Talk:Bertrand Russell

Return to "Bertrand Russell" page.

DiscussionEdit

I deleted that quote from user 62.251.12.169:

  • "'Philosophy' is a word which has been used in many ways, some wider, some narrower. I propose to use it in a very wide sense, which I will now try to explain."
    • Source: A History of Western Philosophy

These two sentences are quite possibly the most meaningless words Russel ever put together. If you disagree, revert and add this other famous quotes from him:

  • "Hello."
  • "Ouch."
  • "Six o'clock."

- posted by an anonymous user (User:217.81.69.52)

I am in no hurry to put the phrase back, because it should perhaps be given fuller context, but I certainly cannot agree with either your assessment, or your apparent attitude. If it seems meaningless to you, you are certainly free to indicate why, but it is a truthful comment, and well bespeaks a fact that is true of many words, especially many casually used words like philosophy, and religion, and even science. Love of Wisdom, Faith in a Greater Presence, and Knowledge of Truth, are indicated by the terms, but they have all been applied and misapplied in many ways: to casual ideas of the most shallow who have no great love or knowledge of Wisdom; to faiths proclaimed to be about Reality, that are far more faiths in one's own bigotries, and to searches that are claimed to be for knowledge of what is true, but are often searches for confirmations of one's own presumptions. I will probably replace the statement, but feel I should examine the full context of this apparently introductory comment, and among the works by Russell in my collection I am not sure I presently have a copy of this, and am not sure where it is, if I do. ~ Moby 19:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think anonymous (and unsigned) User:217.81.69.52 has a point, though I also find his/her vehemence unseemly. Wikiquote is filled with far too many quotes that only seem to have meaning to the people adding them, or those who are already aware of the context. Moby may be quite right, that Russell's words presage an important linguistic insight, but I found Moby's explanation more interesting and useful than the quote. Surely Russell has made this point more eloquently and succinctly elsewhere, perhaps in said full context? — Jeff Q 21:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Order of quotationsEdit

The quote about race appearing first in this collection can't be coincidence; it seems likely that someone wanted to give greatest prominence to the quote that reflected worst on Russell. Is there any policy on what order quotations should appear in, or are we free to start a revert war on the subject with no reference by which to choose what is most appropriate? - (ciphergoth) 82.70.194.38 08:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

After some searching, I'm starting to doubt the authenticity of this quote, but I don't have a copy of Marriage and Morals to hand to check. 82.70.194.38 09:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this specific quote, but I listened to a talk by Noam Chomsky here, and in the Q&A section (at about 41 minutes) someone asked him about Russell, and Chomsky mentioned that Russell made some horrible/racist/genocidal remarks, though still most of what he did was admirable... So it's quite possible that this quote is accurate. Therefore I suggest not to remove it without checking the source first. iddo999 11:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
As far as checking the quote, 82.70.194.38, I highly recommend your local library. I use mine to fact-check quotes frequently. Most libraries should have a copy of Marriage and Morals. Always remember that these things get fixed by the people who care most about each article. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Some missing quotesEdit

I thought a few of the interestings quotes are missing. I'm posting them here first:

"Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths." - Impact of Science on Society

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." (couldn't find any sources for this one)

This is a common but unsourced version; the very similar thing that Russell did write is contained in the page: “The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” (But it is probably useful to retain this widely-quoted version here, for the benefit of those seeking an attribution of it to Russell.) Gthb 13:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality." - Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?

"Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom." - Unpopular Essays, Outline of Intellectual Rubbish

When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is much more nearly certain that we are assembled here tonight than it is that this or that political party is in the right. Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless. - Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?

And I think the source for this quote "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true." is "On the Value of Scepticism" Alex 01:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

In general, you better just be bold and edit the article, because that way there's usually higher probability that it'd generate responses from other editors. But accompanying it with useful comments in discussion is appreciated, of course. BTW, do you also have a source for the "Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." quote? I'm guessing that it was said in relation to WWI? But I don't know.... iddo999 06:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I added the new quotes. I also moved "It is undesirable..." to the sourced section. For sources, see http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm and http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell4.htm Alex 17:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The following quotes are attributed to Russell. Does anyone know what the sources are?:

"The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution."

"Passive acceptance of the teacher's wisdom is easy to most boys and girls. It involves no effort of independent thought, and seems rational because the teacher knows more than his pupils; it is moreover the way to win the favour of the teacher unless he is a very exceptional man. Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is established in that position."

