Talk:Bertrand Russell

	This Philosophers related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): It contains unsourced statements Tagged since June 2016

Why can't we have a "philospophers" category, Mr. Bean? human^{be 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 ^{Always Watching......} 17:33, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

How about an "Honorary RationalWikians" one, too? (tree, for) human^{be 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... ħuman 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. ħuman 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)

conspiracy theorist

this a stretch considering his 16 questions was published weeks before warren report, criticising the commission and us media and governments handling of the case. its not like it was clear cut at the time (or now) and unless he started leveling accusations at the cia/lizards/aliens and the like 20 years later after 3 more official investigations of the case then i dont think it counts. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

offer

I see that this one lacks depth, I'm deeply familiar with his essay "Why I am not a Christian" and I can give a rundown on the rational implications if anyone wants. I just don't wanna fuck the article up, I'm very new. Can also do some reference trawling once I work RW editing out --Jack B (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You can try RationalWiki:Sandbox before posting it on the main space. Since you're apparently here in good faith, people will probably fix most of your mistakes once you post your work on the main article. GeeJayK (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Expanding the Article

I was thinking of changing the section on Mathematics to a sub-section to a larger section on "Notable Ideas". A page about Bertrand Russell is severely lacking if it doesn't include details about Russell's Paradox or his theory of definite descriptions. We can also include a link to the page on Russell's Teapot under this section. Having a section about his life and politics wouldn't hurt either. I own several books by Bertrand Russell that I can cite from, allowing me to detail his philosophy of language and his views on epistemology if anyone trusts me to add to this article. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC).

Russell was one of the Titans of twentieth-century thought. You seem to have done due diligence, so I’ll trust your judgement. But I’m far more familiar with Quine than Russell, so I won’t interfere with your project. Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 01:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)