Talk:Walter Russell

Doctorate from American Academy of Sciences

I've reverted the part about being awarded a doctorate by the AAS. The photographic evidence (https://i.imgur.com/vT5f8fV.jpg) is less than convincing; it's basically a typed letter signed by the Dr. Matho Mietk-Liuba, as President, and his wife, as VP, Chancellor, and Dean. The AAS doesn't seem to have much history behind it (their website dates from 2003 and doesn't have an "About" section), it doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry :)

As for the prediction of neptunium and plutonium, many other scientists had predicted transuranic elements, including Borh, in 1922.Drmab (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Notability

You've fallen into that old trap of circular reasoning. If its an anti-establishment position, then it must be invalid because the establishment doesn't approve. Russell's Periodic Chart of the Elements(1926) is a new way to show the relationship among the elements. He puts Neptunium and Plutonium in a new context. Isn't that worth considering? What's Bohr got to do with it? Similarly, the AAS is a new way of acknowledging the contribution of thinkers by their body of work, not the number of credits earned by taking college courses. Sure the establishment doesn't like this approach (because its anti-establishment), but who cares? Give these people credit for thinking outside the box. Who says Wikipedia must be a toady for the establishment?Chazhardy (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. And there aren't any modern reliable sources that support Russell's claims. Russell does not appear to have been a real scientist. From the sources I have read, Russell seems to have been mostly a sculptor and an architect. His scientific work either just republished existing theories (i.e. claiming discovery/prediction of Ne, despite the fact that it had been predicted as early as 1871, and that it wasn't actually synthesized until 1940 [1]), or making up kooky nonsense. Claiming he got his knowledge from divine enlightenment? Thats not the mark of a scientist. His claims of discovering other elements are equally spurious, and my brief examination of his books showed a fundamental misunderstanding of physics. If Russell had actually discovered these things, I have no doubt he would have used his seemingly incredible skills of publicizing to earn recognition and perhaps a Nobel prize. But he didn't, because he didn't actually discover those things. Russell was part of a wave of pseduoscience that crept up around legitimate scientific encounters of the 20th century. We should not include claims of his discoveries in science.

There is little evidence the AAS was credible; I find the degree to be questionable at best and possibly a fake at worst, or at least the AAS was some sort of diploma mill. Theres a reason accreditation exists and why most modern scientists need an education. The AAS doctorate should not be included. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The "periodic chart" that has been used as a source for the claimed prediction of neptunium and plutonium actually states that what Russell "discovered" in 1921 and "charted, copyrighted and announced in 1926" was two new isotopes of actinium, not two new elements. Brunton (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

