Talk:Bertrand Russell/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Russel was a liberal?

liberal and socialist is a possible contradiction in terms, depending on your definition of a liberal. The very artical on liberalism linked on the page says: "Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government, wealth, and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise". Is socialism compatible with "a market economy that supports private enterprise"? Methinks not. However I'm not sure of a practical replacment for the word "liberal" that would keep the clarity of the article. Any ideas?

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end. Socialism (which you don't seem to have in mind, despite your choice of words) and communism (which you seem to have in mind) can sometimes be distinguished, and old-school liberalism is certainly more compatible with the former than the latter. That said, (speaking from a US point of view) liberalism divides into several camps (you might check out [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5] for further clarification): the libertarian camp you seem to be describing, a socialist-like camp which would seek to improve peoples lives by using government power and money to effectively increase wealth and decrease cost of living, and an anarchist camp which would go well beyond the liberal description you've given. None is necessarily incompatible with the others. -Seth Mahoney 00:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Russell was a great social liberal (way ahead of his time on sexual liberation, women's rights, etc.) In terms of his economic views, they changed over his lifetime, but he was basically a Keynesian. Liberalism as a broad political movement isn't at all incompatible with some degree of government intervention in the economy. And of course, it's debatable to what extent a "free market" really is consistent with the ideas of liberalism. Cadr 14:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What I Believe

The article What I believe is today dominated by E. M. Forster's essay with the same title as Russell's essay. I have (some time ago), added to the article, which originally contained no information on Russell and his essay, a mere mention of Russell. Please expand the section on Russell . --Thorsen 07:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I find the article seriously lacking in critiques of Russell's works, at least on the philosophical part. One would also expect to see remarks directed towards that disastrous conflation of personal bias, envy and lack of learning that is his History of Philosophy. Particularly afflicting is that corny carnival of high-praising quotations, perhaps some counter-examples could be added?

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end. Yow! That's some arrogance, random guy on the internet referring to Bertrand Russell's (author of Principia Mathematica) "lack of learning"! But yeah, you're right - there should be more criticism, though not every point deserves a counterpoint (we should be aware of our own, perhaps, personal bias and envy). As for quotes, did you catch this one?

In other words, it was specifically not for his incontestably great contributions to philosophy—The Principles of Mathematics, 'On Denoting' and Principia Mathematica—that he was being honoured, but for the later work that his fellow philosophers were unanimous in regarding as inferior.

-Seth Mahoney 03:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Welshness

Russell happened to be born in Wales, of English parents, and lived there at the very end of his life. As far as I'm aware he never himself claimed to be Welsh, though there are dozens of online sites claiming him to be Welsh on the basis of his birthplace. I'd want to see some evidence that Russell claimed to be Welsh before admitting him to categories of Welsh philosophers, Welsh intellectuals and so on. --  ajn (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you'll never find such evidence, although he loved living in Wales -- 1872-6, most of 1933, 1946-9, and 1956 until his death. Milt 14:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It is very petty indeed to censure Russell's inclusion in the categories Category:Welsh Mathematicians and Category:Welsh writers. as you say youself, many, many people DO consider Russell to be Welsh, and he was born, spent large portions of his life, and died there. I was nor attempting to remove him from any of the various British categories, but surely it is only reasonable to list him under the country of his birth? I am adding those two Cats back in.--Mais oui! 19:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Geography is being made to count too heavily here. Children born of English parents who were busy ruling India would not be regarded as Indian. Nor did Russell have ethnically Welsh ancestors, despite the entry on Welsh mathematicians saying that he was of "Welsh descent". Ancestrally, he was somewhat Scottish, but not Welsh at all, his parents being English people who liked living over the Monmouthshire county (not country) border. If anyone still thinks Russell was Welsh, why didn't he regard himself as Welsh? He was not careless about such things and knew whereof he spoke. Milt 19:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Milt is quite correct. Russell considered himself to be and was an Englishman. Clearly his parents and grandparents were English, and he is a decendent of the Duke of Bedford, John Russell, an advisor to Henry VIII. He loved Wales, specifically, the Welsh Coast. But that does not make him Welsh, and, as far as I know, he never once declared that he was by preference. I know of no major biography (Clark, Ryan, Monk, Moorehead, Ayer, etc.) or encycopedia entry, including the venerable Encyc. of Philosophy, which states that he is anything other than English. icut4u

Flicking through the autobiography, I can find several references to himself as English, and throughout his writings he uses English and British to refer to his nationality. So if we're going to subcategorise him by nation within the UK (something which I think is unnecessary, like a lot of Wikipedia classification), he needs to be classified as an English philosopher, writer etc. Looking at Welsh mathematicians I can see why someone might want to populate it, but that doesn't make Russell's inclusion correct. --  ajn (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's scrutinize the claim that Russell was Welsh. The facts in the claim's favour seem to be that (a) he was born in the area of the United Kingdom known as Wales (although Monmouthshire seems to have been a special case); (b) that he lived for almost 20 of his 97 years in the area; (c) that he died there. Perhaps (a) and (c) are considered by Mais oui! to be sufficient, but I don't know that. I propose that the effect on the rest of Wikipedia of determining nationality merely by place of birth, death and perhaps residence be examined. Would there be consequences that contributors like Mais oui! would reject? For example, would Sean Connery's Bahamanian residence make him non-Scottish? Is Salman Rushdie still Indian and Henry Kissinger still German? Was Graham Greene a Swiss novelist? He lived and died there. Milt 16:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

There's also the point that he was educated entirely outside Wales, and did not live there during the period when he produced virtually all of his philosophical and mathematical work. So he might have been Welsh in some sense, but it's daft to call him a "Welsh philosopher". Then again, perhaps he belonged to the class of Welsh people who are not Welsh themselves? --  ajn (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Would the class of non-Welsh people be a member of the class of Welsh people who are not Welsh themselves? Milt 19:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

My objection to omitting him from the Welsh categories is that you are all being very fundamentalist. Do you not realise that many, many people have two or more national identities. for example many people are English, British and European; or Corsican and French; or Turkish and German. Why must Russell only be classified under the one term "British"? As has been pointed out, he did not even describe himself as "British", but as English. They are not the same thing you know. And I would have absolutely no objections if Bahamians or Spaniards were to also put Sean Connery in their subcategories, just as long as they did not try to remove him from the perfectly legitimate Scottish categories. Stop being so anal. You are acting like the worst types of bureaucratic jobs-worths.--Mais oui! 19:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought "British" was meant to encompass "English", "Scottish", "Welsh", "Northern Irish" (and possibly "Cornish"). Thus you wouldn't say Connery was both British and Scottish. Milt 19:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course you could! I doubt very much whether he would ever describe himself as British, but other people might. No, British does NOT encompass English, Scottish; Welsh, or Cornish (and definitely not Northern Irish). For many millions of citizens of the UK, British is a descriptor that does not apply to them: a recent survey, reported by The Scotsman newspaper — 7 August 2005, found that "... only 27% of Scots said they were British, 35% of Welsh people and 48% of English." Ie. a minority of UK citizens feel that the adjective "British" applies to them. Bertrand Russell didn't. He used the term "English" for a reason, unless you think that he was typically careless in his terminology.--Mais oui! 20:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I suspect Connery wouldn't say he was Bahamian or Spanish, either. The crucial point is self-identification. Connery is Scottish, despite not living there. Tony Blair (born in Scotland and partially educated there) is, as far as he is concerned, English rather than Scottish. Russell was, as far as he was concerned, British or English (he used both words interchangeably - Mais oui!, have you actually read any of his autobiographical or other writings?). I'd be more sympathetic to this attempt to categorise Russell as Welsh if there was any evidence put forward to suggest that he ever described himself as being Welsh. It's far more honest to say he was British, and leave it at that. --  ajn (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter much what Connery thinks. Yes, he would say Scottish, but if other people ALSO (note the inclusiveness) want to put him in the British, Bahamian or Spanish, or American categories, they are all, at least partly, true also. I seek inclusivity. Other people are desperately trying to exclude Russell from a perfectly legitimate category: he was born in Wales for heaven's sake. That alone would qualify him under any reasonable approach.--Mais oui! 21:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to me that if someone is born in a country then they may be assumed to be of that nationality by default, at least unless there is good reason for thinking otherwise. Rls 12:55, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it so much simpler, if that's all that nationality means, to say where and of whom a person was born? The opening of the article proper conveys the facts: "Bertrand Russell was born on 18 May 1872 at Trellech, Monmouthshire, Wales, into an aristocratic English family." Oops. I see that this begs the question. The family is said to be English. Is that supposed to convey anything more than "born in England"? I think so. Anyway, whether Russell was a Welsh mathematician is only a category dispute, and it doesn't affect the entry for him. I'm sure we haven't seen the last of unusual categories loosely applied to him. I do wonder, however, whether Wikipedia has any standards for the application of nationality. Milt 13:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