According to http://www.archive.org/stream/principlesofsoci00russiala/principlesofsoci00russiala_djvu.txt the above is a quote from Principles of Social Reconstruction, 1916, page 163. I don't have a copy of the book to check, though.

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted."

Quotation about hydrogen bomb under wrong yearEdit

The quotation about the hydrogen bomb is listed in the 20s, while it should have been in the 50s. Gakrivas 20:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on Russell lists the book quoted like so:
  • 1925, The ABC of Relativity, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.
Although WP itself isn't a reliable source, I have confirmed that the U.S. Library of Congress has a 1931 copy of this book, by the same publisher (LCCN 47043127 , call number QC6. R8 1931). I admit curiosity about how someone could intelligently comment on something that wouldn't exist until nearly a quarter of a century later, although atomic energy and weaponry were topics of discussion among scientists well before they became physical reality. I would suggest we need to examine the source to see exactly what the context of this quote was (the parenthetical "[to hydrogen bombs]" is suspicious) and resolve this apparent paradox. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bertrand and CoxeterEdit

I found this quote in H.S.M. Coxeter's book Geometry "Mathematics possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty- a beauty cold and austere, like that of a sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature... sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show."

Bertrand Russell (1872- )" he wasn't dead when the book was published I don't want to fiddle in a wiki that I am not a part of so I will leave it up to you. Cheers--Cronholm144 from en.wikipedia

This can already be found on the Wikiquote page as a Sourced quotation from The Study of Mathematics (1902). - InvisibleSun 04:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures ?Edit

They put a subjective meaning to the quotes (maybe except the ones about mathematics), so although they are beautiful, I don't think they should illustrate Bertrand Russell's quotes.

google quoteEdit

Google's "quotes of the day" widget has this today:

This is one of those views which are so absolutely absurd that only very learned men could possibly adopt them. - Bertrand Russell

I see it's not on the page. Googling doesn't result in many hits. Does anyoneknow if this is a real quote and if so where it may have come from? 158.130.12.196 15:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote is a bit off. Russell actually wrote:
  • This is one of those views which are so absurd that only very learned men could possibly adopt them.
    • My Philosophical Development (1959), p. 110.
Cheers! BD2412 T 18:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

UnsourcedEdit

If you can provide a reliable and precise source for any quote from this list please move it to the project page. --Antiquary 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence; it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.
  • You could tell by his [Aldous Huxley] conversation which volume of the Encyclopaedia Britannica he'd been reading. One day it would be Alps, Andes and Apennines, and the next it would be the Himalayas and the Hippocratic Oath. (Source: Parris, M., Scorn: With Added Vitriol, London: Penguin, 1996, quoting Russell's 1963 letter to Ronald W. Clark)
  • The saviors of the world, society's last hope.
  • The universe may have a purpose, but nothing we know suggests that, if so, this purpose has any similarity to ours.
  • There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge.
  • To choose one sock from each of infinitely many pairs of socks requires the Axiom of choice, but for shoes the Axiom is not needed.
  • War does not determine who is right — only who is left.
    • (This was attributed by an IP to the video game Fallout 3 in this edit to the War article.)
    • This is most often attributed to Russell, when an author is given, but without any sourced citations, and the earliest occurrence I have found of it is in Coronet v. 23 (November 1947 - April 1948) , p. 150, where it seems to have been provided as "philosophy footnote" without mention of an author. ~ Kalki 02:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I am neither as drunk as a Lord, nor as sober as a Judge. I am more in the condition of a Lord Justice.
  • When we look at a rock what we are seeing is not the rock, but the effect of the rock upon us.
  • Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man.
  • Another that's widely attributed to him is, "No matter how eloquently a dog may bark, he cannot tell you that his parents were poor, but honest." I don't know if it's verifiable, though. Angr 13:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    That is a close paraphrase of an actual quote cited in the Autobiography theme article. I hesitate to add it here because this article is already so long. ~ Ningauble 15:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad Quaker grammarEdit

"Thee" was an objective pronoun, that is, it applied when the person in question was having something done to them ("unto thee") rather than doing something ("wouldst thou?"), so Bertrand's uses of "thee" should both have been "thou". It's equivalent to having said, if he'd been talking about himself: "Me will find out in time" and "Me might observe incidentally". 213.122.13.17 12:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Math disinterestEdit

Is this quote a misattribution:

Mathematics is the field where we don't know what we are talking about, nor whether it is true or false.

