Talk:Walter Russell/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Rework the whole thing, please

I've made a few minor changes. I added the "Importance" template at the top, due to the fact that nowhere in the article does it ever cite anyone of any note (or at all, for that matter) giving an opinion on Walter Russell. I can't tell based on this article how seriously he is taken by people. My guess is not very, but this is something that should be addressed with evidence. It actually does make claims like "mainstream scientists reject his theories." Really? Which ones? I don't know any mainstream scientists who know of him.

If Russell can be put into context in the history of the New Age movement, by citing actual people of note who have talked about his significance, and if he's thought to be notable by these sources, then I think the article should stay, with major revisions. For one, just about every claim Russell made which is mentioned in this article should be explicitly identified as a claim of his, rather than the current tone which too often seems to just declaim his ideas with the apparent authority of consensus reality (i.e. Wikipedia) behind them. Misterbailey (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There's too much to nitpick here, really, but the one interesting claim to notability in the lead section---the coinage of "New Age"---is verifiably incorrect, as is made clear at, for example, the "New Age" article on Wikipedia. Misterbailey (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Some editing has been done since I last saw this. Please, JDPhD and others, let's discuss this here. Let me be frank (which I'm permitted to do on the talk page): I think this page reeks of advocacy and exaggeration. I noticed that some incredible claims I had earlier asked for citation on, or which I had directly edited out, are in there now, mostly with citations to "The Man Who Tapped the Secrets of the Universe." Now I can't get a copy of that book but the title hardly makes it sound like a neutral source. (Non-neutral sources would be okay if one were clearly attributing these claims as a specific person's opinion rather than as fact.)

[Please note: "The Man Who Tapped The Secrets of the Universe" is currently easy to find. It's available to read, for free online, at Philosophy.org - the website for The University of Science and Philosophy. Hard copies for sale are easily found via a web search - this note posted 02-25-11]

In particular, I find it hard to imagine how the sources would prove, to Wikipedia's satisfaction, a claim like "Walter Russell was one of the most versatile polymaths ever." This is just the first of many egregious examples. Put some of the stuff I'm editing out back in only if 1) it's attributed clearly as someone's opinion, and 2) this opinion is notable in some way, and not just something that someone once said. It's frustrating to have a bunch of sources thrown at this which I'm deeply skeptical of but which I can't easily check.

There is also a lot of "legitimacy by association," whereby every opportunity is taken to name drop people who are well known and not considered cranks, and with whom Walter Russell is purported to have had some association. This is annoying for having the tone of underhanded advocacy. A picture of "Rough Rider [Theodore Roosevelt], a friend"---totally gratuitous. If there was some contact between the two of them which was interesting in itself (not just as in, "look at all the famous people Russell talked to once") then describe that contact. Otherwise, don't drop these sorts of tantalizing but vague suggestions.

There are also several places where a view of Russell's on some topic is briefly mentioned, and then several paragraphs are spent quoting various sources or other opinions on that topic, in what comes across as a clumsy attempt to add the air of legitimacy. Mention Russell's opinion, but leave the other stuff out, unless it's absolutely necessary for context. For example, this isn't an article about thermodynamics, but it can talk about Russell's theory of thermodynamics specifically.

I deleted some scientific claims, attributed to "mainstream science," which I know nobody in mainstream science makes.

Finally, in addition to hearing from his advocates, it would really improve this article if you gave a good-faith representation of the views of people who were notable and were not fans of Russell. Surely some people who knew of him thought he was a crank, and we really ought to hear their own words. Misterbailey (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several errors in this article which should be reworked by someone really familiar with his theories.

Example 1:

This physical theory, laid out primarily in his books The Secret of Light (1947) and The Message of the Divine Iliad (1948–49)

This is surely not correct. The physical theory is certainly not primarily laid out in the Divine Iliad. Additionally the books which really lay out most extensively his physical theory like "The Universal One" and "The Home Study Course" are missing. As IMHO one couldn't anyway say that a certain book lays out his theory primarily, I would suggest deleting this sentence completely. Anyone against this?

Example 2:

According to Walter Russell, the increasing heat and pressure generated on the planet by the increasing use of nuclear energy would eventually cause major global changes of a catastrophic nature.

This is surely very misleading. By reading this one would suggest, that it is meant, that the additional physical heat and pressure produced by a nuclear plant are the reason. But that is very wrong to his theory. He mainly focused on the discharging "death"-force, which will be stimulated by nuclear fission. Even just by taking Uranium out of the earth. So IMHO either a complete change of this part is needed or it should be deleted. There are still some more errors, but not as terrible ones, as the 2 I mentioned. 83.77.111.140 (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Russell's First Wife?

Who was Russell's first wife, what happened with the divorce, and why is she nowhere mentioned in any reference I can find on the Web? Certainly philosophy.org don't seem to go out of their way to acknowledge she existed.

Must have been kind of hard on her, Walter divorcing at 77 to marry some 40-something young fan. Seems like there ought to be a story there.

--Natecull 04:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't actually say they divorced. The article says Russell married Helen Andrews in 1904, and met Lao in 1946. His first wife may very well have died at some point during those 42 years. The article doesn't actually state when this second marraige occurred. Geo Swan (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Passive Voice

There is way, way too much passive voice in this article, making it impossible to verify any details, example:

"...was once touted as.." An interested editor needs to rewrite this fragment to specify who did the touting, when they did it, where and then to provide that source in a references section
"it was his work in physics and energy which created an uproar ". An uproar from whom? What was the work? What form did the uproar take. Once again, provide a source.
"which has not been confirmed by hard science" Why? Has anyone tried to confirm it and failed? Or is no one interested?
"Russell was the subject of a biography by Glenn Clark which has almost a cult following today." Why not simply list the book in a references section. And why does it have a cult following?
"sometimes gets his work banned from university curricula." Which universities banned his work? Why? Listing at least some of them gives the reader a better chance of verifying the details in this article.
"Described as a "musician, illustrator, portrait painter, architectural designer, sculptor, business practices advisor to employees of International Business Machines, champion figure skater, natural scientist, philosopher and author" Who describes him this way? Clark? Why not say so.