All this discussion of Russell's "Welshness" has reminded me that he loathed most patriotism and abominated nationalism and from at least his Free Trade days was an Internationalist. I have tried but failed to include him in the category of World citizen. There is actually an article with that title and Russell is in the list. Perhaps someone more Wiki-adept than I would make the category. I've left it in need of repair. It seems that a category and an "entry" can have identical titles, as is the case with "Welsh mathematicians". In the entry of that title Russell's descent has been revised from Welsh to English. Milt 00:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Would those helpful editors who consider Russell Welsh say the same thing about Edward II of England, who was also born in a family home in Wales? Septentrionalis 03:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Russell said he was English; his family at least since the 16th century thought of itself as English; all major philosophy and mathematics texts, anthologies, biographies, and encyclopedia entries refer to him as having been English; no other reputable or authoratative source has ever referred to him as Welsh; therefore, I maintain that he is English. I suspect there is an attempt to burnish the contributions of Wales at the expense of accuracy. Yes, he was born and he died there; but geography, alone, does not make nationality, as the several examples given by others have shown. icut4u 03:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Geography certainly does play a large part in nationality, and it has hardly been "shown" otherwise by the opinion of a few other Wikipedians. By default, one's nationality is where one is born; if Wales was a sovereign country, Russell would have had Welsh citizenship. I suspect the fact that he was generally referred to as English was more to do with the relatively common practice of using "English" as a synonym of "British" during (and prior to) the first half of the 20th Century. Rls 17:32, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Geography and birthplace do not determine nationality on their own. What we have here is a small number of people who are ignorant of Russell's own writing who say he was Welsh, and people who have actually read Russell's autobiography, Monk's biography, and at least some of the many writings on culture and politics that Russell produced throughout his life. The latter group say there is no evidence that he ever thought of himself as being Welsh, or was ever described by others as being Welsh (indeed, his autobiography starts with his arrival in London, that being his earliest memory). He was an English aristocrat, and extraordinarily proud of that. --  ajn (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Nationality is based on three main aspects: place of birth, blood, and naturalisation. Place of birth alone should be enough to make a case for nationality -- Russell would for example have been qualified to play rugby or football for Wales under current rules (even if that does conjure up a slightly bizarre image :). He was unquestionably of English descent, but he chose to spend extended periods of his life living in Wales, so the third point is under dispute. In any case, the categories are not formally defined. My view is that being born in a country qualifies someone for categorisation under that category; it is not necessarily an absolute statement of nationality. By the way, I find your assumptions of my state of ignorance slightly insulting. Rls 18:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Consider also the purpose of categories. A researcher making an investigation into Welsh scientists would find it of interest that Russell was born, died, and spent some time in Wales. Categories are not mutually exclusive and it is my view that the article should be included in the relevant Welsh and English categories. Rls

A researcher investigating any nationality of scientist shouldn't find Russell - do you actually know anything about him? If you're going to make a category for people who retired to Wales, fine - but Russell was not educated in Wales, and did no philosophical or mathematical work during the years he lived there. --  ajn (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

But he was born in Wales, which is one of the important factors in considering their nationality. The place where someone was educated plays entirely no part in their nationality in my opinion. 144.124.16.28 19:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, quotes from Autobiography of Bertrand Russell: "I blush all over to be English sometimes". , p.312. "I am inclined to think that one of the solid advantages of the English temperament is that we..." p.492; "In the East, people are passionately pro-English; we are treated with extra kindness in shops as soon as people notice our accent." p.494; "This [being awarded OM] made me very happy for, though I dare say it would surprise many Englishmen and most of the English Establishment to hear it, I am passionately English, and I treasure an honour bestowed on me by the Head of my country" p516. --Dannyno 13:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, people. This is an absurd discussion. He was both Welsh and English, because he has an English heritage and was born in Wales. If you're born in Canada, and your parents are from India, you have a right to being called either Indian, or Canadian, or both. Same here. Lucidish 03:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree the discussion is absurd, but only because Russell was so obviously not Welsh. Everyone has neglected the Welsh language here. The Welsh do have their own language, you know, which is like nothing else on the planet. I have known several Welshmen, and they could all speak Welsh. Indeed, I have known one Welsh girl who was not all that comfortable speaking English. Now, there's no evidence known to me, at least, that Bertrand Russell could speak a word of Welsh. The Welsh language is such a great part of Welsh identity that I can confidently maintain that Russell wasn't Welsh on linguistic grounds alone. If I were born in Paris, but couldn't speak any French, would I be a Frenchman? You might as well say I'm a bus because I was born in a garage.

I will also point out for the record that being Welsh isn't a nationality at all. There's no such thing as a Welsh passport, for instance. It's more like being a Texan. I'm surprised I have to explain these things. Tex 13:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tex (I suspect this may be a wind up, so I shall keep the answer short)- I'm afraid you are misinformed. One does NOT have to speak Welsh in order to be from Wales- in fact, much of the population are not fluent speakers, and very few (although some) speak Welsh as a first language. The Welsh language (which shows similarities to other Celtic languages and is not 'like nothing else on Earth') is widely spoken, but it is not a prerequisite of nationality. As for the national status of Wales- it is slightly ambiguous. The American federal systemt (esp. Texas, which has at least some independent history in its own right) is one analogy, although not in my opinion a particularly apt one. I don't think that the situation with regards to UK constitutional politics and component nations is easily explained to a non-native- the various United Kingdom pages should give you a start however. Basically, Russell was not Welsh because he did not identify himself as such, although there is ambiguity. Describing him as 'British' is the best compromise- it is unambiguously true, although not everyone's going to like it. If his work and life were synonymous with his nationality (like, for example, Dylan Thomas, then it would be obviously appropriate to describe him as Welsh. Here, it isn't clear how Russell saw himself, and there is to say the least room for discussion given his personal circumstances. All the best, Badgerpatrol 14:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Quebec considers itself a nation independent from the state in which it lives, Canada. So the "Texas" analogy isn't necessarily relevant: nationality is different from statehood. I imagine that the situation of Wales is similar, if only because I've encountered some ridiculous attitudes toward them from Londoners. Lucidish 15:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Badgerpatrol -- Well, then we are in agreement. I will conjecture, though, that if Russell had been a native Welsh speaker, he would have been far more likely to self-identify as Welsh.

Lucidish -- Thank you for an improved example. If I were born in Quebec, of English-speaking parents, and I didn't speak French, would I then be a Québécois? According to the Wikipedia definition, no. Tex 19:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that many people who are not native speakers of Welsh, and indeed some people who can't even speak it as a second language, still consider themselves Welsh. The status of Welsh in Wales isn't anything like the status of French in Quebec. People from outside the UK/Ireland often don't understand just how rare native speakers of the various indigenous Celtic languages are these days. There has been a resurgence in the number of people who speak Welsh as a second language recently, because there's been a big political drive in Wales to keep the language alive by teaching Welsh in schools, teaching some lessons in Welsh, etc. But for the vast majority of Welsh people, Welsh isn't part of everyday life in the way that French is in Quebec.

All this being said, I don't think it makes sense to say that Russell is Welsh. Cadr 19:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Language is just one element of a complete culture. I see no reason for a non-french speaking Quebecer to be denied association with the culture of Quebec, any more than I see a First Nations person ought to be denied association with the culture of the Iroquois (say) even though they don't actively speak the language.