Searching texts has not revealed a source, yet this statement is widely attributed to Russell on the net. It may have arisen as a gloss of something on logical variables and primitive notions.

Something very close to this is attributed to Russell in Nagel and Newman's book "Gödel's Theorem", though the original source is not given.

  • I've sourced it. Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays (1918): Ch. 5: Mathematics and the Metaphysicians--Collingwood (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

IntellectualEdit

Can anyone source a quote something like: 'It could be that many people think me an intellectual, but so far no-one has had the courage to say so to my face.'

Spicemix 12:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know ...Edit

... the actual quote of Russell which it is based upon?

Bertrand Russell's prescription for an "ideal form of a work in philosophy" (quoting Arthur Danto in the. November 17, 1997 issue of the Nation): "It should begin with propositions no one would question and conclude with propositions no one would accept." (Wolff 1998, vii)

Wolff, Robert Paul. 1998. In Defense of Anarchism. Berkeley: University of California Press.

In The Philosophy of Logical Atomism (1918), Russell writes that "the point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it." ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

ImagesEdit

Hello, friends. It is my understanding now that the Wikiquote page of Bertrand Russell has had, in the past, more pictures illustrating the quotes than it did at the moment that I started adding new ones. Apparently, those previous pictures were added mainly by Kalki, but then someone decided to delete them. I am not sure how that works, or should work, as I am rather new to editing Wikiquote. Of course that I, myself, try to add only images that (seem to me) appropriate, but I fear that their relevance may inevitably be subjective. So I ask here if I should continue to try to illustrate the page, or will my efforts be in vain? I hope that we can make Russell's the best Wikiquote page possible! Thanks in advance for your input. Daniel Tomé (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2012 (GMT)

There is an attempt to lend clarity at Wikiquote:Image use policy, adopted earlier this year. It is probably best to avoid images whose relevance might be seen as subjective, and stick with ones that are more literal than interpretive. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Trimming?Edit

Hi again. As is known to all, the Bertrand Russell page is long, but I would like to know if you consider it too long. If you do (as the experienced UDScott does), there are, I think, mainly three different things that we could do:

1) Split the article into multiple sections (which was what UDScott did very recently);

2) Trim it;

3) Do nothing.

Now, in my opinion, important quotes, such as those from "Marriage and Morals" (cited as being a reason for Russell's award of the Nobel Prize, and which is fundamental to understanding his views on sexuality), and "The Conquest of Happiness" (a best-seller that contains much wisdom), should be kept in the main article of Bertrand Russell, if at all possible.

Needless to say, I agree with UDScott that the size of the article is an important concern, but I, myself, think that a better way to reduce the size of the page would be to trim the article, instead of simply moving important sections of it to other pages.

I do not wish to upset anyone, particularly those who worked hard to add the quotes to the page. But cuts will hurt. That is why I am asking you if you agree that they should be done.

So, do you agree that the article needs to be trimmed? If you do not agree, no quote should be deleted, of course. But if you do agree with the trimming suggestion, then we first need to discuss which (parts of) quotes to delete.

Below are some of my suggestions. I think that the easiest place to start is with Russell's Nobel Lecture, "What Desires Are Politically Important?". It is very brilliant but, in any case, a link to the lecture is provided, so I do not think that it is necessary to quote it at such length in the main page. The lines that I suggest we can delete are the following (strikethrough):

That's a start. I think it is possible to trim the article even further, but I would like to hear your thoughts first. Thank you for your consideration.

Best wishes, Daniel Tomé (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, I just read the previous discussion you had, and I must say I am not convinced about the need to trim this article. I do approve with the splitting of the article, since the article could be considered to long to navigate. If it was up to me I would split this article even more. If you experience the problem that important quotes are no longer in this article, there are different options. For example putting some of those quotes back in this "main article". -- Mdd (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mdd, thank you for your input. Yes, that is a very good suggestion (which UDScott happened to mention in our discussion), and one that I think we should indeed follow, if there are important quotes in other pages that should appear in the main article, as is the case now.