Thanx.

Unwarranted Verdicts

"Although a number of his books have been published, few of his claims have been verified by mainstream academics."

I'd like to know who wrote this sentence. The second clause is a shallow appeal to authority fallacy, while the first clause seems to congratulate Russell for managing to get his books published! If the author thinks as lowly of Russell as the sentence suggests, what are they doing contributing to the introductory paragraph of his biographical page?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinbielnov (talk • contribs) 01:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Because a Wikipedia page should be neutral, and generally the mainstream opinion of a body of work is one of the most important POVs that WP:NPOV demands we should cover?--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Russell also studied physics, and [...]"

This could completely be misunderstood by many people. Actually he left school very early and so didn't even had a common finished school education. So the term, that he studied physics is IMHO not correct. According to himself he got all the knowledge during his period of enlightenment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.67.143 (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

source of his wealth?

According to the article Russell dropped out of school at a very early age, so he wasn't born rich. Yet, later in his life, he had sufficient funds to lease what sounds like a very expensive property. So, which of his various enterprises brought in the dough? Or, alternately, was his first wife wealthy? Geo Swan (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Where do such people always get their wealth? Answer: by running scams that suck in the weak-minded. It is always particularly sad to see comments to the effect that mainstream science has not accepted his ideas. He should not even benefit from the implication that real scientists have actually looked at his drivel. This sleight-of-mouth is possible only because the vast majority of the population has no idea how real scientists think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.128.41 (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha.. I can't believe the ignorance and arrogance of people 'contributing' to wikipedia artciles, like this one. If you have no idea who Walter Russell was, one who should really be remembered as an accomplished 20th century american polymath, please do the world a favor and steer away from what you have no education about. There are plenty of articles about Walter Russell to verify his works were authentic, and it can be verified that many well-known, in fact wealthy or often influential people, sought to him at their own volition. How do people question whether he was 'known or not' and why would that even matter anyway? Fact of the matter he was quite well known by many intelligent and successful people of his time. He even did work for multiple presidents, for example a portrait of president Roosevelt's daughter, he also sold his own horses to the president. He gave documented lectures about business, economy, ethics, human relations, and love. He was someone who even without academic certificates under his belt, possessed the mind of a genius and no amount of school or training can produce a genius - we have to bring that out of ourselves. Walter Russell is in fact an important american historical figure, he belongs right there with Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, and Mark Twain; children need to learn about people like Dr. Russell as well. To call this renaissance man a scam or con artist is totally laughable at best.(50.53.158.39 (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC))

Death

It is documented (Remembered for Love - J B Yount, as well as books about Walter from the organization he founded the University of Science and Philosophy) that Walter Russell died May 19, 1963. Therefore "He lived there with his second wife Lao Russell till May 20, 1963" as written in the article is incorrect. Rbnorth (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I updated the article per your request. All is One (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Cause and Effect

This statement is illogical: "Russell asserted that this was mainly due to a difference in the assumptions made about the existence of mind and matter; Russell assumes the existence of mind as cause while he believes that scientists in general assume the existence of matter as effect." I cannot find anything like it in the Universal One. (Rbnorth (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

If the statement cannot be supported by the reference, the statement or the reference should be removed--Thorseth (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I wrote an entirely new article and "saved" it. Where is it? Chazhardy (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Charles Hardy

You created a user page, which is intended to be about you, as an editor, not a place to create a draft article. It is here. Please feel free to edit the existing article, if you think it needs improvement. Check out Referencing for beginners for tips on creating proper references.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

collapsing non helpful comments

== Insignificance of Walter Russell ==

Is his work "banned from university curricula" or simply not included because there's no reason to have ever heard of him and few people have? "Banned" is likely an attempt to make it sound as if he had ideas people were threatened by.

I remember staying in a motel near Swannanoa in the early 1970's and reading a pamphlet advertising Walter Russell and Swannanoa. I started out sitting on the bed. I ended up laughing so convulsively that I fell over. Drove over to Swannanoa intending to take the tour for further entertainment, but the feel of the place was so creepy and reeking of charlatanism that I felt compelled to turn around and get out of there as rapidly as possible.

Explain to me the significance of "the prediction of the existence of plutonium and the two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium[19][unreliable source?] which were known in theory but as yet undiscovered in nature." So after they were known in theory he predicted their existence? This is a typical example of how his acolytes "substantiate" his "greatness." It's telling that none of the references supporting his supposed scientific achievements come from the scientific literature.

I'm done. We've all wasted enough time on this insignificant character. --Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian scva (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

^ Troll. Need I say more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.158.39 (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Using the term "polymath" to describe Walter Russell is surely incorrect. The term implies academia, book-learning, years of study, etc.Chazhardy (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Charles Hardy

Proposed new article

Please see proposed new article, based on original with significant modifications. It is in my sandbox below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chazhardy/sandbox — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures≈≈≈≈] comment added by Chazhardy (talk • contribs) 22:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC) ≈≈≈≈

The article has been re-worked. Reviewers need to remove the hateful comments on the earlier version.Chazhardy (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The Secret of Light

This whole section is just quotes from his book, aside from one short comment. Surely that is not NPOV. The notion that photons actually exist was pretty much settled science decades prior to this publication. See Compton's experiments, or Millikan's attempts to disprove the photon interpretation. Russell's theory that light does not actually flow from one place to another is absurd in light of the available science of the time. Perhaps this was just an elaborate hoax like the Brady-Curran Darkon Theory. W0lfie (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC) What would be the motive for such a hoax? Perhaps it is just a different concept of the universe. Must we all march lock-step with scientific thinking of our time? Chazhardy (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazhardy (talk • contribs) 17:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Evaluation

I read the Walter Russell page with interest, and I upgraded it from 'Start' to 'C'. I would have gone for a 'B' if it had been illustrated with some of Russell's works. Surely there's something out of copyright, or a person's own photo of one or more of the works. It's hard to evaluate an artist without seeing his art. --Vicedomino (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Walter Russell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Additional Information Regarding the Doctorate from American Academy of Sciences

Dr. Matho Mietk-Liuba was the founder of the first rocket society in 1918. The name of the organization was called "The American Rocket Society of the American Academy of Sciences." This organization was then merged into the American Academy of Sciences in 1937. The awarding of the doctorate was in 1941. The photo of the doctorate was acquired via direct email with Russells organization, which also included Westinghouse test results on a device of Russell's, and a letter from Einstein regarding Russell's sculpting.