And I’m not sure that he was notable as an architect, either. He’s described as a builder rather than an architect in the article, and the Hotel des Artistes that is described as “his masterpiece” in the article was actually designed by George Mort Pollard; Russell seems to have been the developer, and the source the article uses for the ‘masterpiece’ claim describes him as the “builder” and “one of the building’s original stockholders”, and says that “the entire concept [of the cooperative studio/apartment house] was said to belong to artist Henry W. Ranger” although “Russell claimed, and has received, most of the credit”. Brunton (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Brunton: Thanks for the edits and looking closer. I'll admit I'm still not sure if Russell was in fact notable. I get the vibe that much of whats written about Russell was puff pieces submitted by him, or influenced by his knack for publicizing. I still think the article needs much cleanup, and certainly better sources. But I've been hard pressed to actually find good, reliable sources. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I've looked into the "American Academy of Sciences". The website is very web 1.0, it invokes the UN in a manner characteristic of crank organisations, and there is zero evidence of credibility. Guy (help!) 11:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The article does not claim that Russell was a scientist. He is more properly called a natural philosopher. This was spelled out in the intro before you deleted it. Nor is Russell labelled as an architect; he was a developer. His contribution was to provide financing through cooperative ownership, the explanation of which YOU DELETED! As per Civility, I would remind you that you initiated the name-calling when you called me a proponent of pseudoscience, which I saw as arrogance on your part. If you want to be civil, then regard Russell as an original who deserves your respect.Chazhardy (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not call you a proponent of pseudoscience. I simply warned that you were editing in a pseudoscience topic area, and that all editors who edit in that area (including me!) are subject to stringent restrictions on conduct. I respect you as a contributor and an editor. I do not however owe any respect to Russell. In the course of editing articles, we don't owe respect or disrespect to subjects, we cover them according to how they are covered in reliable, independent, secondary sources. In terms of the removed content discussing his financial contributions, I'm not sure who removed it, but I believe it was because it was not from a reliable source. I invite you to find better sources and add them to the article to fix the issue. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You should have seen the state of this article a few years ago before we embarked on a total rewrite. Russell was being savaged by editors who criticized him for not being what he was not, a scientist. They were trying to discredit him by "exposing" errors in his life history, to show that he was not a "notable." We have corrected this by documenting his life history. His cosmogony, the result of his enlightenment, needs to be described as it is so much a part of his life. Why you will not allow this is beyond me. Do you want to take down this article? Is that your agenda?Chazhardy (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I knew Walter Russell 50 years ago. He was not the charlatan and phony that you make him out to be. He has never been given the attention that he deserves. You want reliable sources (establishment scientists),there aren't any except for those few I have cited in my biography, "A Worthy Messenger."Chazhardy (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m not convinced that “natural philosopher” is an appropriate description. His thinking doesn’t seem to align well with what’s at Natural philosophy, either the prescientific thinkers who were trying to understand the universe through reason and logic, or the current philosophers mentioned under “Current work...” Given that he seems to have arrived at his ideas through some sort of revelation, perhaps “mystic” might be better, but I’m having trouble coming up with an entirely appropriate term. Brunton (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello - I've stumbled upon this as my family knows of this man and I had to see more about him. The stuff didn't add up per what they said and what I found on here. Then I looked a bit deeper and saw that it was somewhat controversial, so hopefully I can help. My family has a lot of references from him so I found his Marquis Who's Who (https://archive.org/details/whowaswhoinameri04peri/page/820 Publisher Chicago, IL : Marquis-Who's Who Page 820 of 1236) which states that he was a scientist and artist then goes into his many achievements including his science doctorate and art history. This May 14, 1916 *The Sun* articles describes him as the general director for the National Academy of Design for quite a large project on Long Island(http://www.nyshistoricnewspapers.org/lccn/sn83030272/1916-05-14/ed-1/seq-39/). This is an article showing that someone stole his autograph book that someone offered him 5,000 before in 1942 (https://www.scribd.com/document/430100238/Nyt-PDF-Walt) including The Roosevelts, Kings, Queens, etc. The Scarab Club has his bio as this: "Russell was born in Boston. He left school at the age of nine or ten to help support