Talk:Walter Russell

message: I've reverted the part about being awarded a doctorate by the AAS. The photographic evidence (https://i.imgur.com/vT5f8fV.jpg) is less than convincing; it's basically a typed letter signed by the Dr. Matho Mietk-Liuba, as President, and his wife, as VP, Chancellor, and Dean. The AAS doesn't seem to have much history behind it (their website dates from 2003 and doesn't have an "About" section), it doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry :)
As for the prediction of neptunium and plutonium, many other scientists had predicted transuranic elements, including Borh, in 1922.Drmab (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctorate from American Academy of Sciences 

message: For details of his biography (for example, where he got his money), it is great to have a biographer. But I have yet to see an elucidation of any scientific claims by Russell that comports with actual knowledge of the physical universe. Could it be that the entire scientific establishment is incorrect? Absolutely! But this is not the place to fight those battles. Please read WP:RGW. Find some scientists who think Russell's work is worth connecting to current knowledge and have them produce reliable sources that we can use. We need expert evaluation and not acolyte devotion. jps (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve had a bit of a look at the NYT articles that were linked from this talk page by WikipediansSweep (currently at the end of the archive). Excluding the letters, it’s mostly just descriptions of Russell’s claims, but there are a couple of comments about the reception of Russell’s ideas. “Artist challenges Newtonian theory“, 21st July 1930, says that “In 1926, he printed privately “The Universal One”, embodying his present theories, which scientists looked upon with disfavour.” “Walter Russell dead at 93; self-taught artist and educator”, 20th May 1963, says, “Several books by Mr Russell expounded his original scientific theories. The books, questioning the validity of Newtonian and Keplerian astronomy, were not taken seriously by scientists.” If the lead is going to mention Russell’s writing on “science topics”, it really ought to also mention their reception by scientists. Do we have any other sources that specifically address the reception of Russell’s ideas by mainstream science? Brunton (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The obituary that says that his work "was not taken seriously be scientists" is good enough. For whatever reason, the Times thought it important to include publications about Russell in its pages. I imagine an editor was a devotee, but as this subject is so obscure, it's perhaps going to be difficult to figure this out (and the Russell acolytes likely aren't going to be helpful in tracking down this citogenesis). I'll dig around a bit. jps (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

text: I may have some clues. Apparently Russell, Ochs, and Thomas Watson were members of certain philosophical societies in New York: . jps (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead used to refer to Watson as “Russell’s patron”, and Ochs as “his advocate in the media”, sourced to A Worthy Messenger: the Life's Work of Walter Russell. Brunton (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty clear that Russell had rich friends who promoted his ideas (maybe up to renting the estate in Virginia?). That would be a good thing to discuss in our article. jps (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if sources can be found. Actually, I think he might well have been independently wealthy as a result of his property development business. Brunton (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

text: There’s also the issue of “one-way” referencing. There are plenty of Notable people who are mentioned as having been associated with Russell, but if you check out books about them Russell is pretty much absent, or at best only mentioned in passing. For example we have a claim in the article that Russell and Watson “developed a new concept of utilitarian business ethics“ at IBM in the 1930s. I’ve looked at some biographies of Watson (by searching them on Google Books), but not found any mention of Russell. Surely if Watson was involved in developing a significant “concept of utilitarian business ethics” with Russell, Russell would be mentioned in writings about him?  Again, there may be sources I haven’t seen that mention Russell; can anyone else find anything? Brunton (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a pretty interesting jaunt. I cannot confirm that it was properly published, however, but it looks like it was well-researched:  jps (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a paper from one of the students, but if the references pan out, there's no reason not to consider it. Drmab (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

text: It seems to have been published in Bunkyo University‘s ”Bulletin of the Faculty of Language and Literature” (20)1, pp 39-50, Published October 2006. Not sure what the RS status of a bulletin like this is. The relevant sections of the website seem to only be available in Japanese as far as I can see, so I haven’t been able to find out anything further there. Brunton (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

text: BTW, just for the record Hob Gading, just who are the "reliable sources who agree" that Russell is a crackpot?Chazhardy (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: Should mention be given to his 1908 bankruptcy? Drmab (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bankruptcy