The discussion is a lexical muddle. There are competing claims which involve competing social jurisdictions: culture, (i.e., active behavior and self-identification of Russell), genetic heritage (i.e., geneology), and political geography (i.e., place of birth within both national- and state-defined boundaries). The only plausible outcome is to say that our semantic tools are not adequate to be certain one way or the other, and that he is in a fuzzy category. He was natively Welsh, and culturally English, whatever that helps. Lucidish 21:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That is well put. He is in a fuzzy category, as are many UK citizens, and therefore (unless he self-identified as Welsh, or was strongly identified by others as being Welsh, neither of which are true to my (limited) knowledge) it is best to simply describe him as British, which is always completely unambiguous. (Note that I would NOT always support describing all UK biographies in those terms, as there are often more inclusive categories obviously available). Language doesn't really have anything to do with it- even with the recent laudable effort that's gone in to revitalising Welsh (and to a lesser extent Gaelic and the other indigenous languages), I suspect that very few in Wales speak Welsh better than they speak English, for better or for worse. In terms of national sentiment and feeling, Quebec is probably a decent analogy, maybe also the Basque country, Corsica, and perhaps a few others. It is a complex picture, but basically, Russell can't unambiguously be identified as Welsh because a) He didn't think he was Welsh; b) Nobody else thought he was either. Language (I am presuming btw that he actually didn't speak Welsh- I don't have any definite knowledge either way) has nothing to do with it. A high percentage of the population of Wales don't speak Welsh either- I am quite certain that they (for the most part) would happily and consistently identify themselves as Welsh. PS- Tex, I am surprised that we are in agreement, because my reading of your contribution was that it was completely antithetic to my (obviously erroneous!) rebuttal. Badgerpatrol 01:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Badger -- The point here is how to describe Russell. You say that 'British' is the best compromise. So, we are in agreement. The rest of this stuff is largely immaterial by comparison. I would rather see 'English' but the point is to reach consensus. I could argue about whether he was Welsh until I learned to speak the language myself, and it would be a waste of brains and time, like most of the prolix arguments on Wikipedia talk pages. Tex 23:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd just call him British and say he was born in Wales. Lucidish 23:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

He was born in Monmouthshire in 1872. Was that then part of Wales? Septentrionalis 18:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not unambiguously, thus further complicating the issue. Badgerpatrol 19:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Has anyone searched Wikipedia for entries that mention Bertrand Russell in a list, as in World citizen? Such a source might turn up more categorizations of him. Milt 00:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Welsh AND English: the case for reasonableness in opposition to fundamentalism

I just cannot understand why so many people are being such fundamentalists on this issue. Has it never crossed your minds that people can be from more than one country or place? You have a very purist, extremist view of human identity. Real life is much, much more complicated. Wikipedia is not a democracy. You should not call a poll every time you read something you disagree with. Russell was, at least partly, from Wales. He was also English, so I have added him to the relevant Category:English people categories, plus to the absolutely indisputable, biographically factual category Category:Natives of Monmouthshire.--Mais oui! 08:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a democracy" does not mean "anyone can put anything they like into an article, even if everyone else disagrees with them". Go and actually read our policies before lecturing people on how Wikipedia works. Proteus (Talk) 09:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Russell should be in both English, and Welsh people categories. I consider this effort to define Russell by his English ethnicity alone to be a very sinister development. It reflects very, very poorly on the people calling for categorisation by racial purity. I concede that I am not going to win what you have chosen to make an editing war, as long as nobody tries to remove him from Natives of Monmouthshire out of sheer spite. This is a very sad day for the more cosmopolitan members of the Wikipedia community. Ethnic categorisation, if applied throughout Wikipedia, would completely destroy the entire project. Shame on you! How very, very un-Russellian of you. I hope that you appreciate the profound irony of your position.--Mais oui! 09:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to resort to name calling and personalizing the matter as you have done in this last squib. No reference has been made to race, here, only to nationality; there is no such thing as "racial purity," and no one has said so on this page. Russell was concerned with precision, so I am not sure what is un-Russellian about the position that he was English. Yes, some people do claim dual nationality, as you said earlier; however, Russell, to my knowledge, and I have read a good part of his writings and his letters, never claimed this. Indeed, he often said he was English. No one who is a widely accepted authority on Russell has ever claimed that he was anything other than English, either. No one in his family has claimed this. It is perfectly legitimate to reference Wales as an important place in his life (as was America, in a different way); it is not correct to refer to him as Welsh, however. icut4u 15:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The question of nationality is inherently unprecise. What nationality Russell claimed is certainly important, but what his family claim isn't. Self-determination is enough to include someone in a category, but not to exclude them from another (where they are not mutually exclusive) in my opinion. I agree Mais Oui's personal comments are unhelpful. 144.124.16.28 19:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The Amberley Papers has interesting information on Bertrand Russell's immediate ancestors (who aren't in Wikipedia) and his siblings. His father was born in England. His mother was born in England. His brother was born in England. His sister was born in England. Then they all moved over the Monmouth border to Trelleck a year or two before Bertrand was born, and he was moved back by age 3. What purpose could be served by deeming him Welsh because of this border crossing? What Welsh characteristics could he have gained as an infant? Milt 18:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "Monmouth" border. The nationalities of his siblings are irrelevant. He was born in Wales, and that is usually enough to consider someone as being of that nationality, though given his English descent, self-description, and longer period of living there he should certainly be considered English as well. 144.124.16.28 19:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not by any stetch of the imagination "usually enough to consider someone as being of that nationality". Two of my cousins were born in South Africa, but if you suggested they were South African they'd probably just laught at you. My brother's girlfriend was born in Hong Kong, but if you suggested she was Chinese she'd probably think you were insane. Proteus (Talk) 23:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

(The post you replied to was by me; Wikipedia was behaving strangely yesterday). This is an appeal to ridicule. Your cousins might have a case for South African citizenship if their families were living in South Africa rather than being on a temporary visa or whatever. I doubt your brother's girlfriend could consider herself Chinese anyway unless she is very young because Hong Kong only became a Chinese territory a few years ago. In any case, your acquaintances' views on nationality are irrelevant. Rls 23:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't suppose it will do any good in dispelling this to point out that it is debateable whether Monmouth was part of Wales in 1872? Septentrionalis 22:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Not really, because a) Russell wasn't born in Monmouth and b) assuming you mean Monmouthshire, it has always been considered part of Wales except in the case of a few legal technicalities. Rls 23:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"Self-description" being enough to include, but not sufficient to exclude, I should like to argue Russell was an American. After all, his wives Alys and Edith were both American. He had at least one American lover. He spent a good deal of time in America. He occasionally became involved in American political affairs. His daughter Kate married an American and, I think, she might still live in America. He has American grandchildren. Some Americans, myself included, believe him to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. I should like to claim him as a fellow American, and think I could rouse others in support of this. He wrote more philosophy in America than he did in Wales. He was in America when it was announced he would win the Nobel Prize. Thus, I think we should include him among American philosophers and mathematicians. Of course, this is not a good argument: he was English. icut4u 23:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy. It's ironic how many fallacies have been used in this discussion considering the subject of the article. Had Russell been born in America then I think a case could certainly be made for categorising him as an American philosopher (etc.) in addition to the English categories. However, this is now getting more than a bit silly so I have to bow to the consensus. Rls 23:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

