Talk:Existentialism Is a Humanism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Shirleywang97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

The article is as a whole, neutral, but with direct reliance on quotes from the source without explanation. Many, if not all of the viewpoints in the reception section are underrepresented and lack detail. If we could elaborate on each viewpoint, without using direct quotations from the source material, it would make them easier to understand, as the many quotations in close proximity with each other in the short section make it difficult to differentiate between each viewpoint. I also propose to add a new section on the rebuttals Sartre has for other philosophical critiques of Existentialism in this work. While the information summary provided of Existentialism and Humanism is accurate, it is also difficult to interpret the application of Existentialist ideals. Therefore, I believe a section on rebuttals of other philosophical critiques will help readers better understand the ideals of Existentialism in the context of those of other philosophies. Furthermore, the closing statement of the summary, "existentialism, as it is a philosophy of action and one's defining oneself, is optimistic and liberating" also requires further elaboration. How does simply being a philosophy of self-determination make it optimistic? The juxtaposition of the existentialist's despair with the philosophy's statement of optimism without explanation seems hypocritical. In defining the philosophy as well, the sudden interjection of atheism in the dialogue seems unwarranted. Therefore, I propose the addition of a segment on the existentialist's lack of belief in God as a basis for further conclusions.Shirleywang97 (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Title of the book, and title of the article?

The french title is L'existentialisme est un humanisme. Though this translates very literally to 'The existentialism is a humanism', the english version, translated by Philip Mairet, is known as 'Existentialism and Humanism'. If there are any other versions with a more literal translation of the title available, please let me know. --Publunch 20:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have known this book as "The Existentialism is a Humanism." It is most known as existentialism is a humanism, and therefore the title of this wiki page should be changed to the more common translation of the book. Rayana fazli 19:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen both names, and I think they're both pretty common. -Seth Mahoney 19:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well if they are both common, then it doesn't really matter which one we use as the title. I thought the "is a" was more common but that might be biased on my side. But it is the French translation and we should probably stick to their translation, not the English translation. Rayana fazli 20:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

One possible solution is to move this article to L'existentialisme est un humanisme and make both Existentialism and Humanism and Existentialism is a Humanism redirects to that page. My copy, by the way, is called "The Humanism of Existentialism". -Seth Mahoney 20:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I like that idea. I don't know how to redirect articles, I am sort of new to wikipedia. This is the first time I've heard the book translated as "Humanism of Existentialism." I guess it just depends on who is translating the book. Rayana fazli 21:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I can set up the redirect. I'd like to wait for a bit and see if any other editors have anything to say about it first, though. If it looks like I've totally forgotten about this page in a couple days, you can either try to set up the redirect yourself (no time to learn like the present) or leave me a message on my talk page. -Seth Mahoney 21:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote on redirect

Currently the page Existentialism is a Humanism redirects here. I proposed that we create L'existentialisme est un humanisme to hold the article and have both Existentialism is a Humanism and Existentialism and Humanism redirect there. -Seth Mahoney 22:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

For

• Seth Mahoney 22:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Rayana fazli 23:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Sycron 23:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Forlorness?

I was surprised by the use of this word. In my copy it is translated as abandonment, and indeed I assumed this was the traditional term for the idea within the Existentialist movement. It is certainly one I have seen in a number of books on the subject, whilst this is the first time I have encountered "forlorness" as an alternative. Any objections to replacing the term forlorness with abandonment? -Joemanji 22:40, 24 March 2007 (GMT)

Move

Hi, I have recently moved this page back to the English title. I note the !votes above on using the French title but as this was 5 years ago (nearly 6, ancient in wiki terms), I moved in favour of a recent request in line with the the most common conventions for the English Wikipedia. I am not against moving back to the French title if there is a new local consensus, to clarify, I have no strong personal opinion either way but would tend to favour any verifiable evidence of what is the most common terminology used. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Why "Existentialism and Humanism"?