Here are the sources which validate this, elucidate fallacies if found.

https://www.aiaa.org/about/History-and-Heritage/History-of-AIAA "The ARS – Later Years (1944 – 1963) During World War II the organization continued to publish Astronautics and received increasing numbers of requests for information on rockets."

This establishes the fact that Astronautics was the journal of the American Rocket Society(not Liuba's) and that it was published in 1944. The American Rocket Society is now named the Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).

http://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/inostr-yazyki/bais/1944/Astronautics_no_060_(1944).pdf (This is a link to the Dec 1944 Astronautics Journal pdf) "Notes and News In February 19th 1944 issue of the academy news announces that the Rocket Society of the American Academy of Sciences, Savannah, Ga., is probably the oldest in the world, being founded in 1918 by Matho Mietk-Liuba. Interested in rocket research since 1915, Dr Liuba on July 10th, 1929 created the "New York Experimental Station", a one-man affair, which in 1937 merged into the American Academy of Sciences. The Rocket, official publication of the Rocket Society, appears in the academy news."

And here we have validation that Liuba's organization did merge into the American Academy of Sciences prior to the doctorate being awarded to Russell.

Regarding the prediction of the elements:

"He pioneered in foreseeing two of the greatest discoveries of modern times - the isotopes of hydrogen, which led to the discovery of heavy water, and the two new elements used in the atomic bomb. He announced the complexity of hydrogen to a body of distinguished scientists years before the truth of his statement was verified. But it is the atomic bomb that will prove to be the earth-shaking, epoch-making discovery of the future. The two newly discovered elements which formed the basis of the atomic bomb, called Neptunium and Plutonium, were published in his charts of the elements in 1926. He named them Uridium and Urium. He also predicted that if ever discovered the pressures of this planet would not be sufficient to hold them together."

From THE MAN WHO TAPPED THE SECRETS OF THE UNIVERSE pg.20

Simply put, Russell was giving speeches to scientist and told them exactly where to find the isotopes. The idea was stolen essentially and no credit given to him and he even had a letter written out to the Nobel committee explaining this and from that point forward copyrighted everything.

Let me know if any of this is wrong.

Sweep — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediansSweep (talk • contribs) 06:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"Dr. Matho Mietk-Liuba was the founder of the first rocket society in 1918". He was apparently its only member and little is known of its activities.Centennial of flight
The link to the AIAA talks about "the American Rocket Society, which had begun in 1930 as the American Interplanetary Society," not the one founded by Liuba.
"validation that Liuba's organization did merge into the American Academy of Sciences," doesn't mean the AAS wasn't a one-man affair.
THE MAN WHO TAPPED THE SECRETS OF THE UNIVERSE is self-published, so you have to find a better source. And like I said, Bohr predicted those elements 4 years before.

So, none of your links give any credence to the fact that the AAS is noteworthy, or Russell was the first one to predict Ne and Pu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmab (talk • contribs) 11:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The first link you posted (http://www.centennialofflight.net/essay/Social/space_clubs/SH19.htm) is less comprehensive than the previous links regarding the the organization, saying not much was known about it and that's it, unlike the other articles I posted where it mentioned projects and mergers. You've obviously disproved that it's a single man show because you mentioned his wife. Nonetheless this doesn't add credence to the organization itself. This does show the unlikelihood of fraud thottysugh, considering someone would have to go a pretty far extent to forge it. Also the legal tone of using phrases such as "the state of Delaware" suggesting governmental oversight or some sort of authority, I will look further into this.

The second link you responded to (https://www.aiaa.org/about/History-and-Heritage/History-of-AIAA) was not supposed to show anything about Liuba's organization, which was stated in its original posting. It was showing the name and date of their journal validating the third link (http://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/inostr-yazyki/bais/1944/Astronautics_no_060_(1944).pdf) which was Russian and that might have been dismissed.

The third link shows that more was known than in your first shared link, thus is more credible.

The biography is the only verified biography on Russell, he didn't even write it. So I'm unsure of why it's not reputable.

Where is your information from Bohr and why have you not mentioned the isotopes of hydrogen.

Also this doesn't seem to be the AAS that is known today, but saying he did not acquire this honorary doctorate is likely not true. The reasons behind the doctorate are the same as well.

Sweep

Ps I will search the Times for Walter, they've got plenty of stuff. Even him arguing against physicist on black holes, Kepler findings, and more. Mind you this is an uneducated artist who received his information in mystical experience which flips materialism on its head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediansSweep (talk • contribs) 15:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is his periodic chart where he states he discovered Uranium and Neptunium in 1921, copyrighted in 1926. This is prior to Bohr. https://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/russell_1.gif

The copyright is 1926 (as show in the link: https://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php?Button=1900-1949+Formulations), so it post-dates Borh.

Sweep

All the information you've presented points to the fact that the AAS was a small affair. There is no proof of a Sc.D. (not Ph.D), honorary or otherwise, except a letter written by a man and his wife, which, strangely enough, mentions depositing the diploma with the Secretary of State of Delaware, which has nothing to do with educational institutions in Florida (which the AAS purpots to be). Until you show us more evidence, there is enough doubt as to the validity of the claim to remove it from the lede. Drmab (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure your if your mind is made up or you aren't reading the links because the AAS was in multiple jurisdictions... Also a photo of the diploma along with names that have been verified only support the validity of it. He was awarded this, it is beyond reasonable doubt. Tread the bottom right hand portion of his chart here. It says these were discovered by me, Walter Russell, in 1921. Also you're avoiding the isotope question like the plague and I'm not sure if you're even aware of it, and that might be because it is so unacceptable to the model your mind has of the world.