And your "argument" mischaracterizes mine, which I said quite clearly was a poor one, but every bit as good as ones mounted in favor of calling him Welsh, which, again, is to say it is poor. A bit of Russell and his student, Wittgenstein, tells us that convention has a great deal to do with language and meaning, and this includes the terms and meanings often associated with nationality. The convention among philosophers, biographers, intellecutal historians, people associated with Russell, notably his family, and, most importantly, Russell himself is to refer to him as English. No one of this group with whom I am familiar, or who has been cited here, refers to him as being Welsh. The contrary, however, is true. No reputable encyclopedia, including the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, calls him anything other than English, though most texts certainly refer to the fact that he was born in Wales. It strikes me as a bit of hubris to suppose that Wikipedia ought to be the first to set everyone straight on this. icut4u 23:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to your final sentence, "he was English", which did not follow from the rest of your argument, but which was mere assertion. I did not in any way mischaracterize your argument, but pointed out that it was incomplete -- had Russell been born in America, I said a case could indeed be made that he was (partly) American. Further, you are attacking a straw man by trying to argue that he was English; my argument was not that he was not English, but that he should be dual-categorised under the Welsh categories for the reasons I have already put forward. Anyway, I have already conceded the discussion on grounds of triviality. Rls 00:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I had already argued for that point, and I have had to repeat myself. It is a matter of convention. Wikipedia proscribes against original research, and the proposition that Russell is Welsh is, as far as I can observe, original research. I should be interested in any reputable sourcing that suggests he is Welsh, in which case a dual categorization would be quite acceptable; however, there is considerable body of citable evidence for the contrary point of view, which is that he is thoroughly English. I myself don't think it is trivial, but I do agree, it is no longer constructive, so I shall say no more on this. Best icut4u 00:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

A cursory Google search produces http://www.100welshheroes.com/en/biography/bertrandrussell -- which seems respectable, as it is sponsored by the Welsh Assembly and is based at the National Library of Wales. Of course it could be reasonably argued that it is biased, but I think it qualifies as respectable. There are many other similar claims on the web, so I don't think the "original research" comment is fair. Rls 01:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The only claim here is that of birthplace: While I am perfectly willing to rejoice that Gwent has been returned to Wales (even if that doesn't help settle this), ir had not been returned in 1872. I quote from the 1911 Britannica: "Monmouthshire is a wewstern border county of England, bounded E. by Gloucestershire...W. and S.W by Glamorganshire (Wales)." Enough of this; national victories are not retroactive. Septentrionalis 02:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"national victories are not retroactive". Very good! Try telling that to the people who regularly categorise pre-1707 Englishmen and Scots as "British" (sic). William Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, John Donne, John Napier etc were never "British", yet there they are in the British section of Wikipedia. Of course the very worst offender in that regard is the British Nationalist Broadcasting Corporation, who seem to be hell-bent on pretending that England, Scotland and Wales do not exist. We're all the "Yookay" now: Hurrah for conformity, homogeneity and blandness!--Mais oui! 11:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The 1911 Britannica is incorrect in this case. Monmouthshire has always been considered part of Wales in popular usage, and almost always in legal terms. If the traditional county was considered English, that would have made places such as Newport, Caerleon, Abergavenny, Abercarn, Abertillery etc. English. Rls 14:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Monmouthshire has always been considered part of Wales by some people, and always been considered part of England by others! People in the latter category DO think Newport, Caerleon, Abergavenny, Abercarn, Abertillery etc. are English! Owain 11:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

History of Western Philosophy

If we can drag ourselves away from all this fascinating discussion of nationality, I've made a start at replacing the previous eccentric article on the History of Western Philosophy. It's an important book (Russell's most widely-read book, secured his financial position), and the entry needs some detail, especially about the problems with it. --  ajn (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Birth year

Someone insists on making a foolish revision to Russell's birth year. There is no evidence that he was born in 1875! Why does this contributor persist?

For the past several hours, everyone who has visited the entry has been misinformed as to Bertrand Russell's birth year. Then there is the ripple effect: several spans of years have been recalculated and revised. Maybe a separate entry should be written for the Russell who was born in 1872. How, in general, does Wikipedia recover from a persistent source of damage? Milt 00:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

I discovered that great man on wikipedia and I'm getting books by him as soon as possible. Still, I do not understand that a man who's been criticized so much not only doesn't have a Criticism of Bertrand Russell page, but doesn't even have a criticism section in his article. Plus, those LaRouche people seem pretty ardent on putting things in, and I don't understand why the name of the guy isn't even mentionned on the page. Is it a very minor movement that simply has a few very active supporters on wikipedia? Is he one among many? (in the latter case, a criticism page should exist, or at least a section on his ennemies). I think that the quote "from an ennemy" that was reverted several times, was a simple, unobstrusive way of putting a mention of this movement in, so why the hostility to the slightest mention? Once again, from what I read here, I admire this man much, but for the sake of NPOV I think criticisms shouldn't be forgotten or diluted across the article. But I might be wrong: obviously the editors here must know the subject much better than me. Jules LT 07:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Basically: Lyndon LaRouche is a nut with a lot of very active supporters who seek to put his warped perspective into Wikipedia. They have been so active in this that the arbitration committee ruled that "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." and "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche." (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche). Russell is one of the supreme villains in LaRouche's oddball worldview, and this article has been a target of the movement recently.

Having said that, there is room for criticism - there's a quote from Rhees's recollections of Ludwig Wittgenstein already in the article, and other mentions of the falling-out of LW and BR (although they became bitter philosophical opponents, LW apparently still treated Russell with respect). Ray Monk, who has written biographies of both men and is himself a philosopher, famously grew to detest Russell by the time he'd finished his second volume. But rather than stick in huge chunks of criticism from a man who thinks Queen Elizabeth II controls the international cocaine trade, criticism to be included needs to be sourced, proportionate, and included within the context of the article (e.g. the "Influence on philosophy" section). --  ajn (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I agree: inflating the importance of this guy is clearly out of place here and in most articles that don't relate directly to him. I would still expect a criticism section in an article on such a controversial person as Russell, be it only a list summing up the main criticisms and pointing to the sections where you can find something more detailed. Jules LT 15:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The question is, what aspect of Russell is being criticised? If it's criticism of his epistemology, or his mathematical work, or his political campaigning, then the criticism needs to go into the sections already there (e.g. the mention of Goedel at the end of the "Logic and mathematics" section, Strawson in the "Philosophy of language" section, or most of the "Philosophy of science" section). The idea of Wikipedia:NPOV is not to have a hagiography and a separate "Why Russell was a Very Bad Man" section, it's to have a neutral article reflecting what he believed and how others (others with some credibility) reacted to him and his views. --  ajn (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

For what's it worth, I think we should include a mention of the LaRouche criticism. He's a nut job, but he's a fairly significant nut job, and BR holds the place of honor in his shitlist. I think that's worth mentioning. Any reader who thinks less of someone if LL criticizes them, is, well.... Ethan Mitchell 00:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Theory of Types

Did the Theory of Types really influence computer science and IT? I know very well what a type is in the context of computer languages, but it doesn't seem to me to have much connection with Russell's Theory of Types, apart from the name. --  ajn (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree. However I think Russell did have an influence on computer science simply because he had an influence of virtually every area of mathematics. Russell's paradox, for example, is implemented in typeless lambda calculus.

Russell did not have an influence of virtually every area of mathematics. Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Not even Gödel did. Hilbert did. 131.130.190.55 19:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Russell's theory of types the first to posulate that there were different types of mathematical entities, and that improper mixing of types lead to inconsistent systems (which he proved by example). To quote from the appendix to The Principles of Mathematics: "Every propositional function Theta(x) - so it is contended - has, in addition to its range of truth, a range of significance, i.e. a range within which x must lie if Theta(x) is to be a proposition at all, whether true or false." Modern type theory is the straightforward generalization of that idea from propositional truth functions to any computable functions, and owes the idea to Russell; he wanted type-safety in his theory of mathematics to prevent inconsistencies, in the same way we want type-safety in our theory of programming to prevent crashes. piman 00:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Frege on empty descriptions

I have revised the following attempted description of Frege's views, because it does not in fact describe Frege's views:

Frege seemed to think we could dismiss as nonsense any proposition whose words apparently referred to objects that didn't exist.

I don't know to whom he "seemed" to think this; certainly not to himself (since in Über Sinn und Bedeutung he clearly states that "Is it possible that a sentence as a whole has only a sense, but no Bedeutung? At any rate, one might expect that such sentences occur, just as there are parts of sentences having sense but no Bedeutung. And sentences which contain proper names without Bedeutung will be of this kind. The sentence 'Odysseus was set ashore at Ithaca while sound asleep' obviously has a sense. But since it is doubful whether the name 'Odysseus', occurring therein, has a Bedeutung, it is also doubtful whether the whole sentence does." Since Frege holds that the Bedeutung of a sentence is its truth-value, this means that if all the constituents of a well-formed sentence have a sense but at least one of them has no Bedeutung, the sentence is not nonsense; rather it expresses a thought (has sense) but is neither true nor false of the world (has no Bedeutung).

