Talk:Bertrand Russell/Archive 1

message: The following text in the article:
:Politically he envisioned a kind of benevolent democratic socialism. He was extremely critical of the totalitarianism exhibited by Stalin's regime. But perhaps paradoxically, he was also an early advocate of social engineering:
is followed by a quote which is clearly critical of social engineering, and seems to be a rather astute anticipation of the increased importance of propaganda in government control of the public (or more generally, control of the lower classes by the upper classes). Either the quote should be replaced with one which actually suggests that Russell was in favour of social engineering, or this paragraph should be removed. What does everyone else think? Cadr 11:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments on this, so I'm removing the paragraph. Cadr 15:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Advocate of social engineering?

message: This is the only page for a hereditary peer (who was not formerly a Prime Minister) that doesn't include the peerage in his/her name... ugen64 23:48, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
:It's because he's never referred to by his peerage (especially as he only inherited it at the end of his life). I know the suggestion on WikiProject Peerage is that only first holders should be excepted, but Naming conventions (names and titles) makes an exception for "individuals [who] received hereditary peerages after retiring from the post of Prime Minister, or for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names", the latter part of which certainly applies here. There are other examples of peerages not being used in titles because they were only inherited at the end of someone's life and are never used to refer to them, like Frederick North, Lord North (not Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford), Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh (not Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry) and Daniel Finch, 2nd Earl of Nottingham (not Daniel Finch, 7th Earl of Winchilsea). Proteus (Talk) 11:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: ... was one of the most influential mathematicians, philosophers and logicians working (mostly) in the 20th century, an important political liberal, activist and a populariser of philosophy
Politically he envisioned a kind of benevolent democratic socialism
So, what was his political affiliation?
: What do you mean? Being a liberal (in the general sense of the word) and being a socialist are not incompatible. In any case, it's obviously not possible to reduce anybody's political affilitation to a couple of words. Cadr 18:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal or Democratic Socialist? 

message: Does anyone else read the activist part as slightly NPOV?  Perhaps I'm just biased myself though (since I generally like Bertrand Russell).  Looking for a second opinion before I make any edits. -SocratesJedi 08:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I'm not the person who tried to insert an external link into the opening section, but would a link e.g. humanists be appropriate with (possibly but not necessarily) the link that editor was suggesting moved to the latter page? Schissel : bowl listen 21:53, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
: I don't know. The reasons why I removed the link were (a) it was inserted in the opening section, as you noticed, and (b) I visited that external link, and did not find it relevant to either Russel or to proving that he was a humanist. Rather, that page was about humanism, and Russel was mentioned in passing.
: I don't know almost anything about Russel (I still think my decision to remove the link was correct though :) If good reasons can be found for calling Russel a humanist, then a link to  humanists is certainly most welcome. Oleg Alexandrov 22:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right that Russel was humanist. My whole point was that the link was neither appropriate where it was nor relevant at elucidating the matter. So you are more than welcome to make a link to humanism. Oleg Alexandrov 22:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Humanism

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current article doesn't seem to use BC, AD, BCE, or CE. So the proposal is irrelevant here. Unless you want to convert the dates in it to the perfectly NPOV YBW (years before Wikipedia)? - Nunh-huh 01:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How is YBW perfectly NPOV? YBW is clearly in favor of Wikipedia. ;p Adraeus 02:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Curses! Foiled again! - Nunh-huh 02:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, BCE/CE could be POV in favor of the "Common Era"... so... y'know... Adraeus 02:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: By that logic you could announce your proposal on every page in Wikipedia. I don't think that's necessary, appropriate, or a good idea. - Nunh-huh 03:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree fully with Nunh-huh. Themindset 19:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  announcing proposal 

message: I believe that the section on his life should come first, as that is the normal convention for encyclopedic entries. What do you folks think? Themindset 19:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Order 

message: Can anyone find a source for or against 24.57.205.43's edit? Was his premature obituary published in 1954 or 1921? Or could 24.57.205.43 himself defend his edit? -- Rmrfstar 01:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  premature obituary 

message: The article currently states "Russell moved to Santa Barbara to lecture at the University of California, Los Angeles".
This is confusing because UCLA is about 90 miles away from Santa Barbara. Some disambiguation is in order here.
h3h 06:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
First, for the summer of 1939, he and his family lived in Santa Barbara. Then they moved to L.A. for the academic year. So the passage needs rewording. It should say also that he moved from Chicago, where he had gone to teach in September 1938; otherwise, it would appear he went straight from the U.K. to California.
Milt 10:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santa Barbara vs. UCLA