Anyhow, I should like to ask you why you said that you are "not convinced about the need to trim this article", but you would still "split this article even more" if it was up to you. Couldn't trimming be a good (better) way to reduce the size of the article, or are you opposed to trimming on principle? Thanks. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC) 22:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

In short, I think splitting articles creates new possibilities, while trimming articles could create all sorts of conflicts. Articles or sections should be trimmed if there are copyright concerns, but if not why bother? Put your limited energy in the exploration of those new possibilities; for example, improve those new articles here, or create new Wikipedia article about those separate books. -- Mdd (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mdd, please let us not change the subject (such as what I should do with my time). For the record, I do plan to contribute to the Wikiquote pages of Russell's books, in the future. In fact, I remember adding to "A History of Western Philosophy" a few quotes about Nietzsche, after reading the book, not so long ago. In any case, one could wonder what is the point of contributing to a page that only very few people read (and which is even longer than the Bertrand Russell article), when there is still so much room for improvement in the main page.

Indeed, my answer to your question ("if not why bother?") is that I care about the quality of the Bertrand Russell main article. (I am sure you do too, of course.) Given that its main page is so long, if there is "fat" in it that could be removed (as I think there is — see above), without any controversy, to give way to more important quotes, I would not mind to put my "limited energy" into that work. I hope that clears up my intentions, so that we can once again focus on suggestions to improve the article. Best wishes, ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that the quotes (you selected) could be removed "without any controversy"? I haven't checked the history of those quotes, so I ask you: Are these quotes you added to the article, and don't you find them interesting any more? Or are you judging contributions by others? If so I find it very disturbing, that you put yourself in that position: Developing Wikiquote is no exact science, there is not one objective, not one sense of quality. -- Mdd (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I took a closer look at Russell's Nobel Lecture, "What Desires Are Politically Important?". That section in the current article contains about 3310 words, while the Noble lecture at nobelprize.org contains 5708 words. Now this seem to be quite a violation of Wikiquote:Limits on quotations. Here you seem to have a legitimate argument to trim this section, if I am not mistaken. -- Mdd (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mdd. First let me apologize for my last reply to you. (It had been a long day, my brain was tired, and apparently I couldn't think properly). I should have phrased it better, and I hope that you weren't offended by it. Now, to answer your questions: note that, before saying "without any controversy", I wrote "if". I do want to hear your thoughts first, and see if that is indeed something that should be trimmed.

As to the origin of the quotes, the ones from "What Desires Are Politically Important?" were not added by myself (the others were). You say that my judging the contributions by others is "very disturbing", and, to a point, I agree with you (though I would have chosen different words). However, having read through the whole Bertrand Russell article twice, I do think that it is possible to trim it (see above). But note that all I have done is ask you to consider that. I did not go ahead and delete any quotes without explanation. Besides, it is not as if I would enjoy deleting any quote. I very much respect and admire all contributors. Please don't think that I would suggest trimming quotes lightly.

