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)

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)

Russell and appeasement

In the article if says "and initially supported appeasement against Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, before changing his view in 1943" but elsewhere it says "In 1940, he changed his appeasement view that avoiding a full-scale world war was more important than defeating Hitler. He concluded that Adolf Hitler taking over all of Europe would be a permanent threat to democracy. In 1943, he adopted a stance toward large-scale warfare called "relative political pacifism": "War was always a great evil, but in some particularly extreme circumstances, it may be the lesser of two evils."[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)

Suggest changing to: ".. initially supported appeasement against Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, before changing his view in 1940, and refining it again in 1943." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Languages

Russell spoke German (he expected his conversation with Vladimir Lenin to be in German rather than English). I don't know where to add this information to the page.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TK9c-caEcw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:867:5F90:6BE8:18EA:D818:5BC3 (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps in "Education"? Do you have any better source(s)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Short description

AradhanaChatterjee, I wonder could you offer a response about your recent edits to the short description? I had assumed that, in general, the short description should reflect the opening sentence of the article. Is there any reason why this should not apply here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, regrading your recent edit here. I assume that terms are supposed to be linked at their first appearance in an article? Is this not the case? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Might I suggest spending some time here and perhaps this page as well, and I recommend reading the article about the logician Bertrand Russell, his analytical reasoning ideas should definitely help. AradhanaChatterjee (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

How about just answering the questions in my two edit summaries, before slapping an "edit warring" warning at my Talk page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Only if you tell me how any of the above improves this article about Bertrand Russell on 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)

It isn't reasonable to expect editors to search through the edit history of an article in order to start or contribute to a discussion. I have searched edit histories myself, but it is thankless work with paltry rewards. Thanks, therefore, for bringing this argument to the talk page, and please write appropriate descriptions of your reasoning, rather than just waving your hands at the edit summary.

I will try to contribute to this discussion myself, but I may be delayed by "real life". Bruce leverett (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It is very reasonable to expect editors to search through the edit history of an article when they are making multiple reverts on well explained edits. This user felt the need to start this discussion only after I reverted their revert, and they had prior to that reverted multiple appropriately summarised edits. AradhanaChatterjee (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

AradhanaChatterjee, I today reverted just two of your edits, on different things, once each. And you immediately came to my Talk page and accused me of being in an "edit war"? My last previous edits here were on 13 February 2024‎. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not making multiple reverts on well explained edits. I only want to get, and give, advice on the use of wikilinks and on the short description for this article. If you want my sympathy or assistance, you'll have to explain to me what you have in mind. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to say something constructive to get a discussion started. I will be traveling for a while and unable to follow up on this.

WP:Short description does not say that the short description has to "reflect the opening sentence of the article", or even that it should do so. The main requirement is that it be short. A rough-and-ready test for adequate shortness, for the existing version of the article, is to get into the search box and type "Bertra". A list of articles whose names begin with that will appear, along with their short descriptions. If the short description of an article gets truncated on this list, it's too long. As I write this, the short description of Bertrand Russell is OK, but the short description of Bertrand Russell's philosophical views is getting truncated, so it's too long. Now you know.

Probably "British philosopher, mathematician and logician (1872-1970)" will make it under the wire, just barely, but I don't see anything wrong with "British philosopher and logician (1872-1970)", either. For readers who actually need a short description, e.g. to distinguish Russell from some other person with a similar name, it will be fine.

Regarding wikilinks, I have made many edits where I cited MOS:OVERLINK, but I realize it is a slippery thing, and so I have gotten lazy about that. My own feeling about mathematician, logician, and philosopher is that they fall under the category of "common occupations", mentioned in MOS:OVERLINK, and therefore they should not be linked. I note, by the way, that logician redirects to logic, so linking to both of them qualifies as MOS:REPEATLINK, I would think. MOS:OVERLINK doesn't have a category for fields of study, such as mathematics, logic, and set theory, but I think that the first two should not be linked, either, because really, doesn't everybody think that they know what mathematics and logic are?

The larger problem is that the whole first paragraph is a dud. A dry recitation of one-word descriptions of Russell's occupations and fields of study does not tell the reader why he was notable, and does not describe anything he did that was notable. The lead paragraphs generally, and the first paragraph in particular, and especially the first sentence, are supposed to (a) tell the reader what is notable about the subject, and (b) get the reader's interest. Instead the first paragraph is a cure for insomnia. It should specifically mention the things that are currently mentioned in the second paragraph.

By the way, I am surprised that the lead paragraphs do not mention A History of Western Philosophy. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for your explanation and suggestions. I agree we should centre any discussion on Template:Short description and Wikipedia:Short description. You are right, it doesn't say that it has to "reflect the opening sentence of the article", or even that it should do so. Perhaps it's just my experience that in most cases it usually does. Yes, the main requirement is for it to be short. But I don't think it's a case of "the shorter the better". The template says "This should be limited to about 40 characters". It seems the best course of action would be to first agree what's in the first paragraph. I also agree that the lead paragraphs should mention A History of Western Philosophy. Hope you enjoy your travels. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of a short description is to aid readers in navigation by disambiguating each article's subject as briefly and naturally as possible. This is naturally distinct from the purpose of an article's introductory sentence, which generally hews closer to beginning a definition of the article's subject. In this instance, both versions discussed seem perfectly suited for the task. Remsense ‥ 论 08:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, WP:SDESC says this: "The short description of a Wikipedia article or of another namespace page is a concise explanation of the scope of the page. These descriptions appear in Wikipedia mobile and some desktop searches, and help users identify the desired article. When viewing an article, some mobile Wikipedia apps also display the description below the page title." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

So I really don't know what was so desperately wrong with the original. Or why my reverts were deemed "reckless". It seems we're not allowed to describe him as a "mathematician" in the short description, as that's covered by "logician". But we can still describe him as a "mathematician" in the opening sentence. I'm obviously having a problem with the logic here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)