his family. At thirteen, he had a job as a church organist, then paid his own way through the Massachusetts Normal School of Art. He worked as an art editor for Collier’s, a portrait painter, a sculptor (creating busts of Mark Twain, F.D.R., and Edison among others), a musician and composer, even an architect promoting the modern-day concept of the duplex, the penthouse, the coop apartment complex, and the studio apartment. He went on to study physics with a special interest in the nature of matter, leading him to create his own theories on the fundamental principles of energy dynamics. He was a scientist, a philosopher, and for fun, a skater and equestrian"(https://scarabclub.org/about-us/beam-signatures/). This shows how he was elected the president of a society which honored Nobel Laureates in science, so he was in contact with these people regularly, even after his publications (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/69/1783/242.full.pdf). According to the Crozet Gazette, when he died in 1963, Walter Cronkite called him the “Leonardo da Vinci of our time” (https://www.crozetgazette.com/2019/05/03/walter-russell-legacy-museum-opening-in-waynesboro/). I actually have more but little time to do anything, I wish I had access to the Times older articles, maybe I'll find a way later, but this is a very tiny portion of what's out there as well. According to my family, the man was quite the impression maker, knowing presidents, kings, queens, nobel laureates, thomas watson, tesla, edison, and more. I think that seeing the science.org article above mentioning him being the president awarding these medals shows his connection with these individuals, Robert A. Millikan's being one of them whom actually supported his work later on according to some more info that my family has. Hopefully this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vengeful Forklift (talk • contribs) 22:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@DrMab: @ChazHardy: @CaptainEek:@Brunton: Hello, I've reviewed this article and it seems that you don't understand Russell's system of analysis. He didn't agree with quantum mechanics nor did he define isotopes or elements the same as academia, so to apply those same standards to him is applying the wrong definitions essentially. Here are some interesting NORAD documents that I'd like to get your opinions on(https://www.philosophy.org/uploads/5/2/2/0/52207651/the_norad_documents.pdf). It really boggles my mind that people don't see that this man was elected the head of a society interacting with the scientific elite of the world giving speeches on the mystery known as existence. He was good friends with many academicians and nobel laureates as well. I'd like to see how good you guys are at investigating and critically analyzing data. Vengeful Forklift (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vengeful Forklift: My take on the source: for starters it's all unpublished correspondence, so we can't use it as a source. What I got out of it was that Russels theories were not accepted by the scientific community of his day. Now it's been a few years since I last studied E&M, but clearly the ideas behind this generator are not inline with any modern conception of electricy and magnetism. The moral here: Russel was and remains a fringe scientist, and we should treat his theories with much skepticism. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I agree it can't be used as a source, nonetheless we have to assume it's falsified to say it's not showing that there was genuine interest in his ideas long after they were well known. The society he was elected president of gave prizes to edison, michelson, millikan, and other nobel laureates with guest including herbert hoover. Here he is as the director-general of the national academy of design (http://www.nyshistoricnewspapers.org/lccn/sn83030272/1916-05-14/ed-1/seq-39/). They're building what looks to be a palace in the hamptons lol. Here's Frederick Kiesler being influenced by Russell (among others https://static1.squarespace.com/static/594c9a79414fb5311da8888f/t/59e554d312abd9f696d99c36/1508201689562/Elastic+Architecture%2C+S+Phillips%2C+Volume+1.pdf). I'm genuinely curious into how you feel this man bamboozled the highest geniuses of his time, like tesla or edison or NORAD. You can't deny his presence in society, nor in the scientific community either, knowing the likes of presidents and Thomas Watson, Edison and Tesla. from july 21 1930 NYT:"Mr. Russell denies the universally accepted law that "like charges repel and opposite charges attract each other." "If this were true," he asks, "why is it that positive and negative poles of a bar magnet are at its opposite ends as far as they can get away from each other, instead of being together in the middle, as they should be logically if the law were true?"" - Not that this last bit is anything other than a good point. Yes, I'm still puzzled. Do you believe this man had the ability to convince and fool not only himself, but the most prominent minds of the time? I am enjoying my own thinking time on this Vengeful Forklift (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That silly sophism about poles is anything but a good point. One of the most obvious things wrong with it is that electrical charges and magnetic poles are different things. There are more things wrong with it, but I will not go into it. If you want to understand magnets, you will need to read physics books and actually do the math.