That is not to say that I do not think we should discuss it. I do, especially now that important sections are being moved to other pages (and, it seems, everyone agrees that the page is too long). That is why I respectfully asked your consideration of the above proposal. And it appears that you agree with me that it is sensible (at least concerning "What Desires Are Politically Important?"). Best regards, Daniel Tomé (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I too am loathe to trim the page - usually, my trimming efforts are confined to works like films or TV shows, where copyright concerns are the drivers. In this case, I would again recommend continuing to split out works that contain enough quotes to support their own page. If, as you have suggested, you feel it is important to retain key quotes on the main author page, I would suggest you do so in the manner that was done on other prodigious author's pages (see how Crime and Punishment was handled on Dostoevsky's page for an example) where a sampling of key quotes is repeated on the author's page (as well as on the page for the work), with a note stating that these and additional quotes may be found on another page. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Template {{main}} is useful for this. I would recommend keeping the number of duplicated quotes to a minimum, ordinarily two or three. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, no trimming. I will try to follow UDScott's suggestion, and see if it works out well. Thanks. Daniel Tomé (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have just tried to implicate (with my latest comment), that it seems we should trim What Desires Are Politically Important? (1950) section for copyvio reasons. -- Mdd (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, you may be correct on that one. But I'll leave that to someone more expert on these matters. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, there could be reason for more concern here? Some quotes exceed the maximum of 250 words per quote, and for example the A History of Western Philosophy article contains about 29.000 words, while the original is about 360.000 words. This is about 8%, far more then the "1.25% of the total content of a book" the Wikiquote:Limits on quotations mentions. -- Mdd (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, this is not my area - I would try to bring BD2412 into the conversation, as he has knowledge in this area and has commented extensively on it in the past. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I am very much tempted to trim the "What Desires Are Politically Important?" section, to be honest, for the reasons mentioned above, in particular because it is almost a copy/paste of the Nobel lecture and, as such, it not only takes (unproportionally) too much space of the main article, but is also a copyright violation. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
It has been a while (three weeks or so) since Mdd pointed out the copyvio issue and no one has done a thing about it, so I will contradict myself here and trim that section now just to show that it can be done without anything important being lost. Indeed, I will go ahead and make a few controversial edits to the page; please do feel free to revert my work, of course, but note that I am just trying to improve the page, as you all are. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record, the section "What Desires Are Politically Important? (1950)", as you can see, was only slightly trimmed. After my last edit, it still contains well over 30% of the original text (which is nowhere close to 1.25%). ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Daniel, thanks for being bold and setting things in motion again. I think there are multiple issues here.
  1. Possible copyvio in this article : We are far from sure about that. American copyright is rather complicated, especially because the copyright of a lot of 20th century works (from after 1923) had to be renewed in 1976 (if I am not mistaken). And this seems to be the case here, or not?.
  2. Getting some expert opinion : We could need some (external) expert opinion here, but I am not going to ask for it without any approval
  3. Limits on quotations : This is something only the Wikiquote community can decide on. We could propose a more permanent solution, and start a vote, for example.
  4. Trimming of article sections : I think this should be handled with just as much care as creating articles. First some research is needed to check, which of the quotes are the most notable, and these should be preserved... etc.
-- Mdd (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with everything you say. I do appreciate you bringing up these legitimate concerns. I admit that maybe it was too hasty of me to make such an edit.
I am not much worried about copyright issues, at the moment, but I did read the Nobelprize.org statement:
The documents and materials presented at Nobelprize.org are generally protected by copyright and related rights or as trademarks and trade names. For use of such material, permission in writing from Nobel Media AB or the Nobel Foundation is required. and, in particular, To use or translate a Nobel Lecture, a presentation speech, a banquet speech or a biography, permission has to be granted by the Nobel Foundation.
So, if possible, getting an expert opinion would indeed be wise. (My rationale was that the section, as it stood, had well over 50% of the original text intact, and plain common sense tells us that something is probably not right when Wikiquote (not Wikisource) has a section so large for a text so small.) Sincerely, Daniel Tomé (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Trimming of the "What Desires Are Politically Important? (1950)" sectionEdit

Hi Daniel, I tried to take a closer look at the edit, where you trimmed the section, and I noticed changes in at least three sections

  1. In the section "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (1920)" section one ore more quotes seem to be rearranged
  2. The "Sceptical Essays (1928)" seemed to be moved to a separate article, and the section here is severely trimmed
  3. Quotes in the "What Desires Are Politically Important? (1950)" seems to be partly rearranged and partly trimmed

And within a day an other 17 smaller edits have been made on different parts of the article. Now I must admit I have the tendency to similar edit patterns, and for that I got some advice the other day, which would suite here as well: Split larger edits in multiple parts. In order to let others participate, it's important to have a (simple) understanding what exactly has been trimmed. And it would be nice if no more new edits are made, especially if it's already under debate om the talk page. -- Mdd (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the confusion, but yes I did the slight trimming in only one edit, the same one where I moved the content of a book (Unpopular Essays) to another page, so please see the section "What Desires Are Politically Important" there.
As to the other two sections, specifically,
  1. In the section "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (1920)", I just reduced the use of bold (I did not "rearrange" any quotes);
  2. The same goes for the section "Sceptical Essays (1928)". No, it was not moved to a separate article, nor was it "severely trimmed". It is exactly the same as it was (only with less use of bold), except for one quote that appeared twice, one of which I deleted to avoid repetition (namely What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite).

The other/following edits are unrelated to this (they are basically just additions of pictures and quotes from different works).
I won't stop making edits to the Bertrand Russell page just because of this issue, that would be silly; but I will certainly follow the advice "Split larger edits in multiple parts" to avoid confusion in the future.
P.S. I have just finished adding back quotes to the "What Desires Are Politically Important" section, after consultation with Kalki; I still think the text is probably too large, but I'll let others decide. Regards, ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Last modified on 28 January 2014, at 12:09