Sweep

Third opinion

Howdy hello! I saw that this discussion was posted at WP:3o. I've not edited the article before today, and have not interacted with y'all, so I hope you'll accept me as a nuetral third party. I've looked over the article, and the items in question. I find the supposed diploma to be suspicious. We have only a photo of it (poor quality at that), and it's apparently not mentioned in any of the other sources about Russell's life. Given that Russell appears to have been a quack, I highly doubt that he earned or received it. Even if it is genuine, the evidence points that the AAS was not a reputable or very notable organization, and perhaps just a diploma mill. On his discovery of Ne or Pu: we're supposed to believe that this untrained non-scientist predicted these elements and their properties years before one of the best scientists ever, because he received a divine enlightenment? I think not, Russel was clearly a kook. Much of this article is either based on his own work, which seems to greatly exaggerate himself and hisachievements. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unless better sources are found, I do not support the inclusion of his diploma, or his supposed discovery of Ne and Pu. And I also think a major cleanup of the article is to be had. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Third Opinion

Hello, I am regarding your comments which I had originally hoped to match your original statement:

I hope you'll accept me as a nuetral third party.

Nonetheless it stands to reason that neutral is too strong a word due to some very apparent growing bias with no support other than seemingly your belief system.

Example:

I find the supposed diploma to be suspicious. We have only a photo of it (poor quality at that), and it's apparently not mentioned in any of the other sources about Russell's life. Given that Russell appears to have been a quack, I highly doubt that he earned or received it.(Italics are my emphasis)

I do not blame you for, at first glance, taking the diploma as questionable. This was a previous reference for the claim on the main page, which would of been noticed if thoroughly checked. I emailed the organization, talked with the archives manager on the phone, and had the image emailed to me, which is included here as a screen shot. Because, I too, wanted to see it for myself. Here's Russells own organization stating:

1941: Walter Russell turns the age of 70. The American Academy of Sciences confers a doctorate to Walter Russell – (after several laboratories isolate the elements which he had foreseen: Deuterium, Tritium, Neptunium and Plutonium. (https://www.philosophy.org/historical-timeline.html)

I'm unsure of why you doubt even his reception of it, as that seems implausible. As to the earning of it, well, that's somewhat understandable to the uneducated person. Did you know he argued scientist's in the New York Times? I don't think you did. So let's review some of these, all available to your own eyes with a subscription to NYTs online archives.

ARTIST CHALLENGES NEWTONIAN THEORY

July 21, 1930: Artist challenges Newtonian Theory, Revising Other Scientific Principles -PRESENT IDEAS “PRIMITIVE” Walter Russell Promised to Disprove in Series of Pamphlets Many Accepted Beliefs. Walter Russell, artist and president of the Society of Arts and Sciences, announces yesterday the publication by him at his own expense of the first of a series of sixteen pamphlets to embody his speculations about the universe and the constitution of matter, which, he says, differ radically from many commonly accepted scientific beliefs. He further announced that he intends to send the first pamphlet, dealing with the “cyclic theory of continuous motion, or the Russell genero-radiative concept,” to “leading scientists throughout the world.” According to Mr. Russell, “the fundamentals of science are so hopelessly wrong and so contrary to nature that nothing but a major surgical operation upon the present primitive beliefs can ever put them in line for a workable cosmogenic synthesis.”

ARTIST DISPUTES NEWTON AND KEPLER FINDINGS

August 03, 1930 Dr. Jackson Sees Something Profane in Mr. Russell’s Attack on Laws of Science To the Editor of The New York Times: The Times of July 21 contains an article stating that Walter Russell challenges the Newtonian theory of gravitation. This artist, who is admittedly not a scientist, goes on to say that “the fundamentals of science are so hopelessly wrong and so contrary to nature, that nothing but a major surgical operation upon the present primitive beliefs can ever put them in line for a workable cosmogenetic synthesis.” Disregarding all his other claims it seems to me that it would be more fitting for an artist of Mr. Russell’s acknowledged distinction in his own field, to remain in it and not go trespassing on “ground which even angels fear to tread.” For nearly three hundred years no one, not even a scientist, has had the temerity to question Newton’s laws of gravitation. Such an act on the part of a scientist would be akin to blasphemy, and for an artist to commit such an absurdity is, to treat it kindly, an evidence of either misguidance or crass ignorance of the enormity of his act.

MR. RUSSELL MAY BE RIGHT

Dr. Jackson Withdraws Criticism of “Two-Way” Universe and Seeks Proof To the Editor of The New York Times: Some time ago The Times published a letter of mine severely criticizing Walter Russell for presuming to attack the “laws” of Kepler and Newton. Obviously, as a scientist, I resented the sweeping claim of a non-scientist “that science needed a major surgical operation to put it in line for a logical, cosmogenetic synthesis.” I felt that it was ridiculous for anybody to criticize such laws, and especially anybody without recognized scientific standing to attempt such surgery. I now wish to modify my statements and criticisms, for, since writing that letter, my viewpoint has somewhat changed from scathing to one of expectation. What I considered the over-night inspiration of that revolutionary type of man we call a “crank” might be, instead, the result of an intelligent and prolonged study of Nature.

He honestly sounds like you in the beginning, screaming blasphemy.

As noted previously on this page, it was shown that the Academy was founded by a doctor, Dr. Matho Mietk-Liuba, and was the oldest rocket society in the world. Which then merged into the American Academy of Sciences in 1937. The definition of merge requires two parties, and I do not believe that it was the modern AAOS, which i admitted to earlier in the thread. The organization isn't just bound to Florida as DrMab suggested, due to it being founded in Georgia and having outposts in New York, but that it somehow has the State of Delaware backing it as the document suggest. I am not an expert on the legality and what's required to apply a stamp like that, and it seems neither do you. Actual info on this rather than dismissive arm waving is more productive, no? It seems plausible due to the three states previously mentioned. So now absolute forgery was disproven. Now the idea that it was an illegitimate organization was examined as I found DrMab used a less detailed source than me as a rebuttal because my document clearly showed that his sources statement that "not much was known" was clearly false. It also shows that the organization is regarded by the reputable organization that was to become the AIAA as an legitimate organization, with a multiple state reach, not a diploma factory such as the ones you can buy in foreign countries.

