Information icon.svg Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Talk:Bertrand Russell

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon philosophy.svg

This Philosophers related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Jellybrain.png
This article requires attention for the following reason(s):

Why can't we have a "philospophers" category, Mr. Bean? humanbe in 17:27, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Oh, we can, sorry, I just was trying to clear out the list, but I have no objection to it's existence. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 17:33, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

How about an "Honorary RationalWikians" one, too? (tree, for) humanbe in 19:34, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Considering he was a JFK conspiracy theorist (he did not believe Oswald was the killer), he does not deserve such an "honor". It's actually surprising it isn't mention in his page. 24.62.177.40 (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


Bertrand "Bertie" Russell did not write anything for popular "consumption". Consumption is not the right word so it must be changed to something more apropriate.

Any suggestions? -- Nx talk 07:47, 6 January 2009 (EST)
Technically, you might be correct, but we're not trying to be an encyclopedia so the colloquial use of the word is OK. Frohlich 08:02, 6 January 2009 (EST)
Actually, I ate a copy of Why I am Not a Christian (and Other Snarky Essays), so... ħumanUser talk:Human 14:33, 6 January 2009 (EST)


Human: I agree with two out of the three edits you made to my edit of 1/7/11. I missed the use of "attempts", and while I knew that "base" was wrong, somehow I couldn't come up with the obvious correction to "basic". However, I think the word "that" should be reinstated. Otherwise there's a sentence with two main verbs. However, I defer to your vastly greater experience here. JosPinkfoot (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a parenthetical, it is allowed to be its own sentence within a sentence. Also, just to be lamely pedantic, to overcome dating conventions across our various oceans and other boundaries, it is best to mention the month ("1 July 2011"), because I was wondering what I did back in January for a bit there! PS, I prefer the system I don't use, and I prefer more the 2011.07.01 format. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
"It's a parenthetical". Well, maybe, if marked as such, perhaps by quotation marks. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I offer for your consideration the parallel sentence "Hitler was a monster is beyond reasonable doubt". As for the date format: I live in the US and I've mostly gotten used to the local conventions, but sometimes I slip up. Mea culpa. JosPinkfoot (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


Just did my first edit on this page and not a too minor one either - added a reflist with a proper source in it, in order to let Bertrand be heard - as he actually pointed out specifically that he HAD been of the liberal, socialist and pacifist persuasion, but that he never "was" any of them in any serious sense at all. Thus it is seems to me incorrect for RW to introduce him as being any one of these three (atleast without further explanation and sources that may compete with his own statement to the contrary, in his biography). All comments, suggestions, criticisms, rants are welcome - it's literally my first day. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)