This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theBertrand Russell article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
Bertrand Russell was one of thePhilosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet thegood article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can berenominated. Editors may also seek areassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPolitics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
This article has beenautomatically rated by abot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the|auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage oflinguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related tophilosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join thegeneral discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofmathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related toChicago or theChicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theU.S. state ofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofatheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or seeinfo box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members ofAtheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generatingneologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (seedeletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofsociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofsocialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
Does the currentlead image draw too much attention to Russell's habitual use of the tobacco pipe? I have rifled through my March 1970 copy of"Pipes and Pipemen", but he does not seem to be mentioned, alas. But then again... "He said he owed his life to smoking since the people who drowned were in the non-smoking part of the plane."Martinevans123 (talk)15:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just googled "Bertrand Russell" and clicked on "Images", and almost half of the images from his middle age or late life show him holding a pipe. So I don't think we are out of line with this. But the other half don't show his pipe. Though I picked the current image, I am by no means attached to it. If there is an image you like better, and it's in line withMOS:LEADIMAGE, let's discuss it.Bruce leverett (talk)16:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Pack it properly, Bertie. I think the portrait is enhanced with the inclusion of the pipe. His half-smiling expression makes him look a bit mischievous, suitable to the way he holds the pipe.Carlstak (talk)17:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the article linked to byMartinevans123 above, I am amused at what an avid pipe smoker Russell was, and I am a little disappointed at the non-pipe-smoking photo thatJJLiu112 has just contributed. But seriously, I think it's a fine photo, and I would be happy with it.Bruce leverett (talk)04:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that inasmuch as the question is whether we should highlight one of Russell's peculiarities or have an aesthetically pleasing portrait (for my cropped edit was reverted on that basis), themanual of style entry is not clear (favouring 'best-quality', yet 'representative' images). I am not opposed to incorporating a recognisable idiosyncracy of his (as the editors on theHarold Wilson page have found) but for me, I think the new picture, being portrait-sized (as most biographical leads are), and offering more detail of the subject's face (which I imagine ought to be the primary object), ismore fine. And on a final point, there are already two pictures of Russell smoking later in the article. Just my two cents — or, pardon me, twopence.JJLiu112 (talk)17:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IfBruce leverett's search is representative, we might expect half of our images to feature a pipe. I'm a little surprised there isn't more mention of his pipe-smoking. I think it was the only vice he admitted to.Martinevans123 (talk)18:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the substance of the Russell quote in that entertainingSmoking Pipes article (thanks to Martinevans) and in abook about smoking: "When asked about his favorite vices, he answered 'Oh, tobacco, I smoke a pipe all day long when I'm not eating or sleeping.'", I don't think it's overkill to have the portrait with the pipe at the top. I think it reveals something of his mischievous character, unlike the stiff, boring one. The picture of him when he was four shows him as the very embodiment of elfin impishness.Carlstak (talk)18:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term feels very legalistic and old-fashioned. I think many readers may not understand this meaning of the word and may get confused with its use. "Legally recognised children" may not be as concise, but at least it clearly defines the term to anyone who reads it. Please discuss!Electricmaster (talk)08:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, missed this. People who don't know what "issue" means in this context will learn something. It's true that here in the US we have a strain of humans who don't care to learn anything, but they won't be reading this article anyway.Carlstak (talk)00:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The short description is now simply too long. The test for this is as follows: while sitting at a computer (not a mobile phone), start typing "Bertrand Russell" in the Wikipedia search box. A list of article titles comes up, each title followed by the article's short description. When the title for this article is on the list, check if the short description is getting truncated. Right now, it gets truncated (on my own screen) after the dash after 1872. If the short description is getting truncated, it can't serve its purpose. (If you do this test on a mobile phone, you get much worse truncation, in the middle of the word "mathe...", which is probably why the guideline suggests 40 characters).
The earlier discussion of short description in this talk page, from about a year ago, seems to have ended peaceably in or near consensus. I will revert the short description to what it was a few days ago.Bruce leverett (talk)17:02, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the short description would "serve it's purpose" even with that truncation after the dash after 1872. Especially as it's the top of the list? I have no intention of reverting you, although I now see, from the discussion in the "Short description" thread at the top of this page, that I had some problem with the logic a year ago.Martinevans123 (talk)17:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hittmanicverses: You have removedA Free Man's Worship (1903) from the list of Russell's Selected Works. Was this deliberate? I googled it, and the first thing that came up was the claim that it is "perhaps Bertrand Russell's best known and most reprinted essay" and "an historical landmark of early-twentieth-century European thought." So perhaps we should find a place to mention it?Bruce leverett (talk)04:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
. To be honest, those quotes make him seem absolutely addicted to the stuff!JJLiu112 (talk)18:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply].svg)