It is easy to found an organization and give prizes to famous people. That is not an achievement. Neither is knowing those people.

And if you want the article to say there was "genuine interest" in his ideas you will have to find a published document from a reliable source saying so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vengeful Forklift: That article doesn't say Russell is DG of the National Academy of Design, but rather of the organization set up to build the "Dominion of Versailles." Drmab (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Drmab:,@Hob Gadling: A sophism is done with deliberate deceitfulness. Where do you see deception? What organization is he the DG of? To have a small localized project with individuals being president and DG seems irrelevant, as in the organization doesn't seem to be for this massive project alone. So namelessness seems incorrect. He definitely doesn't seem dishonest working with architects and designers to build this. If so I can't see it honestly. Saying I don't know anything about magnets or physics is erroneous too. For example a North and South Pole are inseparable in a magnet, each time you cut, you get a smaller magnet, never a separation of North and South. The reasons on why this occurs is still not fully understood even though we can easily see how electricity produces magnetic fields. Such is at the root of the dissonance between quantum and relativity.Vengeful Forklift (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Vengeful Forklift, You are talking us in circles. We are bogged down in the weeds here. Either discuss how to improve Walter Russell's article, with concrete suggestions, or don't discuss at all. As I have said before: Russell was a kook of a "scientist" and his ideas don't hold water. We will not present him as a serious scientist. If his scientific career is to be discussed, it will be brief, and will firmly establish that his ideas are not supported, and that he was a fringe scientist. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vengeful Forklift: Building a new Versailles on about 180 acres of land is anything but a small project. Towards the end of the article, they talk about the shareholders of the Dominion of Versailles (see, there’s a name), a $30,000,000 project. If you have shareholders, you need a structure, hence the DG and president. Also, in the 2nd par. of the article, J. Alden Weir is named as the president of the National Academy of Design. In the next par., they name Penrrhyn Stanlas (sp? the copy’s not that good) as president of the organisation they are talking about, evidently it is the Dominion of Versailles, not the NAD, since there can't be two president (otherwise they would be co-president, right?). Also, Russell wasn't even a member of the NAD (cf. https://www.nationalacademy.org/all-national-academicians#r).Drmab (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I should correct my previous statement about him being the DG of NAD nonetheless being a DG of a co-op of a 30m dollar enterprise in 1918 is something. I well correct further errors too, one was a statement saying that it was easy to create your own organization and give awards to famous people. He never created the society of arts and science, but was elected president consistently for 7+ years. This organization wasn't just giving awards with no one attending either, but it had Nobel Laureates in physics, presidents, and even Thomas Edison attending and receiving them. He was fairly decent friends with multiple presidents too and to not be classified as a mover and shaker is just a lie. I be still see not any sophism... I personally believe it's disingenuous to say that this man wasn't influential on society in his time, knowing people personally like Thomas Watson or the NYT owner. Maybe entrepreneur would be a more dignified title Vengeful Forklift (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Vengeful Forklift, so find reliable independent secondary sources that call him that. Guy (help!) 08:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Knowing famous people is a triviality and of zero significance in assessing notability or scientific importance. Zero. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Vengeful Forklift talks about Russell’s influence in the context of his having known Thomas Watson. While the article says that Russell was employed by Watson for 12 years, and that Russell and Watson developed “developed a new concept of utilitarian business ethics”, I’ve tried looking for references to Russell in biographies of Watson (by searching the Google Books versions for the word “Russell”), and not been able to find anything. It seems characteristic that famous people are mentioned in material about Russell, but Russell is not mentioned in sources about them. There doesn’t seem to be much evidence of his having been particularly influential. Brunton (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Brunton Interesting, here's some of what I've found that picture his influence in some ways -

Who Was Who in America Bio http://archive.org/details/whowaswhoinameri04peri/page/820 Publisher Chicago, IL : Marquis-Who's Who Page 820 of 1236

When he died in 1963, Walter Cronkite called him the “Leonardo da Vinci of our time.” http://www.crozetgazette.com/2019/05/03/walter-russell-legacy-museum-opening-in-waynesboro/

New York Times http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1949/05/01/84266486.html?pageNumber=60 WAYNESBORO, Va., April 30 — Swannanoa, the mountain-top home of Dr. Walter Russell, the sculptor, four miles east of here, will be dedicated as a "shrine of beauty" on Monday by Colgate W. Darden, president of the University of Virginia and former Governor of Virginia.

Walter Russell, russellian science "Nikola Tesla and I exchanged inspirations for many years. He was an artist at heart whom the world knew as a scientist - while I was a scientist at heart whom the world knew as an artist. He was my spiritual mainstay while I produced my greatest work in sculpture - The Mark Twain Memorial, and I likewise spiritually supported when his soul was low from doubtings and attacks by lesser minds." http://www.academia.edu/19048365/Nikola_Teslas_Life_and_Work_.doc_

AUTOGRAPH BOOK STOLEN Taken From Art Studio of Walter Russell in Carnegie Hall Autograph book stolen containing President Roosevelt, Mrs. Roosevelt, and hundreds of other famous men and women. Someone offered $5,000 for it, pried open between 9AM and 2PM. http://nyti.ms/2V2ztnZ

Medals relating to International Business Machines (IBM) http://medallicartcollector.com/ibm-medals.shtml

Dr walter russells birthday http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00048666/03937/4x?search=walter+russell

Hoover, Herbert. Typed Letter, signed, as Secretary of Commerce, to Walter Russell, sculptor and painter, and President of the Society of Arts and Sciences, declining an invitation to a dinner in honor of THOMAS EDISON. http://www.jamescumminsbookseller.com/pages/books/248362/herbert-hoover/typed-letter-signed-as-secretary-of-commerce-to-walter-russell-sculptor-and-painter-and-president

http://www.newsleader.com/story/life/2014/09/27/swannanoa-mysterious-mountaintop-marble-mansion/russell-sculptor-and-painter-and-presidentVengeful Forklift (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