I don't understand why we're using this translation for the title. It's incorrect. The correct translation is "Existentialism is a Humanism", which is the translation used at the beginning of the article. When using the correct translation, one is redirected to this article. At the very least, the translations used for the title and the text should match. Iridescentlavender (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is about a book whose title is usually given in English as Existentialism and Humanism. Since this is English Wikipedia, we give the name commonly used in English. It isn't relevant that the translation may not be accurate. Please don't move the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Of course it's relevant that the translation is wrong. I've seen it translated as "is (est) a (un)" as frequently as "and". I understand your point, but I don't think that we should allow the errors of certain translators to guide us toward what is clearly an incorrect translation. They didn't write the text - Sartre did, and he said "is a", not "and". However, I'm going to leave it for now. I would appreciate hearing from other editors on this issue.Iridescentlavender (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I remain opposed to moving the article. Perhaps it would be best to start a request for comment. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. It's also worth noting that one of two translations listed under "Further Reading" lists it as "Existentialism is a Humanism", as well as the link to Yale University Press under "References", and the three, English "External Links", one of which is for Paul Spade, the renowned Professor of Philosophy at Indiana University.Iridescentlavender (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Does "est un" not mean "is a," He's not defining existentialism and humanism. He is making the case that particularly (atheistic) existentialism is not nihilistic and essentially negative, but is based on humanism, which many people disagreed. Wgfcrafty (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The title of this article is indeed incorrect, as any beginning student of French or French native language speaker would know. When I have more time I will start an RfC on the issue. Dlabtot (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually there does not really seem to be a need for an RfC, as there is a clear consensus here. Dlabtot (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. I am treating myself as an uninvolved editor since this close is falling into the backlog; if there are any objections to this, please let me know. Dekimasuよ! 18:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Existentialism and Humanism → Existentialism Is a Humanism – The current title is a mistranslation from the original French. The correct title now exists as a redirect. Please see the above discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what happened with the template. The request is to move the page to 'Existentialism is a Humanism'. Dlabtot (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I have fixed the template, but used "Is" per MOS:CT. Dekimasuよ! 20:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not simply a case of mistranslation, since the current title is the name of the first English translation. It may be necessary to determine which is the most common title in English. Dekimasuよ! 21:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support The original text, and the most recent translation, support the original title. Anyone searching otherwise will be redirected there. Additionally "Existentialism and Humanism" is far more vague, while "Existentialism Is a Humanism" precisely describes the subject._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support I took at look at some bibliographies and references from articles in the journal Sartre Studies International (co-edited by the North American and UK Sartre societies) and found this is how the work is referenced commonly. "Is" per MOS:CT is the right call. -- Netoholic @ 13:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal of properly cited material

Dlabtot, in this edit, you removed a sentence from the lead ("Sartre himself later rejected some of the views he expressed in it and regretted its publication"). Your edit summary read, "tried tagging this and the tag was removed. So instead I'm removing the unsourced and unclear assertion. btw no one said the lede needed more detail." Since you do not appear to understand the relevant policies and guidelines, let me point out that the sentence you removed is not unsourced. The source, as you would have discovered had you taken the trouble to read the article properly, is Mary Warnock's introduction to the 2003 Routledge edition of Being and Nothingness. Experienced editors should know perfectly well that the fact that a citation is not provided in the lead does not mean that the material is uncited. Please familiarize yourself with MOS:CITELEAD: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." This is a basic guideline, and I don't see why an editor who has been editing since 2007 should be unaware of it.

Your claim that the material is "unclear" is also wrong. The material ("Sartre himself later rejected some of the views he expressed in it and regretted its publication") is perfectly clear as far as it goes. No one able to comprehend normal English would be confused about its meaning or find it unclear. I agree that it would be helpful to add more information somewhere about "which views did he reject? when and where did he express regret for its publication?". It would help the article to add such information. It does not help the article to remove relevant information that already exists. Would you kindly cut it out? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, in this edit you added a completely unnecessary citation needed tag, requesting a citation for material that was, in fact, properly cited. Please don't do that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

In what publication did Sartre reject this? Where can I look up Sartre statements in this regard? Which views did he reject? Using what words? Where can I look this up? Dlabtot (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Those questions are better suited to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you aren't able to answer those questions demonstrates that this assertion is not properly cited. And your attempted deflection indicates that this discussion is fruitless. I will start an RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No, Dlabtot, you are wrong. The material is in fact properly cited, as I already patiently explained to you and as I will now patiently explain again. Would you please, as already suggested, refer to Mary Warnock's introduction to the 2003 Routledge Classics edition of Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness, ISBN 0-415-27848-1? The relevant passage is on page xvii, and it reads as follows:

