Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bertrand Russell/archive1

Bertrand Russell
Long, well-written and more important accurate article about one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century. --ThomasK June 28, 2005 12:30 (UTC)


 * How about references? If works were used from the bibliography to write the article, they need to be cited properly. And inline citation would be a real help as well for an article of this scope. --Spangineer  (háblame)  June 28, 2005 13:07 (UTC)
 * Object, a good and comprehensive article but the formatting needs to be improved. There are too many one sentence paragraphs, and why is the succession box in the middle of the article? Personally I would also like to see the quotes section moved to Wikiquote. - SimonP June 28, 2005 15:15 (UTC)


 * Right, I fixed the succession box. But in my opinion there should be a few quotes in the Wikipedia article. --ThomasK June 28, 2005 16:24 (UTC)
 * Object. It needs to be made clearer what information comes from which documents: footnotes and separation of Bibliography (works by Russell) and References/Further reading (works about Russell used to fact-check/write the article. I don't really have a problem with the few one-line paragraphs SimonP mentions, but I agree tthe quotes belong in Wikiquote, unless they are used in the text to underline some aspect of Russell's persona. Phil s 28 June 2005 19:34 (UTC)
 * Comment. I recommend adding more info about Russell's support of world government. See http://www.vcn.bc.ca/wfcvb/whywf.htm, http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Bertrand_Russell/future.htm . Nathan256 29 June 2005 11:48 (UTC)
 * Minor object. This looks extensive, but it has several problems. In addition to mentioned above lack of references, the text needs careful going over ilinks - some terms are linked only in their second/third/etc. usage or not at all - examples (Principia Mathematica (which I linked now), World War One, Pacifism, 20th century). I am sure with a little editing work this can be a FA, but now it is still a work in progress needing some editing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 29 June 2005 19:04 (UTC)
 * Object, the copyright on the images needs to be established and the article should have references--nixie 30 June 2005 08:48 (UTC)
 * Object, yes, long, long, too long. Nobody will be interested to read an article of 7919 words.--Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:36:59 (UTC)
 * Image tag fixed. Deryckchan, maybe you are not interested to read this article. Russell did extensive work, to summ up is actually not possible. --ThomasK July 1, 2005 05:00 (UTC)
 * I, for example, do like my articles long and comprehensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 1 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)
 * Object in the strongest possible terms. This article is a puff piece for an unmitigated scoundrel widely regarded by those familiar with him, barring his small albeit influential circle of devotees, as one of the worst monsters in recent history. Inadequate attention is paid to his advocacy of world dictatorship through nuclear terrorism. Inadequate attention is paid to support of eugenics and against populations with darker skin-hues. I will not support until the said problems are corrected. Cognition 1 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)
 * Cognition, I repeat the protest i made at the Carl Friedrich Gauss vote. Please use a civil tone and don't attack the editors who put up their baby articles here. And again, please note that aggressive edit summaries are an especially bad idea. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 2 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)
 * I am not attacking the editors. I am criticizing the article for omission of vital information, which, according to the instructions on FAC, is an essential part of this process. Cognition 2 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
 * OK.. so you're merely criticizing the article for omitting the vital information that BR is "an unmitigated scoundrel" (cliché alert) and a monster? I'd better re-read those FAC instructions. Seriously, to contribute to this process, please make only actionable objections. Bishonen | talk 2 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)
 * No, for whitewashing his support for eugenics and support for an unprovoked nuclear attack on Russia in order to establish a one-world government.  If one believes that this does not make him a monster, that is a commentary on his humanity, about which I have nothing more to add. Cognition 2 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)
 * Comment. is a follower of the LaRouche movement, which teaches that Bertrand Russell is, literally, evil. Two arbitration committee cases have ruled that editors may not act in a way that appears to promote the views of Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin (talk)  July 2, 2005 04:36 (UTC)


 * You are replying to my argument by addressing the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself, which is a logical fallacy. Further, you have no evidence that I am a follower of the LaRouche movement. While my user page expresses my admiration of Lyndon LaRouche, he is just one of many people I admire. Cognition 2 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)
 * Your edits betray you. You are a follower of Lyndon LaRouche, and Bertrand Russell was not evil. Those are both facts. This isn't the place to discuss it, however; please see your talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 05:20 (UTC)
 * Now you are arguing from authority, despite the fact that I am using NON-LAROUCHE sources. Go figure. Cognition 2 July 2005 05:24 (UTC)

Writings
I think perhaps we need to break off the 'Further reading' into a seperate link as its making the article overly long and somewhat intimidating for some readers - partly why it failed as a candidate I assume - How do people feel? [I appreciate he is not known as a peer but I have added the style to bring it into line with the majority of other peerage articles.