::::::::::I have not removed the original Russell quote.  You can find it again easily, in the footnotes for the article.  I have explained why I have substituted another Russell quote that's to similar effect: Dunning and Kruger actually use it in one of their papers.  Did you read my explanation?  It appears not. 
 ::::::::::What you consider a non sequitur with my "however" in fact has its context established clearly by the quotes of Russell and Darwin, as given by Kruger, Dunning et al., immediately previous.  Did you read that part?  It appears not. 
 ::::::::::As to "mangling", this article is about what Kruger, Dunning, et al. think on this topic, so how they summarize other research for support is part of the topic regardless of whether their summaries are accurate or not.  And how do they summarize in this case? 
 :::::::::::A survey of college professors revealed that 94% thought they do ‘‘above average’’ work—a figure that defies mathematical plausibility (Cross, 1977). 
 ::::::::::Exactly how is my paraphrase a "mangling" of that?  Or are you saying that Dunning, Kruger et al. have "mangled" Cross?  If so, they appear to be in good company.  Here , from an abstract presumably (very possibly written by Cross herself), we have: 
 :::::::::::When more than 90 percent of faulty members rate themselves as above-average teachers, and two-thirds rate themselves among the top qwzrter [(sic), the outlook for much improvement in teaching seems less than promising. 
 ::::::::::How does this contradict (or as you have it "mangle") the quote from the Kruger/Dunning source?  Another reader of Cross  puts it this way: 
 :::::::::::A survey of professors at the University of Nebraska a number of years ago showed that 94 percent of them thought they were better than average teachers at their own institution. 
 ::::::::::Is that also "mangled"?  And then we have this, from a book, The Philosophy of Economics 
 :::::::::::Ninety-four percent of college professors believe they are more productive than their average colleage. . 
 ::::::::::Is that also "mangled"?  Well, then: Be Bold.  Fix my wording after quoting Cross herself to clear up these misunderstandings of her.  Surely, if you can see an error here that I cannot, you are better equipped to fix it than I am.  Certainly, Dunning and Kruger would agree.  But: do it without violating WP:QUOTE and (implicitly) WP:SYNTH, as your previous edits so obviously (well, obviously to some of us) have done. My edits may be rough, but I believe they are improvements to the article, because they help clarify a point about Dunning-Kruger that many people (very possibly even you) have gotten wrong: it's not about intelligence per se.  A Nobel laureate in physics who's a legend in his own mind about his pinball playing skills would be an excellent example of Dunning-Kruger.  So would a pinball wizard with an IQ of 80 who doesn't think he's really all that great at pinball, and thinks most people might play reasonably well with a little practice.  The quote you want highlighted for the reader is a red herring in this respect.  And it doesn't take a degree in cosmology to see that.