Nor did it seem to Russell that this was Frege's view. In "On Denoting," what he says is that you might think that Frege's view makes sentences such as "The present King of France is bald" senseless, but the actual view he attributes to Frege is one on which empty denoting phrases are assigned ad hoc technical denotations (e.g. the null-class for "the present King of France" and the set of all Mr. Jones's sons for "the son of Mr. Jones," if Jones has ten strapping young boys). This is a failure, on Russell's part, to appreciate the full subtlety of Frege's view, but he certainly does not attribute to Frege the view that it is said Frege "seems" to hold, either.

Since this is neither Frege's actual view nor the view which Russell attributed to Frege in "On Denoting," I think the sentence (and the sentences following it which describe an alleged problem for Frege's view) well deserves being corrected to reflect Frege's actual view.

—Radgeek 05:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Length of page

The page as it is now is way too long (60+k). Recommended article size is at most half. This is just a recommendation, but it's good advice for just Russell's main page. I think this can be achieved in large part by condensing sections on Russell's philosophical work and Russell's activism, both of which can be moved in full to other pages.

--FranksValli 02:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Major Ideas

Apart from logical atomism, do you know of any idea original to Russell to put in the template-philosopher? I could come up with none, but then again I only discovered Russell a month ago or so and I haven't read that much from him (but I'm working on it). Jules LT 14:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Eugenics quotes

I have been searching for the sentence which says that black people are inferior to white and also the one which says that women are inferior to men in Marriage and Morals but I haven't found them. Could someone write which page this comes from?

As mentioned with the quote, Russell altered the original passage. You'll find it in Chap. 18, "Eugenics", 2/3 of the way in, in the paragraph starting "In extreme cases". In the Bantam paperback edition first published in 1959, the passage is on p. 180.

There is no passage in _Marriage and Morals_ that states that women are inferior to men. I'd venture to say that there no such passage in Russell's entire corpus. There is a passage in MM in which he refers to the "stupidity" of women. It goes with Russell's not too unusual view that the education afforded women has been stunted, and deliberately so. You can see this in the ironic passage about reestablishing the old morality: "The first essential is that the education of girls should be such as to make them stupid and superstitious and ignorant; this requisite is already fulfilled in the schools over which the churches have any control." (Near the end of "The Liberation of Women" chapter; Bantam, p. 61) Clearly, Russell is drawing the conclusion about women's intelligence that is warranted by the belief that their education has been substandard. Those who hold that women are not stupid in Russell's sense must also hold that their education has been the equal of men's! Milt 17 January 2006

Uh...The article still says:

Although Russell changed "It seems on the whole fair to ..." to "There is no reason to ..." in much later editions of the book, he did not change the sentence "women are on the average stupider than men".

The above "clarification" is all well and good, but it completely fails to address the fact that the sentence I just quoted above is utterly without context. I have neither the source material nor background knowledge [of Russell, his work or his philosophy] to fix this problem, but would encourage someone who does, to do so. From the above, I gather that this "problem", without bothering to look at the article's history, is at least 7 weeks old, if not <gasp!> more... Any takers? Milt, perhaps? Tomer^talk 09:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Mathematical Logic

I changed a few sentences in the logic and mathematics section. Generally, I have the impression that there is a widespread feeling among philosophers that Russell was one of the most important persons in mathematical logic ever, while this view seems rather odd to people working in mathematical logic. Maybe the section "mathematics and logic" should be split into sections "mathmatical logic" (a well established discipline of mathematics), and "philosophy of mathematics". 131.130.190.55 21:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Images

The page looks a bit bare here, though obviously a bit long. Are there no more available images we could use to break things up? I don't object to the current main image at all, but I prefered the previous one (holding his pipe). Was it still under copyright or removed for some other reason? On a slight tangent - was Russell photographed when he was incarcerated? The mugshot of a Nobel winner and longtime peace advocate would be an interesting addition, if such a thing was even done at the time. Matt Deres 20:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-nomination

Even though this is not in my main field of interest, it is obvious to me that this should become a featured article, but seeing that it has already been a candidate, I am not re-nominating it myself at this time. It is deep, clear, easy to understand (considering the content), important, personal as well as educational and well balanced. My only suggestion is pictures of him and of people who were important to him (which I get from the featured article guidelines). I suggest that those who went through the earlier candidacy persist, and try again at some strategic time. David R. Ingham 03:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Also it shows the development, original and along with the times, and even suggests the eventual decline of his thought. David R. Ingham 05:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, not everyone likes a man who wrote a book called Why I Am Not a Christian, not even Jews or Muslims, because they are on the same side of his issue that the Christians are. I suppose people who don't like him tend not to contribute to, and help balance, the article. His lack of confidence in dark people, is like most white people of his time. Tarzan of the Apes and the other early Burroughs books are good examples (Burroughs' later books are different). One cannot be innovative in everything at once, thought being at the top in one thing does help people like that, because it gives them access to others on the same intellectual level, in other subjects. Some important intellectuals have much worse records on social issues, such as some of the German physicists and engineers of that period.

The relation between ordinary language, logic and mathematics has become of greater significance because of quantum mechanics, which shows that ordinary language fails to describe nature (reality) in a precise or even consistent way. This is especially true now that the logic of quantum computers is being seriously studied, because that is describable in mathematics but not directly in ordinary or "classical" logic. I was wondering as I read the article, whether he was ever involved in those early fumbling attempts to bridge the gap between quantum nature and classical language. David R. Ingham 06:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Some remarks on Russell's attitude with respect to Wittgenstein

As is now, the last paragraph in 2.6 (philosophy of language) suggests that Russell had quite an antipathy against Wittgenstein (at least it does in my reading). Althought his might be true about 'Wittgenstein II', Russell appreciated Wittgeinstein's Tractatus logico-philosophicus. He even wrote the preface for the English edition (which made Wittgenstein upset, for - as some have told me - Russell didn't quite understand the Tractatus).

I am not certain, but I doubt (cannot prove, perhaps someone else can) Russell "thought Wittgenstein's elevation of language as the only reality with which philosophy need be concerned was absurd" with repsect to Wittgenstein I.

I therefore suggest to clarify this paragraph with an explicit reference to the part of Wittgensteins philosophy that Russell thought to be absurd. (Which is, I guess, the thoughts of Wittgenstein II, hence the Blue and Brown Books and the Philosophical Investigations.)

Russell did have a big problem with the "cult" associated with Wittgenstein, and most of LW's followers (see ordinary language philosophy) were extremely disparaging of Russell (see the Words and Things section in Ernest Gellner for a little more information). The two men had an awkward relationship after the first world war (did anyone ever have a comfortable relationship with Wittgenstein?), and although they seem to have had respect for each other they disagreed quite profoundly, especially once Russell started pronouncing on moral or ethical questions (the last chapter of The Problems of Philosophy, for example). LW thought The Conquest of Happiness was "vomative" according to Ray Monk's biography of him, and Russell thought Wittgenstein (even in the Tractatus) was dangerously mystical. But LW in particular continued to care what Russell thought about his philosophical work, and seems to have been quite disappointed that Russell didn't engage with it seriously (he sent the "Blue Book" to Russell, long after the two men's philosophical interests had diverged, and Monk has more on his wanting to know Russell's reaction). I don't see any of that in the Philosophy of Language section, just a fairly neutral description of the fact that the two men were philosophical opponents in this area. --ajn (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should write in my first sentence that Russell had quite an antipaty against Wittgensteins philosophy without suggesting this was personal.

I definitely - and correctly - associate the term ordinary language with 'Wittgenstein II' - id est: the works and thoughts of Wittgenstein after his return to philosophy. Before (that is: in the Tractatus) Wittgenstein and Russell more or less agreed (and I assume less) on language.

Whatever, my concern is not that Russell and Wittgenstein where (or not) friends/... just that the last paragraph of 2.6 is somehow blurry, casting confusion on whether Russell had troubles with the Tractatus or with Wittgensteins later works.

