talk) 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. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

"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." ~~~~ Jy Houston (talk) 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. Martinevans123 (talk) 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). Jy Houston (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• British seems safer than English. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

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 Monmouthshire (historic)#Ambiguity over status). So, it is better to be unequivocally correct, rather than starting yet another round of tedious and pointless arguments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2022 (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… Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 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 Template:Infobox person, 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. Ghmyrtle (talk) 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. Martinevans123 (talk) 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. Titus Gold (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

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. Ghmyrtle (talk) 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. Martinevans123 (talk) 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. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I tend agree. I see nothing wrong with "British". Martinevans123 (talk) 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. Titus Gold (talk) 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. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

For example, this is important for categories and other Wikipedia articles which reference Welsh or English contributions. Titus Gold (talk) 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. Titus Gold (talk) 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. Martinevans123 (talk) 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. Titus Gold (talk) 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. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I've adapted a sentence later on in the intro. Titus Gold (talk) 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. Martinevans123 (talk) 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. Ghmyrtle (talk) 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. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

"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 Wikipedia should be called either Welsh or English, only British. That could be described as a very one-sided British nationalist view. Titus Gold (talk) 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. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see, nobody is "suggesting that no one on Wikipedia 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? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"..you're essentially suggesting that no one on Wikipedia 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. Ghmyrtle (talk) 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. Titus Gold (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, I think it's fine as it is now. Titus Gold (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Just like Ghmyrtle, I think the clause "but identified as English" is unnecessary. And there's still nothing in the main body that discusses/supports it. Martinevans123 (talk) 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. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

And you've now just added another source here, 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. Martinevans123 (talk) 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? Titus Gold (talk) 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. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2022 (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 Titus Gold - support the inclusion of the words "but identified as English" in the opening section of this article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 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. Titus Gold (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

What were "English international relations"? Why were they not "British international relations"? Martinevans123 (talk) 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 WP:RS sources, perhaps they should be provided? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You would be best off just reading his autobiography than me talking through the whole thing. Titus Gold (talk) 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. Martinevans123 (talk) 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. Ceoil (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

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". Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2022 (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. RWB2020 (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2022 (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 this book 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. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Do those sources added to support "Russell identified as English" bear scrutiny? I am looking now at page 253 of the Autobiography here (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 Gilbert Murray, "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"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)