"It has sometimes been suggested that Sartre's positive approach to moral philosophy was outlined in the essay "Existentialism is a Humanism," first published in 1946. This essay has been translated several times into English, and it became, for a time, a popular starting-point in discussions of existentialist thought. It contained the doctrine that existentialism was a basically hopeful and constructive system of thought, contrary to popular belief, since it encouraged man to action by teaching him that his destiny was in his own hands. Sartre went on to argue that if one believes that each man is responsible for choosing freedom for himself, one is committed to believing also that he is responsible for choosing freedom for others, and that therefore not only was existentialism active rather than passive in tendency, but it was also liberal, other-regarding and hostile to all forms of tyranny. However, I mention this essay here only to dismiss it, as Sartre himself has dismissed it. He not only regretted its publication, but also actually denied some of its doctrines in later works."

Had you actually taken the trouble to look up that passage, you would have seen for yourself that the assertion is indeed properly cited. Your continued denial that it is properly cited simply reflects ignorance on your part. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge your opinion that the basis of our disagreement is that I am ignorant. Thanks for clearing that up. Dlabtot (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of ignorance in general. I am not even interested in whether you are ignorant in general. I am accusing you of being ignorant of the specific issue under discussion, which is whether the sentence you removed is properly cited. The answer is that it is properly cited. Your comment that "The fact that you aren't able to answer those questions demonstrates that this assertion is not properly cited" is illogical, inasmuch as it is based on the false assumption that a proper citation would make it possible to answer the questions concerned. There is no reason why it would do so, since the questions go beyond what the article claims. In any case, since I have now provided a link to the book I used as a source, anyone can find out the truth for themselves. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You did in fact, without any ambiguity, engage in insult and personal attack. If you want in some way to justify that to yourself, fine. You can judge yourself by your own actions. Dlabtot (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

As an additional note, don't accuse me of "attempted deflection". It's insulting and an accusation that I'm editing in bad faith. The accusation is baseless and violates WP:AGF. And again, do look up the citation, please. If, for some bizarre reason, you are not willing to take my word for it, then look it up for yourself. The text of the relevant edition of Being and Nothingness can be searched on Amazon.co.uk. See here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC: what views in 'Existentialism is a Humanism' did Sartre reject and where and when did he do so?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What views in 'Existentialism is a Humanism' did Sartre reject and where and when did he do so? Th following assertion is made in the article: Sartre himself later rejected some of the views he expressed in the work, and regretted its publication. I have added tags for clarification and citation of this assertion, but another editor has removed the tags. (See the discussion above this RfC.) Rather than continue a fruitless dispute, I encourage the opinion of other editors. Should the article contain this assertion without explaining which views were rejected? Does such an assertion require a citation that says where and when Sartre did this? Should a reader of this article be able to look up the words Sartre allegedly used when expressing this regret? Thank you for your consideration. Dlabtot (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC responses

