Talk:Bertrand Russell/Archive 2

message: 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 , , , , and  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Russel was a liberal? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What I Believe 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Welsh AND English: the case for reasonableness in opposition to fundamentalism 

message: 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</span> (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Western Philosophy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Birth year 

message: I have revised the following attempted description of Frege's views, because it does not in fact describe Frege's views:
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)
thread_title:  Frege on empty descriptions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Length of page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Major Ideas 

message: 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?  Tomertalk 09:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugenics quotes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mathematical Logic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re-nomination 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changes by [[User:Rms125a@hotmail.com]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Monk is Russell's latest (?) biographer. Septentrionalis 01:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Surely somewhere in his biography he says something more insightful? Ethan Mitchell 15:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've shortened eugenics a bit.  I don't feel qualified to touch the quotes. Ethan Mitchell 22:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  In the Quotes by others about Russell 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Feature on 18th May? 

message: 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. 
One year is very different to 40. Thanks. Sjjb 20:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. In the period 1895 to 1936, he taught at LSE only in 1896. Milt 03:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: London School of Economics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: External link

message: 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)
thread_title: Quotations

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Russell the Marxist

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Deletion of Quotes

message: Did Bertrand Russell write this book, German Social Democracy in 1898?
I found reference of it here(#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)
thread_title: Fake book?

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: Thank you very much for your help! :D --Dhcp 15:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unshaken

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Long Page tag