On his discovery of Ne or Pu: we're supposed to believe that this untrained non-scientist predicted these elements and their properties years before one of the best scientists ever, because he received a divine enlightenment? I think not, Russel was clearly a kook.

Kook, quack, my opinions don't match... it's incredible to see that this is how someone handles a new idea they have yet to even delve into... Needless to say at the time of these articles and his prominence he was highly known, he knew Einstein, Presidents, Edison, MacArthur, Mark Twain, etc. Same with his claim to Neptunium and Neptunium, deuterium and triterum. All of them that waved their arms as you did walked away in astonishment. Hence Tesla deeply followed him and told him to hide his science for 1000 years until humanity was ready.

Oh did I forget to mention that he was a master musician, painter, architect, and sculptor? Whom the New York Tribune called the "Modern Leonardo"?

I'm afraid it is you who needs a "major clean up."

Sweep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100b:b119:6182:8d7e:84fe:cf33:14c1 (talk) 17:10, September 6, 2019 (UTC)

Much of Russell's work falls under WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. No modern theory of the cosmos lines up with Russell's, and is based on widely unaccepted ideas about physics. I also note that you don't have references to any of the claims you've made above. What I said earlier stands: Russell was not a scientist, had no formal training, and claimed his knowledge came from divine revelation, yet somehow figured out the secret of the universe. That is patently absurd. Until some very solid sources are presented, we cannot possibly include those claims, and even then we can only present them as his supposed but unaccepted theories. Additionally, please keep your tone neutral and focus on content, not the creator. I'm not going to attack or demean you, so please don't attack me. I came to this article as an uninvolved party, read the article, its sources, and the debate, before giving a thoughtful reply. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea why it's objectively absurd, do you have references for this? Any references? I can't believe you tout this attitude with pride. "Theyre objectively kooks" is your literal argument... Now that's kookie. But don't worry I'm not attacking you just your ideas... I clearly named the New York Times, and if you read the article you should of been able to see what I meant, give credit where credit is due, I did site many things in this section. I will add them to each point later on. The Modern Leonardo is on the main article... you say you read it? He did busts of Edison... WikipediansSweep (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Drmab: Courtesy ping.

@WikipediansSweep: We seemed to have gotten off on the wrong foot, so I'm hoping that we can go back to examining the content and the substance of the issue at hand. The issue here still seems to be sources, and the lack thereof. I've looked into philosophy.org, which seems to not be an reliable, independent, secondary source. While it could be used for supporting information, it cannot be used as a standalone source. I invite you to try to find some other sources which meet our sourcing guidelines, i.e. a biography of Russell published by a respected publishing house. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad we have reached peaceful ground to uncover the truth regarding this great man. I find no reason to classify this as pseudoscience nor fringe science though. At least in my book, "pseudo" implies no validity whatsoever. Fringe falls into pseudoscience by default sadly as well. It's almost as if the status quo is an idol who dare not be challenged. Yet some true pseudoscientific dogmas lie within the mainstream halls of science. Where in the brain is consciousness produced? Does it produce consciousness? Do you believe this? Where is the proof? There is none. How about the big bang? Do you believe it without question? Even if some assumptions we make today are ad hoc due to it? Models don't work unless we add dark matter or energy, which means 96% of the universe now is unknown, simply to fit this theory heralded as the truth. Where's the proof? How is this not pseudo or fringe? Think of Galileo and how he would fall into the fringe category of his time. Are we not in a time comparable? We don't know how much we don't know. Another example is many worlds in quantum theory. Originally the scoff and shaming was so high that it was viewed as a joke, now it is one of the most believed theories in physics. Even speaking to a physicist the other day we mentioned how much of it just theory, models, overlaying what truly is. How does one prove something? True proof? Can you prove that I am self aware? No, you can't. But do you believe it? Yes, yes you do. Why are you so irrational by modern standards then? No evidence, no proof, and you believe in it? "Foolish!" Exclaims the rationalist unaware of his hypocrisy. Banter aside, there are truly misguided individuals pushing ideas that are wrong. Sylvia Brown or Brown are noteworthy examples, Emoto another, even though plants do respond to pleasant music, which is shown by at least one 3rd grader per science fair. Proof is as simple as this, enough to convince you of its reality. But even this falls away as in a dream you don't know you're dreaming and are convinced of the reality of something just as fully as seeing a lion face to face. Ironically there is no way to prove that this reality is not some dream of yours, that you are not some child asleep in the year 2500 BC. But at least we all have an inner sense of right and wrong guiding us to do the right thing. Not hurt, but help where we can, guide and show what we know to those who don't. Seeing a toddler trip we show him how to tie his shoes. Helping the old lady with her groceries. Why do even animals appreciate love? Even wild ones? Why does this thread cross all boundaries? To reptiles, birds, and in the creatures of the sea? As much as I agree that there are people who are simply wrong, I don't see science as being as rational as it believes it is. It is not a mechanism of pure reason and cold hard fact, because it goes through the minds of man, their paradigms and beliefs, and comes out in a way that mind perceives the world. I'm unsure if you have seen the psychological test where the gorilla walks in the middle of two teams throwing basketballs and 95% of people don't see him. I'm using it here to illustrate that we see only what we are looking for, or better yet what your perception allows you to see. How much gets filtered due to the status quo being heralded as ultimate truth? In a translation of Max Plancks work by Frank Gaynor, called “A Scientific Autobiography," Planck discussed the opposition to novel scientific theories: This experience gave me also an opportunity to learn a fact-a remarkable one, in my opinion: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Simply put "science advances one death at a time," which im sure you've heard. Here's an article going into many examples. While I do somewhat agree that there are bogus claims and foolish people, as there have always been, the quickness to judge and throw into this category is about as aimless as someone not believing your view of Christianity, and condemning them to hell. I will get back with sources as I'm building my data In between time off, which isn't much. Many thanks for the change in attitude and cooling of the engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediansSweep (talk • contribs) 11:17, September 14, 2019 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, let us not defend our beliefs and actually attempt to dissect the truth of the matter. WikipediansSweep (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

We're not here to have a philosophical debate on the issue. We're here to improve a Wikipedia article. The best way to do that is to find reliable sources; we can then discuss their merits and what to include from them. I invite you to look for more reliable sources, post them, and then we can talk. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't you worry, I am finding quite a bit of good source material on my end. Mind you, your crank and kook conclusions were too quickly drawn, as you now know.