We’ve seen a lot of this before. As Cullen328 has already pointed out, knowing famous people doesn’t really matter, but many of your sources don’t even establish that. The letter turning down an invitation from Hoover is written to Russell in his capacity as president of the society of arts and sciences, not personally, and doesn’t even establish that they ever met. The Tesla stuff is Russell writing about Tesla, not the other way around. As with the IBM guy, Russell seems to be pretty much absent from biographies of Tesla. The page about the IBM medals establishes nothing more than that Russell designed a medal, but that doesn’t seem particularly remarkable as we already know that Russell was a sculptor. A local political figure attending the dedication of a “shrine of beauty”? Inclusion in a random list of birthdays at the bottom of an inside page of a local newspaper? These establish that he was influential? And the theft of an autograph book? What do you expect us to do with that as a source, other than adding “autograph hunter” to the description in the lead (assuming that it can be established that he was in some way important as an autograph hunter, of course)?

What specific proposals do you have for changes to the article, and what specific sources do you propose using to support those changes? Brunton (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Start by looking at the footnotes in A Worthy Messenger: the Life's Work of Walter Russell (2013). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazhardy (talk • contribs) 04:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

What specific sources, and what specific changes do you want to use them to support? The book doesn’t seem to be widely held by libraries, at least in this country, so if you want anyone to refer to the sources footnoted there it might be an idea if you were to say what they are.

While looking for an accessible copy, I did notice that WorldCat classifies Russell as an occultist; perhaps this is a better way of describing him than the previous suggestions of “scientist”, “natural philosopher”, or “mystic”? Brunton (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I remember mention of Guglielmo Marconi receiving a doctorate from the AAS, you might check that out. The term occultist was first used in the old Union catalog compiled in the 1940's, probably in response to the title of Clark's biography, The Man Who Tapped the Secrets of the Universe, which was published in 1946. That title sure sounds occultist, doesn't it? Actually that book is pure New Thought. This talk page is filled with misstatements and half truths, the result of the shotgun approach used by Russell critics, putting us in the same situation we were in before the article was rewritten three years ago. You must realize that Russell was an original, and your criticism of him is the establishment talking. You've succeeding in destroying the Wikipedia article so now people will have to go somewhere else to find out about him.≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazhardy (talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Chazhardy, The core of the issue remains sourcing. Unless you can provide reliable sources that support your claims, we can't include them. As a side note, do you happen to be in any way associated with Russell/Philosophy.org? Do you have any relationship with the author of "A worthy messenger"? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I wrote A Worthy Messenger and I am a student of Walter Russell.Chazhardy (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Chazhardy, As that presents a conflict of interest, you should make sure to read the COI guidelines, and how to disclose a COI. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Its not a conflict of interest, it makes me a SOURCE.Chazhardy (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

But not a Reliable Source. Read WP:RS to find out what makes a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC).

I read the sources gobblygook, and its the establishment talking. There is no place in Wikipedia, evidently, for an original thinker, one who is way ahead of his time, one who the establishment rejects. You can find references to Russell in the corporate archives of IBM, but why not save some time by reading my book?Chazhardy (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Referring to the Versailles project: I came upon a letter to the editor by Penryn Stanlaws who referred to Russell's "genius and ability," and to his "thought, energy, and hard work" that he put into the project. <New York Times, May 17, 1916, p. 10</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazhardy (talk • contribs) 19:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC) I have re-read the NORAD documents from 1961. As Russell writes about his science experiments, it should be clear that these ideas come not from a man in a lab coat surrounded by test tubes and vacuum pumps, but from a man with vision. This is far beyond the scientific method. Can Wikipedia's editors accommodate such a man and his contributions?Chazhardy (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Chazhardy, No. We report what is verifiable. Science is about experimentation, not vision. Please abandon your quest regarding this man, and edit something else. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC) So the Supreme Arbiter, God himself, has spoken.Chazhardy (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Chazhardy, I commend your dedication for the subject. However, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has certain norms and rules, they may be "gobblygook," but they were established by the community, which agrees to abide by them. Other encyclopedias have different rules concerning source and the like, which may be more agreeable to your point of view. It's not a question about right or wrong, but about standards we must play by. Drmab (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC) So Wikipedia represents the Ptolemites back in the 1500s who couldn't consider Copernicus' heliocentrism as a new concept of the universe. We'll just have to wait for a Tycho Brahe.Chazhardy (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

From WP:FLAT "If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is a Good Thing" CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. The sentence further above "There is no place in Wikipedia, evidently, for an original thinker, one who is way ahead of his time, one who the establishment rejects." is exactly right, because we have no way of telling such a person apart from a crackpot living in la-la land. If we had such a way of finding out who is right, the reliable sources would also have it, apply it, tell them apart, and acknowledge the original thinker. Which destroys the original assumption that the establishment rejects him.