• ’’’Clarify, preferably delete’’’ It’s a WP:VAGUE bit that confuses, so delete it and only if some clarification comes that makes it meaningful and extensive should it be looked at for lead. If the cite gave it no more than this brief mention, then it is WP:UNDUE to even have in the body, but one certainly needs more content about a section before it would be put into the summary per WP:LEAD. One simply cannot tell by what’s here if it’s just that authors impression, or if the regret was over wording, or if that meant a regret between desire to expand or update or delete. Now I have seen mention that regret was reported by his friend Francois Jeanson ( which should be stated as such to show hearsay) and elsewhere that he regretted people took it as a manefesto ... but what ever this line is speaking about is unclear as to what it means and what makes them say so. That should not be even in article, much less be in lead. Markbassett (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. There is nothing vague about it. The material ("Sartre himself later rejected some of the views he expressed in the work, and regretted its publication") is perfectly clear as far as it goes. There is nothing confusing about it, and since it is basic factual information about Sartre's view of his own work, it certainly is not undue. It is the importance of material relative to its subject that determines whether something meets the test of due weight, not the amount of space an author spends discussing something. The complaint that one cannot tell "if it’s just that authors impression" is baseless, since the author is a professional philosopher, her work qualifies as a reliable source per WP:RS, and we base our articles on reliable sources. The complaint that one cannot tell if "regret was over wording, or if that meant a regret between desire to expand or update or delete" is also baseless. No one who is told that a philosopher rejected some of his past views is likely to suppose that the philosopher's concern was only over the wording he used to express those views, so that's another made-up concern. It's destructive to suggest removing material that isn't as good as it could be, instead of improving it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Clarify, or attribute, while the source(s) probably meet WP criteria, the text is vague to the point of being almost valueless - which views did J-P S reject and why? Why did he regret publication? Because of the way the work was received or ....??? Pincrete (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The text is not vague. Vagueness means lack of clarity as to meaning, and it is quite clear what the sentence is saying. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Vagueness also/mainly means lack of specificity. Pincrete (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Clarify per Pincrete. While the text as it currently is probably passable, it would be helpful, both to the reader and for the sake of verification, if we could say exactly what it is Sartre rejected. Lack of specificity opens the question of interpretation: did Sartre reject most or all of his arguments at a fundamental level? Or just some of them? Or were his rejections about specific details that aren't central to his claims? And were they really outright rejections, or do they more closely resember "revisions"? The answers to these questions are important to establishing the context for this text and interpreting it within that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• There is a possible misunderstanding here that needs to be addressed. I've provided two sources stating that Sartre eventually rejected Existentialism is a Humanism as a work. Warnock states this in her introduction to Being and Nothingness, as does Law in Briefly: Sartre's Existentialism and Humanism. They are in complete agreement that Sartre came to regard Exisentialism Is a Humanism as a mistake. Warnock goes on to add that Sartre "actually denied some its doctrines in later works." That is a rather general claim, and I can see how some people might not regard it as helpful to state something so broad in the lead. If editors want something more specific, then I would suggest simply that the lead state that Sartre rejected the work - which is a completely clear and unambiguous claim. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Dlabtot, as I already explained to you, I removed your "citation needed" tag because the material is properly cited. Mary Warnock is a professional philosopher and her introduction to Being and Nothingness should qualify as a reliable source, per WP:RS. Your continued claim that the sentence under dispute is not cited is quite simply wrong and shows only that you have not bothered to look up the citation in question. If this discussion is "fruitless", that is only because you have continued to insist on a flatly mistaken claim and don't know what you're talking about. Again, I agree that it would be helpful to have more detail about what views were rejected and when and where Sartre rejected them. By all means add such information. Its absence is not a valid reason for removing the relevant information the article already has, which would lower article quality. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I also have to note that the question you posed for the Rfc, "what views in 'Existentialism is a Humanism' did Sartre reject and where and when did he do so?", is inappropriate. It's not the purpose of a request for comment to answer reference-desk type questions. I see no reason for an RfC to be held at all, but if you do seriously want to hold one, it should at least pose a valid question. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

for the edification of editors who may come to this RfC, here is the relevant passage in Mary Warnock's preface to her translation of Being and Nothingness:

It has sometimes been suggested that Sartre's positive approach to moral philosophy was outlined in the essay "Existentialism is a Humanism," first published in 1946. This essay has been translated several times into English, and it bacame, for a time, a popular starting-point in discussions of exitensialist thought. It contained the doctrine that existentialism was a basically hopeful and constructive system of thought, contrary to popular belief, since it encouraged man to action by teaching him that his destiny was in his own hands. Sartre went on to argue that if one believes that each man is responsible for choosing freedom for himself, one is committed to believing also that he is responsible for choosing freedom for others, and that therefore not only was existentialism active rather than passive in tendency, but it was also liberal, other-regarding and hostile to all forms of tyranny. However, I mention this essay here only to dismiss it, as Sartre himself has dismissed it. He not only regretted its publication, but also actually denied some of its doctrines in later works.