In the mean time could you elucidate to me why this is now under the pseudoscientific category? This man sent his work to all of the top scientist of his day, which is something that anything pseudoscience related wouldn't do.

Also my "philosophical" argumemt is moreso a defamation at pseudoscience as you have placed it. To wave it off as unrelated or to simply ignore it is saying that the massive label on the top is correct. Yet im asking for a reason, and none are being given. In absolute irony, the claim claiming fraud is essentially fraud itself unless there is backing, no? So contrary to what you've said, I am helping the article, and also elucidating how undefined these terms are. Dark matter is nonfalsifiable in as much as the magical field of magic in which all of reality sits. Its simply created, ad hoc, based on jamming reality into the big bang model and we don't even know HOW to search for it not to mention find it or disapprove it. Thus easily fits into the same category of pseudoscience.

Also it seems as if you havent read any of the New York Times articles even I posted, because im unsure of how public letters between him and a scientist arguing about Newton and Keplar can by any means be classified as pseudoscientific, especially after the scientist recants his initial statements telling Russell he has no idea what he's talking about.

I'm surprised you haven't read those yet... there's a whole debate for you... WikipediansSweep (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You haven't provided any links to NYTimes articles, only copy and pasted stuff, which is not sufficient. Also, it appears that those articles are from the 1930's. When possible, more modern articles are preferred. Russell's views appear to be WP:PSCI as they are not within the scientific mainstream or consensus, and do not follow scientific principles. If you feel that I have not defined PSCI, please click on either of these links and read our official policy at length: WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE. If you would like, you could open a thread on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, to get more attention and a ruling on the issue.

One of my main issues remains that Russell was not a trained scientist, and that per the lead He claims his mastery in many fields to mystical experience starting from the age of 7 years culminating every 7 years until a 39 day cosmic illumination experience in his 49th year where he claims to derive all of his scientific knowledge. Divine enlightenment is not part of the scientific process, nor a reliable source. Russell was either a kook or a conman. Russell's work is inherently fishy, and the fact that he lacks modern coverage makes his supposed achievements even fishier. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and opened a thread on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard [1]. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

If you can not confer convincing evidence that he fits into this claim asides that quote, then we should remove the banner at the top. "Divine illumination" being part of the scientific process is not a staple for the label given. For example, is it scientific fact that we are conscious? Ill give you a minute. In truth, no. There is no objective measurement of it. There is no consciousness meter. You can not validate that I am a conscious individual or not. So with that said, how is mind or consciousness not something pseudoscientific? You can't prove it, nor falsify it. Is my red your red?

Another note is that Russell says that God is provable in the laboratory, which actually correlates with David Bohms implicate and explicate orders of reality quite nicely. According to Russell, the word God can be replaced with Light, Stillness, and some others that allude me for now.

So how does divine illumination not fit into the scientific method? In all honesty many traditions have methods that lead unto higher states such as samadhi, self realization, etc that have been tested and validated over thousands of years. Dzogchen, all of the Yogas, vipassana, etc, are methods with results that can and have been replicated. The Dalai Lama is actually a huge advocate for science and gives his best meditators to science for study, where they find incredible neurological phenomena undocumented before in history.

So I am unsure of why your axiom of divine illumination inherently being separate from the scientific empirical method is correct.

I feel as if you have drawn your conclusions prior to investigating and thus are subject to your confirmation bias when researching. So please become well educated on the subject prior to making conclusions as we are building an article based on what we accurately find, not what what our minds want it to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediansSweep (talk • contribs) 11:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Glenn Clarks Book "The Man Who Tapped the Secrets of the Universe"

The original dismissal of this work was due to assuming that it was self published, yet not looking back to it's 1st edition, which was published in 1946 by Glenn Clark at Macalester Park Publishing Co.

The link states:

Author: Glenn Clark

Edition/Format: Print book : Biography : :English

So, in truth, this book is not self published as originally claimed but was originally published independently thus making it a valid source.

@Drmab: @CaptainEek: @Bradv: WikipediansSweep (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The Macalester Park Publishing Company seems to have been founded by Glenn Clark. Brunton (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It was. It was a Christian publisher. WikipediansSweep (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

So not really “published independently”, then: published by a company set up by its author. Brunton (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It was not published by Russell or anyone in his organization thus independent. WikipediansSweep (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That doesn’t address the point that it is self published (i.e. published by its author). Brunton (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I see the confusion now. Originally self published in this thread was strictly referring to Russell's organization in my mind. As many stated above, Russells organization is where a handful of sources come from. So that is what I mean when I say Independent. Published not in Russell's organization but another.

May I ask why this biography is not valid though? There are quite a bit of self published books that detail quite a bit. The Diary of Ann Frank is somewhat along those lines, as she is usually and historically described as being truthful. (Added: Also Clarks book was published by Russells organization at a later date (mentioned above), which was a reference above.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediansSweep (talk • contribs) 22:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You can't be serious. The diary of Anne Frank could not possibly have been published by Anne Frank because she died in the Holocaust before it was ever published. Regardless, self published sources mean sources published by the author. Anyone can self publish anything. But to get a source published by a reputable publisher, such as Penguin Random House, Simon & Schuster, etc. the work must have a minimum standard of quality and care. That's why source must not be self published, as Glenn Clark's book was. His company published his own book. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Obviously she didnt publish it. I am saying that it is a self written work published with no editing regarding its authenticity. Regarding Russell, the claim that the entire biography is fraudulent is ludicrous, and to assume fraud or inherit untrustworthiness is also ludicrous. What evidence is based on? I'm also asking if there are any self published books that bypass this rule, unless it is a sweeping assumption that all self publishers produce work that is innately untrustworthy or wrong and assuming that major publishing houses have no bias. Also major publishing houses have the right to lie just as someone who self published. Now am I saying we shouldn't trust major publishers? No, nor am I saying we should distrust self publishers. Nor am I saying there isn't pattern of what is more likely to be unbiased. What I am saying is that it takes a look into the situation at hand to reasonably assess whether or not the information is accurate. Given that why is this case inaccurate or bias?