Of course, you will now say no, you can tell them apart, but the establishment will not accept your method of original-thinker-identifying. Which puts you in the place of the original thinker who is rejected by the establishment. That may be an ego boost for you, but it just starts the process anew: we have no way of telling you apart from a crackpot, and so on.

Just accept that Russell, like Erich von Däniken, Immanuel Velikovsky, David Icke and L. Ron Hubbard, will have to wait for Wikipedia writing that he is a genius until he is really accepted as a genius by people whose judgement matters because they know what they are talking about.

If you want to change the state of affairs, you need to convince the establishment first. Wikipedia does not do shortcuts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

So how does the article stand now? With all this hot air and establishment reprimands, is what is left acceptable? Chazhardy (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the recent additions appear to be undue or even irrelevant. Real estate prices in the 1920s? A nickname that an editor at the New York Times gave one of Russell’s ideas? The latter might have been worth mentioning if it had entered general usage, but there’s no indication that it has. Vague stuff abut Tesla possibly having been influenced by some of Russell’s ideas? The date he copyrighted a chart that seems to have been ignored by mainstream science? As mentioned above, it’s the mainstream view that we should be reporting. And is Russell really discussed in the preface to the 1956 edition of Who’s Who in America? Brunton (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

”Two way universe” was clearly just a term that Russell himself used in a letter, which was quoted in the headline, not “a tag line” given to the idea by “the science editor”, so I’ve removed it. Incidentally, while much has been made of discussion on the letters page of the New York Times, perhaps more idea of the importance of this can be gathered from the two anthologies of their science coverage the NYT has published (one on science generally, one on physics and astronomy), neither of which mentions Russell. Brunton (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Why did Waldemar Kaempffert choose to take that phrase and make it the headline? He made it a tag line.Chazhardy (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC) Why does Brunton dismiss out-of-hand the "vague stuff" of Tesla's biographer? Russell is not mentioned in the Who's Who Preface, but it does explain why Russell was included on page 2227: meritorious achievement in a reputable field of endeavor. BTW, the article on Russell labels him as a "artist AND scientist." This doesn't sound like Captain Eek's crackpot.Chazhardy (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

What year was he featured in who's who? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC) In the 1930s, 40s,and 50s (I quoted 1956) Russell was in Who's Who, then in Who Was Who, also in Who's Who in New York 1938-1939. For some reason was not in the Dictionary of American Biography.Chazhardy (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Chazhardy, I removed the periodic chart for being unsourced. It can be re-added if you have a reliable source. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Who deleted the "tag line" sentence? Why argue with Waldemar Kaempffert? He was a widely esteemed science writer. Who deleted the sentence about copyrighting the Periodic Chart in 1926? How is that fact a threat to Wikipedia? It was a follow-up to the previous sentence. Are you guys sure you know what you are doing?Chazhardy (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The ‘tag line’ was just what Russell wrote about his idea in the letter. It’s essentially a primary source, and hasn’t entered general usage so is basically insignificant. What the source actually supports is that something Russell wrote in a letter to the editor was quoted as part of the headline of the letter on the letters page. And do you have any evidence that Kaempffert was involved? Brunton (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Unless you can come up with some independently sourced indication that the Periodic Chart is in some way significant, the date it was copyrighted is undue. Brunton (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

But who lifted the two-way phrase from a letter to the editor to a headline in the Times? Kaempffert made these decisions. The copyright date is significant because it predates discoveries which Russell claimed he made before, such as deuterium and heavy water. He may have made a false claim, but it is part of the Russell story and should be told.Chazhardy (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC) "Basically insignificant"? Not in the Russell narrative, and that's what the article is about. Stop playing God.Chazhardy (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No, the article is about how the mainstream regards “the Russell narrative”.

Kaempffert was “Editor of Science and Engineering”, which would not normally involve responsibility for writing the headlines for the letters page. But in any case, it’s just Russell’s own words quoted in a headline. There’s no evidence that it has any significance.

The fact that this was discussed on the letters page of the NYT rather than in scientific journals should tell us something.