Totally unrelated, I am kind of surprised not to read any remark on the troubles Kripke notes with respect to definite descriptions. That is: substituting names for their descriptions in modal contexts and counterfactuals results in neccessary true/false propositions.

Russell's introduction to the Tractatus says he has "a certain sense of intellectual discomfort" with the final remarks (6.4 onwards, I guess), which Wittgenstein saw as the conclusion of his argument (my books are mainly at work, but my recollection is that LW felt Russell had completely missed the point of the book, and only consented to the introduction because otherwise it wouldn't get published). The final part of the introduction's rather ambiguous - what he seems to be saying is that he doesn't agree with the Tractatus on several important points, but he doesn't have worked-out reasons for his disagreements. Wittgenstein, even at this early stage, was saying that you can't directly express "propositions of ethics" (6.42), and Russell was starting to pronounce directly on ethics (A. C. Grayling has just written an introduction to a new edition of The Conquest of Happiness where he says Russell's opposition to the war was disconnected from his being a philosopher, and Russell only united his social and philosophical interests in the early twenties). --ajn (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com

I'm afraid I've just reverted these. Some of them (de-linking years) were sensible but not important, some (changing book titles to bold rather than italic, contrary to WP:MOS) were not, some (de-linking Ottoline Morrell and Constance Malleson) were inexplicable. On the whole, far more changes for the worse, hence the revert. It shouldn't have been flagged as a minor edit, either. --ajn (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

In the Quotes by others about Russell

Two thoughts. First, the Ray Monk quote is kind of trite--it is a stock observation of a great many nobel nominees that they are nominateed for their later, inferior work. BR is in no way exceptional in this regard. Probably I should know who Ray Monk is, but I don't, and if this is an uninteresting observation from a minor figure, I would say to cut it. Second, while Solzhenitsyn is great, it seems odd that the only quote on Russell as activist should be one that portrays him as essentially apathetic. Russell was among the first of Western leftist intellectuals to really criticize the Soviet regime, and from the quotes section, you could get the impression that his only political activity was to have been a closet Stalinist. Ethan Mitchell 00:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Monk is Russell's latest (?) biographer. Septentrionalis 01:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Surely somewhere in his biography he says something more insightful? Ethan Mitchell 15:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think all of the quotes should be removed (possibly to Wikiquote) or moved into more appropriate places in the text. Some of them originate from the attempt by LaRouchists to put their spin on the article (The Solzhenitsyn quote is from back then, I'm pretty sure, and possibly also the Monk quote). The stuff about race and eugenics is also really not a big part of Russell's thought, and could probably do with being slimmed down. --ajn (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've shortened eugenics a bit. I don't feel qualified to touch the quotes. Ethan Mitchell 22:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope that was not motivated by a desire to make people like him better. He is too dead to care whether people like him. People need to understand him, and I think for someone like this, to hear everything he had to say and search it for more unusual insights not commented on by others. David R. Ingham 04:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's my motive. BR was a voluminous writer across many, many fields. It is impossible, in an article of this size, for the reader "to hear everything he had to say." But we can clean try to offer a fair breakdown of his major viewpoints and major criticisms levelled against him. I think a brief mention of his support for eugenics is very important, but eugenics was neither a major platform of his nor is it something his critics have especially focused on, so I don't see that it should take up a great deal of space. The assertion that BR was pro-Stalinist is absurd, at least without some kind of argument, and the Solz. quote might simply be read as a rhetorical device, anyway. But if you think it contributes, let's put it back. Ethan Mitchell 13:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have said that above. David R. Ingham 22:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Feature on 18th May?

This is very good. How do you get it to be thefeatured article, and would 18th May be a reasonable target date? Coriolise 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

London School of Economics

I was personally interested in what was Russell's precise connection to the LSE. This article reads:

In 1896 he taught German social democracy at the London School of Economics, where he also lectured on the science of power in the autumn of 1937.

The LSE website reads:

He was one of the spiritual and financial founders of LSE, and his involvement in the early life of the School helped to define its ethos. From 1895 to 1936 he taught German social democracy, the theme of his first book. From 1937 to 1938 he lectured on the science of power. [6]

One year is very different to 40. Thanks. Sjjb 20:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. In the period 1895 to 1936, he taught at LSE only in 1896. Milt 03:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

External link

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry

• probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jameswatt (talk • contribs) 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This user has added similar requests to link to biographies hosted on the same site to about 50 different articles. Although I believe that these requests were made in good faith, adding the links to all of the articles would be spamming. In addition, the biographies tend to be not very insightful and/or minimally informative, and the webpages contain Google AdSense links.

A fuller explanation of my own opinion on these links can be found here, if anyone wishes to read it.

Hbackman 00:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

After a brief survey of the site in question, I at least strongly object to the link, on the basis that it's garbage. I am not in any way an expert on Russell's life, but I am assuming that he didn't go up to 'Training College, Cambridge' in 1890, and I don't think the Principia was written with 'Alan' Whitehead either. The ads are also objectionable, as is the spamming. If the link is added, it ought to be reverted, IMHO. Badgerpatrol 00:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

We still need a source for this quote, if it is indeed from Russell: "War does not determine who is right. Only who is left." (Times Newspaper Interview 1947) There was no interview with Russell in the The Times in 1947. I wonder why MilkyJoe thought there was. Milt 12:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

English or Welsh

I think it's notable that Russell was born and died in Wales. Did he consider himself Welsh? --MacRusgail 18:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It is noteable, but I believe the consensus was that he considered himself an English/Victorian. Lucidish 18:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh sweet baby Jesus, not again. If you look at county gazetteers or official maps from the time Russell was born (I have access to a large local history library where I work), you'll find he was not born in Wales. He was born in a county which is now in Wales (indeed, it only became indubitably officially part of Wales shortly before he died). He certainly did not consider himself Welsh, as noted (exhaustively) further up the talk page. --ajn (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Russell the Marxist

I am glad to see a change from Russell the Welshman, but I cannot say this is an improvement. Russell dealt with Marx critically in the HWP, in which he argues that his ideas are derived from Locke and Ricardo, and dated when formulated; and in Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, in which he blames Marx for the planlessness of the Bolsheviks. Now if there were a source linking Russell to Eduard Bernstein or Ferdinand Lassalle, that would be interesting and plausible. Septentrionalis 16:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

my edit re Marx, Communism, and influence

I would not call Russell a Marxist. He is not a Marxist. But how can one not say that any 20th century socialist, as Russell was, was not influenced by Marx?! Also, true, his political views evolved from a liberalism to a rather thorough-going socialism (Fabian), and while he was critial of certain aspects of Marx (esp. those aspects that were of a more dogmatic nature), this does not make him anti-communist. Quite the conrary. Take a look at his series of books including Principles of Social Reconstruction, Roads to Freedom, and The Prospects of Industrial Civilization (1923), as examples. Infact, he was initially very sympathetic to the Russian Revolution of 1917. His visit Soviet Union in 1920 left opposed to Soviet "communism," which he expressed in The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (1920), but even in this work, (which I have read), he frames this in the following way, which I quote from the books introduction (page 4), and then its conclusions on page 184:

"I believe that Communism is necessary to the world, and I believe that the heroism of Russia has fired men's hopes in a way which was essential to the realization of Communism in the future. Regarded as a splendid attempt, without which ultimate success would have been very improbable, Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."

"But the method by which Moscow aims at establishing Communism is a pioneer method, rough and dangerous, too heroic to count the cost of the opposition it arouses. I do not believe that by this method a stable or desirable form of Communism can be established. Three issues seem to me possible from the present situation. The first is the ultimate defeat of Bolshevism by the forces of capitalism. The second is the victory of the Bolshevists accompanied by a complete loss of their ideals and a régime of Napoleonic imperialism. The third is a prolonged world-war, in which civilization will go under, and all its manifestations (including Communism) will be forgotten."

Russsell concludes at the end of the books:

"THE fundamental ideas of Communism are by no means impracticable, and would, if realized, add immeasurably to the well-being of mankind. The difficulties which have to be faced are not in regard to the fundamental ideas, but in regard to the transition from capitalism. It must be assumed that those who profit by the existing system will fight to preserve it, and their fight may be sufficiently severe to destroy all that is best in Communism during the struggle, as well as everything else that has value in modern civilization. The seriousness of this problem of transition is illustrated by Russia, and cannot be met by the methods of the Third International."