On a side note I will mention the insanity of something else related that seemingly should have more oversight. Generic drug companies self publish their findings and self publish their own testing. Chinese and Indian companies who hire burn teams to destroy evidence are in control of things in which your life literally depends on.

WikipediansSweep (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"Modern Leonardo"

@WikipediansSweep: You say he was called a "Modern Leonardo" by many sources, could you link all of those sources below? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

As frustrating as it is to seemingly get all of your data deleted, without a clue how(i had 2 links sourced in my draft), yes I will repost them below.

When he died in 1963, Walter Cronkite called him the “Leonardo da Vinci of our time.” Besides the Four Freedoms and his many busts of presidents and other famous people, his masterpiece is a sketch model for the Mark Twain Memorial, commissioned by the Mark Twain Centennial Commission in 1935, which features Twain surrounded by twenty-eight of his fictional characters. Unfortunately, in the midst of the Great Depression, the money was never raised to complete the full sculpture, but the sketch model replica is on display at the Mark Twain Museum in Hannibal, Missouri along with a large bust of Twain, whom Russell had met at the Authors Club in New York City.

From: https://www.crozetgazette.com/2019/05/03/walter-russell-legacy-museum-opening-in-waynesboro/

The best thing that I have trying to get ahold of The Herald Tribune article from 1963 apparently is go through the New York public Library system in which you need a card, so I will try to access that.

There's one Leonardo source just finding the tribune has been difficult.

Dunno how these embedded links will do but they shows him being called a doctor, artist, builder, sculptor, musician, polymath, scientist, lecturer, figure skater, etc.

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36090583/russell_polymath/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=424355072&width=700&height=405&crop=0_636_3169_2180&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568783803&h=5932e6bd465cf1bcc26ab09758b4416e" alt="Russell Polymath" style="max-width:100%;">Russell Polymath Sun, Sep 28, 2014 – E3 · The Atlanta Constitution (Atlanta, Georgia) · Newspapers.com</a> <a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36090687/russell_architect_design/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=158954821&width=700&height=2116&crop=1731_4795_706_2533&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568784196&h=df2ca3b691f647fbd8242634380c3584" alt="Russell architect design" style="max-width:100%;">Russell architect design Wed, Jul 17, 1907 – Page 6 · The Tribune (Seymour, Indiana) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36090715/more_architect_russell_stuff/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=223019081&width=700&height=1771&crop=1022_3621_822_2468&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568784318&h=abbc93243c01889eb4f3c7f779019f0f" alt="More architect Russell stuff" style="max-width:100%;">More architect Russell stuff Sat, Jan 2, 1926 – Page 4 · The Orlando Sentinel (Orlando, Florida) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36090754/architect_chemist_inventor_painter/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=545628978&width=700&height=2792&crop=4322_1936_688_3256&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568784499&h=d61b0dae60508108c0236ae5eb1ecac3" alt="Architect chemist inventor painter author" style="max-width:100%;">Architect chemist inventor painter author Thu, Feb 6, 1930 – 1 · The Bennington Evening Banner (Bennington, Vermont) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36090879/russell_death_sculptor_etc_facts/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=46684611&width=700&height=1085&crop=36_2522_1344_2473&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568785052&h=3659e2b8f074dd35d56817b33e8bd0a8" alt="Russell death sculptor etc facts" style="max-width:100%;">Russell death sculptor etc facts Mon, May 20, 1963 – Page 17 · The Bee (Danville, Virginia) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36090932/death_2/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=543860914&width=700&height=1597&crop=38_2758_679_1839&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568785292&h=354fbc4b88cc390fd048f6d615272fd7" alt="Death 2" style="max-width:100%;">Death 2 Tue, May 21, 1963 – 7 · The Brooklyn Daily Eagle (Brooklyn, New York) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36090981/dr_obituary/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=287820926&width=700&height=2408&crop=2053_244_484_1976&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568785545&h=6ecda978bee8847d120f4e4fc9ba2f7e" alt="Dr obituary" style="max-width:100%;">Dr obituary Fri, May 24, 1963 – 2 · The News Leader (Staunton, Virginia) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36091019/more_dr/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=220533124&width=700&height=2079&crop=2524_2047_632_2227&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568785745&h=d851095e9ed6421b72aaddb1a4930e69" alt="More dr" style="max-width:100%;">More dr Sat, Dec 15, 1951 – Page 5 · News-Press (Fort Myers, Florida) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36091041/dr_swonanoa/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=288143607&width=700&height=929&crop=158_428_2302_3625&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568785867&h=08e074f892e80c9b68605b9d074006a0" alt="Dr swonanoa" style="max-width:100%;">Dr swonanoa Sun, Jan 8, 1984 – 13 · The News Leader (Staunton, Virginia) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36091059/more_dr/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=315760909&width=700&height=829&crop=1398_1837_1182_1661&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568785958&h=23a54bdb0246379b36c483b52d21a213" alt="More dr" style="max-width:100%;">More dr Sat, May 4, 1957 – 10 · The News Leader (Staunton, Virginia) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36091072/more_russel_dr_w_einstein/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=468819281&width=700&height=739&crop=1313_5629_585_733&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568786053&h=e0f767c19f69f4865137740a2c392ead" alt="More russel dr w einstein" style="max-width:100%;">More russel dr w einstein Fri, Dec 9, 1932 – 7 · Edmonton Journal (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36091156/death_scientist_outrage_remarks/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=374643178&width=700&height=3277&crop=2133_3198_608_3378&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568786491&h=a133a1a5c83f73ed04a4084f0006e170" alt="Death scientist outrage remarks" style="max-width:100%;">Death scientist outrage remarks Mon, May 20, 1963 – 79 · Chicago Tribune (Chicago, Illinois) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36091182/scientist_artist_speaking_at_church_clip/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=458228845&width=700&height=656&crop=4687_626_669_744&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568786578&h=ad6936a11c74baa2e0925ad65d7706d1" alt="Scientist artist speaking at church clip" style="max-width:100%;">Scientist artist speaking at church clip Sat, Dec 7, 1946 – 6 · The San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, California) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36091258/artist_author_childrens_books_and/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=357562550&width=700&height=1561&crop=3382_2454_1423_3765&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568786977&h=6d07eafddd47b4285d6923e452b39896" alt="Artist author childrens books and paintings" style="max-width:100%;">Artist author childrens books and paintings Sun, Feb 16, 1913 – 4 · Austin American-Statesman (Austin, Texas) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36091278/more_builder/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=186235842&width=700&height=644&crop=107_5607_2542_2777&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568787104&h=d2cc7d03cd87eeb92e99b426b05a2298" alt="More builder" style="max-width:100%;">More builder Sun, Oct 17, 1920 – Page 36 · New-York Tribune (New York, New York) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36091342/positions_at_multiple_companies/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=88192234&width=700&height=1254&crop=1173_3600_1105_2350&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568787461&h=6febf08df00ee4897e7a745acbfcf735" alt="Positions at multiple companies" style="max-width:100%;">Positions at multiple companies Wed, Apr 15, 1908 – Page 1 · New-York Tribune (New York, New York) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36091358/artist_builder_debt/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=20427195&width=700&height=497&crop=2648_3360_845_712&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568787573&h=e78552ab20fb8ba8fc2bb3076667a7dc" alt="Artist builder debt" style="max-width:100%;">Artist builder debt Wed, Apr 15, 1908 – Page 9 · The New York Times (New York, New York) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36091370/figure_skating/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=88274709&width=700&height=2962&crop=2599_480_683_3430&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568787688&h=918d15a1d9f6d5f1cd910ab98c3ee730" alt="Figure skating" style="max-width:100%;">Figure skating Sun, Jun 10, 1917 – Page 19 · The Sun (New York, New York) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36091393/artist_builder_buys/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=79057763&width=700&height=1311&crop=2507_173_844_1876&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568787851&h=481b97049c04f0faf7e5efc2f4b4d9d7" alt="Artist builder buys" style="max-width:100%;">Artist builder buys Tue, Jul 29, 1919 – Page 19 · New-York Tribune (New York, New York) · Newspapers.com</a>