And please see WP:THREAD for information about how to indent talk page responses. —Brunton (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I read it, thanks. Russell's own words quoted in a headline? There were no quotation marks. What the mainstream thinks? Is that Wikipedia's function? To censor articles to fit what Wikipedia regards as mainstream? Stick to Howlin' Wolf and leave the serious talk to people who know what they are talking about.

The words are there in Russell’s letter; they are clearly quoted from there for the headline, quotation marks or not. What support do you have for your claim that it was Kaempffert who “made these decisions”? And, yes, reporting “what the mainstream thinks” is what Wikipedia does. I’m not sure if I’ve ever edited the article about the Wolf, and don’t see how it’s relevant here. Brunton (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(I've never seen such sophistry as I see here. You should have been a Jesuit.) BTW, Kaempffert ran the science department like his own fiefdom, with the backing of publisher Adolph Ochs. That Kaempffert elevated Russell is self-evident, he's the one who orchestrated the debate. Russell gratefully acknowledged this and praised the science writers of that time. (They were much more open-minded than Wikipedia). Chazhardy (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s not good enough, as sourcing on Wikipedia, to say that something is “self-evident”; reliable sources specifically supporting the text are required. The newspaper story “Artist Challenges Newtonian Theory”, used to support the statement about Kaempffert, does not carry a byline or mention Kaempffert, and does not otherwise support the text it was cited for, so I’ve removed it. Brunton (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

That is bullshit. Brunton is not using any "sophistry", and your Jesuit comparison is out of line.

“what the mainstream thinks” is what Wikipedia does This is exactly right. Chazhardy, I think Wikipedia is not the place you seek. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Plausible, but fallacious reasoning, that's what religions do all the time. And that's what you are doing in your crusade to destroy Walter Russell. You know nothing of Waldemar Kaempffert or Adolph Ochs or the Times' effort to educate the public about science in the 1930s. Are you sure "Wikipedia as censor" is the proper role for an online encyclopedia? Isn't reportage of verified facts your mission?Chazhardy (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, “verified” means “supported by reliable sources”. And we also have to bear in mind things like WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Brunton (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

"Fallacy" is not defined by "something a religious person does". There are hundreds of different fallacies, and they have names. If something is truly fallacious, you can always point at the exact point where it is wrong and link the fallacy used. Just dropping the word "fallacious" does not cut it. You are so far out of your depth here.

Walter Russell was a crackpot, all reliable sources agree on that, and we have experience with people like you who want to turn thousands of other similar people who have no idea what they are talking about, like Andrew Wakefield, Erich von Däniken, David Icke, Samuel Hahnemann, Immanuel Velikovsky, Elizabeth Teissier, L. Ron Hubbard, Fred Singer or Trofim Lysenko, to pick just a few of them, into heroes of science. It only works temporarily, for a few minutes or in rare cases for years, because Wikipedia has competent editors. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh right: the users who want to turn the articles about those people around are all like you. You people are like clones, with small differences. You all wail about how the establishment is oppressing you, you all want to include dubious sources, you all claim that your opponents are using bad reasoning without being able to justify that claim, and so on. We have seen it all, and there is no point in you continuing to do this. You will lose, just like all your "brothers" did. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I dislike conversing with a comic book character, but here goes: Go ahead and delete the whole article if that will satisfy your need to bring down a great man. The only thing is, someone else will attempt a wikipedia article on Walter Russell in the future and I guarantee that it will not be as scholarly or true to Wikipedia's rules as this one. We have documented everything in this article using a variety of sources. A few months ago we had it nailed, but then you began your crusade, culminating in your "crackpot" remark yesterday. Your words and actions are unfathomable; how can you dismiss a bona fide biographer of Nikola Tesla? Or the culture of the New York Times under Adolph Ochs? And now its "you people" name-calling. I feel badly that I must abandon my defense of Walter Russell; I am uniquely qualified to speak in his defense as his biographer, but I know when I am surrounded by a pack of dogs who claim to be Russell's superiors and sit in judgement of him that I have lost the battle. I've heard others who once had high expectations for wikipedia bemoan its decline into pedantry. This is a major victory for Captain Eek, Brunton, and Hob Gadling, congratulations.Chazhardy (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