The edit you revereted was my change of this:

"He was extremely critical of the totalitarianism exhibited after Lenin's death by Stalin's regime, of Marx's thought, and of actually existing Marxism and communism generally."

To this: He was extremely critical of the authoritarianism exhibited after Lenin's death by Stalin's regime, and of the dominant practices of states proclaiming Marxism and communism generally.

This is a question of accuracy and NPOV, as well. Totalitarianism is a disputed theory that has an organic view of the nature of the State. In the work you mention that I should look at, infact he never even uses the word. He does use "authoritarianism." One should not use the T word without it being problematized. Lastly the wording, "actually existing Marxism and communism generally" is not precise writing. There is not actually existing Marxism or Communism. There are various attempts at implementing these ideas which are disputed as being representative of Marx's thoughts, and no one claims it to be "communism," but rather a term known as "state-communism," which ofcourse is not communism, but a state proclaiming it is attempting to built it. My edit addresses these problems.Giovanni33 07:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you actually provide a citation for Russell's approval of Marx? --ajn (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale approval of Marx? No, he was not a Marxist, as I explained, but he was for communism and a socialist, albeit an evolutionary socialism, opposed to the revoltionary version. I listed cited four books above, and quoted extensively from the work often cited as anti-Marx/anti-communsims, when in fact it was anti-Bolshevism, critical of some of the aspects of Marxism that distinguish it from the Fabian outlook he is most closely identified politically with. This is an important distinction. This book is available on the net for free, I beleive, if you don't own a copy and you can check that my quotes from it above are accurate. Do you disipute it? The issue of using the theory of totalitarianism as if that theory were an accepted, and then attributed it to Russell is highly problematic, to say the least, whereas authoritarianism would work. Also, note I only content Marx as an influence, NOT that Russell was a Marxist.Giovanni33 08:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Still no citation for Marx being an influence on Russell, then, or of his not being critical of Marx's thought. If you admit he wasn't a Marxist, and that he was critical of Marx, why do you insist on the article saying the opposite? --ajn (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't. Where do I say that he was a Marxist? Where do I say he was not critical of Marx? This is a red-herring. The issue is influence of Marx. Why do you think Marx was not an influence on Russell. I do not think you deny was a socialist, and advocated communsim as a great ideal for mankind? But do you deny this is an influence of Marx? All socialism of the 20th century, reformist or revolutoinary, are deeply influenced by Marx. This fact stands out with even a cursery view of his writings. The other issue is regarding the T word vs A. You reverted this but did not say why.Giovanni33 09:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As a philosopher, Russell was extremely opposed to Hegelianism, and as Marx's thought is an extension of Hegel's, he was opposed to that too. He consistently makes it clear in his writings that although he's a socialist, he's not a Marxist (socialism didn't begin with Marx). If you want to show that Marx was an influence on Russell, produce some evidence. There have been far too many unsourced and dubious claims about Russell's politics inserted into this article. --ajn (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Again you are engaging in a straw-man fallacy. The argument is NOT if Russell was or was not a Marxist. I never said he was, and infact agree he wasn't. I only say that he was influeced by Marx. In particular his political views that led him to socialism is abundantly clear given the ample evidence of Marx's influence on his thinking. Socialism didn't being with Marx, true, but no socialist after Marx escaped his influence. Marx weighs down like a giant on all the socialist movement, and I know of no one who seriously argues the contrary. I did produce evidence above, but do I need to quote more? For example, just opening up the book randomly in, "The Roads to Freedom:I quickly find where Russell writes in Chapter six on international relations: "I do not wish to be thought to deny that capitalism does very much to promote wars, or that wars would probably be less frequent and less destructive if private property were abolished. On the contrary, I believe that the abolition of private ownership of land and capital is a necessary step toward any world in which the nations are to live at peace with one another." Can someone seriously read this and say with a straight face that Marx was NOT an influence?! However, this point of contention you raise here regarding this point does not explain your reversion of my other edit changes, i.e. T vs. A.Giovanni33 09:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's your third reversion against consensus in the last 24 hours, and you still haven't produced any evidence that Marx influenced Russell. --ajn (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is, I think, a result of narrow reading. It is perfectly possible to be a Socialist and an opponent of capitalism while being a strong opponent of Marx and Marxism (as a particular variety of Socialism); and in 1896, when Russell first wrote on the subject, it was probably true of more Socialists than not. Giovanni33 is making the provably false assumption that Marx had no sources or contemporaries; for a clearer view of the subject, by a supporter of Marx, try The Road to the Finland Station by Edmund Wilson. Septentrionalis 14:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse its perfectly possible. Did I ever say otherwise? I do not see why understanding the actual argument is so difficult, here. You are arguing against a straw-man. Its not my argument. It would be nice if someone would actually address the real argument at hand. You seem to think that its impossible to be influenced by Marx and Marxism and yet not be a Marxist? That is an absurd proposition. But before I refute it, I would like to know if that is something that is being asserted here. Also, I do not make the assumption that Marx had no sources or contemporaries. Again, where I have I ever made that assumption? Another straw-man! However, please show me any of the pre-Marxian 'utopian socialists", or contemporaries of Marx which frame an economic and political understanding of capital and private property in the way that Russsell adopts (advocating its aboltion as a necessary and desired condition), in the above references I selected from Russell's writing, to show that this is not from Marx but from some other influence?

(Giovanni33 happens to be in actual error about Socialism before Marx; he should really try reading some of the "utopian Socialists", instead of assuming that vulgar defenses of Marx are correct.) But even if he were not, this would be original research; his obligation here is to find some reliable secondary source which says that Marx influenced Russell, without which Our policy on verifiability says that statements may be removed without further explanation. Septentrionalis 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So your arguing that the Fabians, who laid the groundwork for the organization of the Labour Party in 1906, the French Section Française de l'Internationale Ouvrière (SFIO), founded in 1905 under Jean Jaurès, and later Léon Blum, were not influced by Marx? Infact they adhered to Marxist ideas, and this is not in dispute as far as I know. Ofcourse in practice they were a reformist party. There are many versions of socialism on the 20th century but they were all directly influeced by Marx, even to the extent of adotping the same language, as Russell does, in the excerpts I provided above. Yet, this is not evidence of influence of Marx?! Talk about dogmatism!Giovanni33 18:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Did I mention the Fabians, or Jaurès? No. (And if Russell was influenced by the gradualist aspects of Fabianism, that shows no influence by Marx.) Go find a source for what you want to say. Septentrionalis 19:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to mentio nit. Russell was a member of The Fabian Society! (so was Marx's daughter, I believe). If Russell was a member of this socialist group and this group shares some ides of Karl Marx (as it did), then it logically follows that Russell was influenced by Marx, as well. The resistance to this idea seems to come from a faulty notion that to be influenced by Marx would make one a Marxist. Infact, Marx exherted a very strong influence on intellectuals of this period, esp. in the 20's. Needless to say, most were not Marxists themselves.User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 16:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, as of yet no one has bothered to explain the reversion of the other issues I raised which have nothing to do with Russell being influenced by Marx. Specificallly the use of "totalitarianism," a disputed theory from Cold warriors, as opposed to authoritarianism, and the usage of pov language that puts in non-accurate wordings such as "the actuality of communism," when in fact there was no such "actuality." No one has of yet defended these erroneous wordings that they have restored, despite my explaination for changing them to reflect a more accurate and precise description of these states.Giovanni33 18:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Totalitarian is common English usage; and Stalin is included in that usage. To alter is PoV. Septentrionalis 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are giving a disputed theory legitimacy by giving it the voice of Wikipedia, without it being problematized, and in the very least attributed. What is your objection to the use of authoritarianism? When you answer that question you will see it is a question of pushign a disputed conception of the state. As such this is the POV that is being pushed here in violation of NPOV, while authoritarianism as a conception/theory of the state is also in wide use but does not have the problems of the T word. You still do not address the other issues.Giovanni33 18:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the two words are not synonymous; and it was the totalitarian aspects of Stalinism to which Russell objected. Septentrionalis 19:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The rules work both ways, yes? If you are claiming Russell as an advocate of accepting the concept of "totatliarianims' and seeing a legitimate use of that term then you have to also find a reputable source which supports this assertion. As I pointed out not once in the works I've read from Russell does he use this word, however, he does use authoritarianism, which unlike the T word is not a theory that is itself in dispute as even existing other than a loaded, ideologically charged term stemming from an organic theory of the state that is largely discredited. To use that term as if it were accepted as a legitimate theory is what I object to. Even if Russell does use this, it must be worded as such. You still have not defended restoring the "actual communism, and actual Marxism" bits I removed as nonsense. How do you defend restoring that? Does anyone say there was any "actual Communism?!" Infact, Russell speaks positively and advocates Communism as a great ideal for mankind, so its contradictory to put words in his mouth that he is against actual communism. In fact what is meant here is what I replaced it with, but was reverted. Again, there has been no explaination yet given for this. If one is going to claim the T word as what Russell wants to use, then you need a source that supports this claim or by your own standards I can remove it.