<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/clip/36091436/photo_russell_giving_medal/" style="text-decoration: none;display:block;" target="_parent"><img src="https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=413563858&width=700&height=515&crop=2216_3546_1291_1129&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1568788147&h=3532cb8ccf298f72f6b05a563830d4a2" alt="Photo Russell giving medal" style="max-width:100%;">Photo Russell giving medal Sun, Jan 18, 1931 – 36 · Daily News (New York, New York) · Newspapers.com</a>

Ok it's too much to fix up the builder polymath architect ice skater articles now at least there's enough data there to see how he's referred to as a doctor, architect, builder, etc. The Times articles with his debates will be put in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediansSweep (talk • contribs) 06:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for doing the research on this. This is what I've been looking for throughout this discussion. Now that you have some reliable sources, you can actually begin to craft and write an article based in the facts. I read through all of them, and they seem to confirm that Russel was a sculptor, builder, and architect. Not much mention of him being a scientist however, so we shouldn't claim he was one. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Well there are some i believe, one mentions him as a polymath, nonetheless self made architect, head of design, created the flat appartment, duplex etc, are in there, flat definitely is. Multiple calling him Dr. Most mentioning his commission as Theodore Roosevelt's child's painter as well as his. His involvement with the author club, his award to Edison being in the papers, also his start of sculpting at 56 and rising to the top of that field, being a top artist in America as well, no schooling and being an architect, as well as Cronkey saying he was the modern Leonardo at the time of his passing. Also mentions of him being a scientist etc. Being a pioneer and bringer of figure skating to America is in there as well. There's quite a bit and that took an hour... so i can only imagine what another hour would do...WikipediansSweep (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The NYT doesnt have a clipping feature so im having to create these in order to show their veracity. I do not know if i am violating copyright here nonetheless if this is level it takes to show the truth then what else can I do?

Artist Challenges Newtonian Theory(NYT Debate pt. 1) https://imgur.com/a/Jh8kWpw

Scientist and Artist Dispute Kepler Findings (Russell NYT debate pt.2) https://imgur.com/a/3Cv4Kmb

Einstein Seems to Say that the Unalterable Can be Altered (Russell NYT debate pt. 3) https://imgur.com/a/CVzWJjs

Mr. Russell Finds Scientist Too Ready to Accept His Theory (Russell NYT debate pt.4) https://imgur.com/a/B1ZRGvP

Scientist Should Explain (NYT Russell debate pt. 5) https://imgur.com/a/dyGUpUv

Shaking Sciences Foundations (NYT debate pt. 6) https://imgur.com/a/VUeiQDk

Mr. Russell Upholds Theory of "Two Way" Universe (NYT debates pt. 7) https://imgur.com/a/43tG1mK

Mr. Russell May Be Right - Dr Jackson Withdraws Criticism (NYT debate pt. 8-finale) https://imgur.com/a/fVZ5hJK

Cattell and Lewis Win Science Medals (from Russells Organization) https://imgur.com/a/SRrIy1o

Edison Bust in NYT by Walter Russell https://imgur.com/a/FmQJ8c8

Walter Russell to Speak https://imgur.com/a/lQbI88l

Walter Russell is Dead at 92; Self Taught Artist and Educator https://imgur.com/a/qXAw8mn

WikipediansSweep (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)