I think it is beyond dispute that these are the words and the opinion of Mary Warnock, not an actual citation to Sartre, not the words of Sartre, nor the opinion of Sartre. Were the relevant passage in the article qualified as being the opinion of Mary Warnock, I would have no objection. Dlabtot (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course it isn't an "actual citation to Sartre". I never suggested it was an "actual citation to Sartre". It is a citation to Mary Warnock's introduction to Sartre's Being and Nothingness. Warnock is a professional philosopher, and per WP:RS her introduction qualifies as a reliable source. That's the only relevant issue. Were you under the impression that Wikipedia has some policy which requires that statements about a philosopher's views be cited only to the philosopher in question, rather than to a commentator on that philosopher? There is no such policy, and it would be ridiculous if there were. As for that passage not being "the opinion of Sartre", what do you even mean by that? Are you saying Warnock's account of Sartre's views is not correct? You might want to re-read WP:VERIFY. The content of Wikipedia articles is based on reliable sources, not the opinions of editors. That's a polite way of saying it doesn't make any difference whether you, personally, happen to believe that Warnock's account of Sartre's views is correct or not. If there were a reliable source that disagreed with Warnock, then Wikipeida's policies would require that we present both views as the opinions of a particular source. In the absence of a source presenting a different view, there's no reason not to present Warnock's views as fact. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I again ask: Did Sartre ever state that he rejected any viewpoints expressed in Existentialism is a Humanism? Where can I look up Sartre statements in this regard? Which views did he reject? Using what words? Where can I look this up? Dlabtot (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding; please elucidate. Are you actually proposing that Mary Warnock's opinion should be presented as an objective fact in an encyclopedia? This is perhaps illustrative as to why I thought an RfC was necessary. Dlabtot (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought an experienced editor would have realized perfectly well that questions like those you asked above are appropriate for the reference desk rather than for this talk page. The last time I pointed this out to you, you accused me of "attempted deflection". Do you really want to go through that again? Why not find something better to do? Your comment could be called "deflection", since it evades the point that your position has no support of any kind in Wikipedia's policies. Apparently you dislike the policies in question, as witness your insulting and pointless question about whether I really meant what I said. There's little to be said about your disagreement with Wikipedia's policies, except that that's too bad, and that it's not my job to change your mind. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, even if you happen to disagree with those sources for some tedious reason. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I again acknowledge that you consider the basis of our disagreement to be some sort of personal failing on my account and your unwillingness to engage on the substance of our disagreement. Dlabtot (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you are willing to engage on the substance of our disagreement. In which case I would ask you:

Did Sartre ever state that he rejected any viewpoints expressed in Existentialism is a Humanism?

Where can I look up Sartre's statements in this regard?

Which views did he reject?

Using what words? Where can I look this up?

Thank you in advance for your respectful replies to these specific questions. Dlabtot (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Disclaimer: although I have read this in the original French, I have not read it in any English translations. So it is possible that a\I am missing some nuance introduced by a translator that was not present in the original text. Dlabtot (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Dlabtot, in a collaborative project, you are going to have to accept that at times other editors will disagree with you and consider you to be wrong on one issue or another. Under such circumstances, of course people will tell you that they think you are wrong. If you consider that to be an accusation of "some sort of personal failing" on your part, then that's honestly too bad. Get used to disagreement. Your comment that I have been unwilling to "engage on the substance of our disagreement" is rubbish, to put it politely. I have engaged on the substance of the issue, which you are quite simply wrong about. I am not going to further respond to repetitive, irrelevant, pointless questions, which I've already told you are inappropriate, and which obviously are not "the substance of our disagreement" (which was whether certain content was properly cited) but an attempt to berate me. Continuing to repeat them is a waste of your time and mine. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that the statements be tweaked. The statement in the introduction can easily be interpreted as panning the whole work, and Warnock acknowledges her feeling that the work should be dismissed. And yet those quoted in the Reception section seem to take the essay seriously. Unless you can give more context to Sartre's regret I suggest for the intro: “Sartre later spoke dismissively of the essay, and denied some of its doctrines.” And for the body of the article: “Mary Warnock notes in her introduction to Being and Nothingness that he regretted its publication, denying some of its doctrines, and she believes that he was right to dismiss it.” (A curious point, if I'm not mistaken, is that the lecture occured after the publication of Being and Nothingness, so that Sartre's "regret" may need clarification, and not be a total dismissal.) Jzsj (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no necessary objection to rephrasing anything, but I do not think your suggested change to the lead would be an improvement. I do not believe Warnock's introduction supports the claim that "Sartre later spoke dismissively of the essay". It is important for the article to stick closely to the source used and properly reflect what it actually states. Instead of rephrasing that sentence in the way you suggest, it could be shortened, from "Sartre himself later rejected some of the views he expressed in it and regretted its publication" to only "Sartre himself later rejected some of the views he expressed in it." Rephrase the material in the reception section in the way you suggest, if you want. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Your conclusions seem very agreeable to me. Let me add that when the Warnock quote comes at the end of the Reception section it appears like a conclusion, while if it was, say, at the start, then the rest of the section would show how seriously his essay was taken. Jzsj (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator and Jzsj: I hate to revive a conversation that has come to a natural close, especially since this one involved much more noise than was necessary, but having just read this RfC and related discussions due to just now being notified by LegoBot, I have some concerns. Without knowing anything offhand about Mary Warnock, what I've read in that paragraph strikes me as what on Wikipedia would be described as weaseling. Warnock begins by claiming that Sartre dismissed this work, which is not even established by what she claims afterword: just because he disagreed with certain parts doesn't mean he dismissed in its entirety. Warnock then fails to provide any examples or other evidence that he eventually disagreed with himself and moves on to her next claim, presumably never to return to this point. In my personal experience, philosophers often do this in their writing when they make a claim they can't support; philosophers "get away with it," so to speak, because portions of philosophy are inherently unverifiable. This should not be one of them.