Now back to the other issue of influence, lets use logic here. We are allowed to make simple inferences and this is not original research. Consider these premises: 1. Russell was a socialist or regarded himself as a socialist. 2. Prior to Marx socialism was not a coherent body of though see Russells own writing here where he says this: [7], 3. we can assume that Russell believed that his conception of socialism was coherent. Therefore it logically follows that Marx had some influence on Russell for 1. Russell is a socialist, and his brand of socialism is coherent (even if different from Marx), and that socialism before Marx was not coherent (according to Russell). Even if Russell is mistaken, what he thinks and believes is relevant and evidence of the claim because he is the subject. But if this is all considered OR, then I'm sure I can find a reputable source when I have time to look to make the claim.Giovanni33 16:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Quotes

May I ask Andrew Norman what is rationale is for the deletion of quotes that I added earlier today? They are properly sourced. I am adding them back. --172.191.181.251 21:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Both give undue weight to minor aspects of Russell's views, from his voluminous popular writings. You are not adding them back - go and read WP:NPOV. --ajn (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Merely referencing these quotes is not giving them "undue weight." They are useful documentation in a section that already exists, on Russell's controversial views. To hide them is a sort of historical revisionism which is repugnant. --172.195.190.195 22:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You said it - a section which already exists. There's no revisionism going on, and there is enough supporting evidence in that section for what are relatively unimportant matters. We are not going back to the days when this article was stuffed full of cherry-picked quotes chosen by supporters of Lyndon LaRouche to make Russell look evil. --ajn (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What I want to know is, who appointed Andrew Norman to be Joe Stalin? It's not as if you are suppressing criticism from some fringe critic, like for example, Lyndon LaRouche. You are suppressing quotes from Russell. You are trying to make this article into an air-brushed, Hollywood bio. You also abused your admin powers by blocking my IP number after my first edit. I would like other editors to have their say as to whether these are "relatively unimportant matters." It looks to me like Andrew is in violation of WP:OWN, among other things. Please examine Andrew's deletions here: [8] --172.192.28.208 13:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage other editors to have their say. Is Russell well-known for his views on race? Is inclusion of yet another quote about the LaRouchian hobby-horse of world government giving a balanced view of Russell's opinions and importance? Does the article contain too much stuff about the Theory of Descriptions? --ajn (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You are citing WP:NPOV#Undue_weight as justification for your deletions. It is not applicable, because it applies to "minority viewpoints," not quotes from the subject of the article. You may wish to argue that these statements from Russell were a momentary indiscretion, an aberration of sorts, but please note that they are from 1923, 1946, 1951, spanning almost 30 years of his published activity. Asking whether the article should include "yet another quote about the LaRouchian hobby-horse of world government" misleads the reader in two ways: firstly, because it implies that there is already a quote about world government, when there are only two unsourced references to it; and secondly, by suggesting that the topic has something to do with LaRouche, when LaRouche is irrelevant to the discussion. Russell's words speak for themselves, and you are insinuating that editors who do not care to join you in burying them are somehow in league with LaRouche.

Finally, one other comment on "undue weight": these quotes, in terms of the space they take in the article, amount to less than half the lines given to the section on praise from Russell's fans.--172.191.75.23 14:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm slow, but I didn't quite get the argument for removing the quotes. Is Russell well-known for his views on race? Probably not. But people read encyclopedias to learn things that they don't already know. --ManEatingDonut 14:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Unless a more convincing explanation is forthcoming, I think the quotes should stay. --ManEatingDonut 15:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV, carefully. The point of this article is to give a clear, balanced view of Russell, not to cherry-pick trivia. The view that Russell's opinions on race are important is a minority viewpoint. He dashed off articles for the press on many subjects over the years, including an article on the prospects of insects taking over the world, and I'd oppose that being included here, too. (Note to others: ManEatingDonut is pretty clearly a supporter of LaRouche). --ajn (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I know the NPOV policy. If we were discussing whether to mention the quotes in the intro, or to include an extensive discussion from secondary sources about the meaning of the quotes, or even discussing where in the article the quotes should go, it would apply. But this is not about the degree of emphasis -- this is about suppressing the quotes altogether. You seem to argue that since you and others agree that Russell was a pretty swell guy, we should just pretend that he never said those things. I don't buy it.

Secondly, as to whether I am a "supporter of LaRouche" (I seem to hear a distant echo: Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?) It seems to be fashionable in some circles at Wikipedia to try to justify pushing a point of view by suggesting that anyone who objects is a "supporter of LaRouche." I've seen SlimVirgin do this a lot. The fact of the matter is that I have made hundreds of edits to Wikipedia without ever registering as a user. I registered after I got interested in the LaRouche articles, which I think have a lot of problems with dubious sources and POV, and an editor named Will Beback insisted that I should get a logon before participating in the discussion on a talk page. So, the edits you see in your link are the ones from recent weeks. They do not reflect many, many edits to articles that have nothing to do with LaRouche.

Now for argument's sake, if I were a "supporter of LaRouche," exactly how would that justify your evading or ignoring the points I raise? --ManEatingDonut 23:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 01:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This article, which is a composite of many sources, should certainly have in-line references, explaining what came from where.

This review, however, is an unfortunate example of ill-thought instruction creep; and a waste of the time of any editor who engages in it. GA is already a miscellaneous collection of mediocre articles; weeding by formal criteria will only make it worse. Septentrionalis 18:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fake book?

Did Bertrand Russell write this book, German Social Democracy in 1898? I found reference of it here[9](#45) but I am unsure if it is real or fake.

It's real. Russell mentions it in his autobiography. Mikker ^(...) 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Unshaken

Hi, I am translating some parts of the Russell article from the english wikipedia to the spanish wikipedia. But I need someone's help, because I dont understand very well the meaning of the word unshaken in this sentence:

"...These things I believe, and the world, for all its horrors, has left me unshaken."

I cant find the right meaning for unshaken. Help me.

Excuse my english, it is easier for me to read english than to write it.

Thanks in advance. --Dhcp 00:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Steadfast" might be a decent alternative. According to babelfish, the Spanish translation of this is "con firmeza" (hope that's not a naughty word or anything ;-). Badgerpatrol 00:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! :D --Dhcp 15:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Long Page tag

I think this has been mentioned before, but this page is quite long for a philosopher, particularly for one that has no criticism section. I know Bertrand Russell had a lot to say, but he didn't do more than many other thinkers. there doesn't need to be so many extensive quotes from him- many of these could easily be replaced by a one sentence-long summary. i also agree with the opinion mentioned above that the section with quotes about Bertrand Russell seems like it should go under wikiquote and stay off the wikipedia page. additionally, the section about Bertrand Russell's summary of his own life is inappropriate for a page that is supposed to let readers make up their own mind about bertrand russell's life and work. Acornwithwings 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone thinks the tag shouldn't be here, they should mention it on the talk page under the section specifically meant for it. I listed my reasons for putting it on, what are the reasons for taking it off? thx Acornwithwings 20:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)