For details of his biography (for example, where he got his money), it is great to have a biographer. But I have yet to see an elucidation of any scientific claims by Russell that comports with actual knowledge of the physical universe. Could it be that the entire scientific establishment is incorrect? Absolutely! But this is not the place to fight those battles. Please read WP:RGW. Find some scientists who think Russell's work is worth connecting to current knowledge and have them produce reliable sources that we can use. We need expert evaluation and not acolyte devotion. jps (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I’ve had a bit of a look at the NYT articles that were linked from this talk page by WikipediansSweep (currently at the end of the archive). Excluding the letters, it’s mostly just descriptions of Russell’s claims, but there are a couple of comments about the reception of Russell’s ideas. “Artist challenges Newtonian theory“, 21st July 1930, says that “In 1926, he printed privately “The Universal One”, embodying his present theories, which scientists looked upon with disfavour.” “Walter Russell dead at 93; self-taught artist and educator”, 20th May 1963, says, “Several books by Mr Russell expounded his original scientific theories. The books, questioning the validity of Newtonian and Keplerian astronomy, were not taken seriously by scientists.” If the lead is going to mention Russell’s writing on “science topics”, it really ought to also mention their reception by scientists. Do we have any other sources that specifically address the reception of Russell’s ideas by mainstream science? Brunton (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The obituary that says that his work "was not taken seriously be scientists" is good enough. For whatever reason, the Times thought it important to include publications about Russell in its pages. I imagine an editor was a devotee, but as this subject is so obscure, it's perhaps going to be difficult to figure this out (and the Russell acolytes likely aren't going to be helpful in tracking down this citogenesis). I'll dig around a bit. jps (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I may have some clues. Apparently Russell, Ochs, and Thomas Watson were members of certain philosophical societies in New York: [2]. jps (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead used to refer to Watson as “Russell’s patron”, and Ochs as “his advocate in the media”, sourced to A Worthy Messenger: the Life's Work of Walter Russell. Brunton (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Russell had rich friends who promoted his ideas (maybe up to renting the estate in Virginia?). That would be a good thing to discuss in our article. jps (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, if sources can be found. Actually, I think he might well have been independently wealthy as a result of his property development business. Brunton (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think one of the main issues here is that there are no modern authoritative sources about this guy, or at least not that we've found. That has thus left us trying to digest contemporary sources, or to pick apart the extremely dubious "A worthy messenger". If we could find even just one more modern source that evaluates him, that'd be valuable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

There’s also the issue of “one-way” referencing. There are plenty of Notable people who are mentioned as having been associated with Russell, but if you check out books about them Russell is pretty much absent, or at best only mentioned in passing. For example we have a claim in the article that Russell and Watson “developed a new concept of utilitarian business ethics“ at IBM in the 1930s. I’ve looked at some biographies of Watson (by searching them on Google Books), but not found any mention of Russell. Surely if Watson was involved in developing a significant “concept of utilitarian business ethics” with Russell, Russell would be mentioned in writings about him? Again, there may be sources I haven’t seen that mention Russell; can anyone else find anything? Brunton (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's a pretty interesting jaunt. I cannot confirm that it was properly published, however, but it looks like it was well-researched: [3] jps (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a paper from one of the students, but if the references pan out, there's no reason not to consider it. Drmab (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems to have been published in Bunkyo University‘s ”Bulletin of the Faculty of Language and Literature” (20)1, pp 39-50, Published October 2006. Not sure what the RS status of a bulletin like this is. The relevant sections of the website seem to only be available in Japanese as far as I can see, so I haven’t been able to find out anything further there. Brunton (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW, just for the record Hob Gading, just who are the "reliable sources who agree" that Russell is a crackpot?Chazhardy (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Bankruptcy

Should mention be given to his 1908 bankruptcy? Drmab (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Massive understatement that misrepresents the facts.

In the opening of the article it states "Russell wrote extensively on science topics, but these writings "were not taken seriously by scientists."", however this is a gross understatement. They didn't just not take his writings seriously, they outright proved them wrong, and there is a HUGE difference there. The first makes the scientists sound arrogant and dismissive, while the second, and the truth, proves Russell was wrong. Therefore I am changing the statement from (Russell wrote extensively on science topics, but these writings "were not taken seriously by scientists."), to (Russell wrote extensively on science topics, but these writings "were not taken seriously by scientists." as they were proven unfounded and eventually disproved.) Shion-ko (talk) Shion-ko (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)