Dlabtot did a relatively poor job of articulating and explaining this point, but I believe he was right to question it. If is is true that Sartre did indeed later dismiss some of his claims, we should expect there to be other evidence of this somewhere, given the nature of this work as a starting point in discourse. I would think that somebody else would also have noted it, or that we'd be able to find a later work in which Sartre contradicted something here. And yet, thus far, we have found no evidence of that. Admittedly, we haven't looked particularly hard, but if we can't find any other evidence that this indeed happened, I would remove any reference to it from the lead. (It should, naturally, remain in the reception section).

Please note that I'm not trying to accuse Warnock of intellectual dishonesty. It's common for otherwise reliable sources to be inaccurate or incorrect about peripheral details. But between the poor evidence provided for the statement and its relative unimportance to whatever claim Warnock is making in the larger context, as contrasted with that claim's relative importance to Sartre's essay and this article, I'm not inclined to view Warnock's claim alone as sufficiently reliable evidence in this particular instance. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe it is far to early to characterize the discussion as having reached a natural close; the whole point of an RfC is to solicit the viewpoints of a multitude of editors, so a true consensus can develop, rather than just letting the most persistent editor dominate the conversation. Dlabtot (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The only reason any discussion is taking place is that you insisted that the article's statement that Sartre later rejected Existentialism and Humanism is wrong and should be removed. You insisted on this even though you provided no evidence of any kind that the statement is wrong and even though WP:VERIFY explains that Wikipedia's content "is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." Two reliable sources have been provided in support of the statement in question. There is little to be said except that you should stop insisting on the removal of properly cited content. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Mary Warnock, Baroness Warnock, as her Wikipedia article notes, is a professional philosopher. She is noted as a writer on existentialism, and indeed her article states that she has "written extensively" about the subject. Per WP:RS, her writings about existentialism - including her introduction to Being and Nothingness - should qualify as reliable sources, as I've pointed out several times now. You write that, "what I've read in that paragraph strikes me as what on Wikipedia would be described as weaseling". Would you please clarify which paragraph you are referring to? If you mean what Warnock wrote in her introduction to Being and Nothingness, then your criticism of it is original research, which as Wikipedia editors we are supposed to avoid. It is true that Warnock does not engage in any very detailed discussion of Sartre's changing attitude to Existentialism Is a Humanism, but that is, per our policies, beside the point; if her work is a reliable source, then we can base article content on it. Essentially, you are suggesting that maybe Warnock is wrong or doesn't know what she's talking about. You have every right to hold that view, but it is nonetheless irrelevant, per WP:VERIFY: Wikipedia's content "is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I conducted a quick internet search to see whether there are other sources stating that Sartre later rejected Existentialism is a Humanism, and found one within a few minutes. See Briefly: Sartre's Existentialism and Humanism by David R. Law, who states on page 4, "The simplicity and accessibility of Existentialism and Humanism have often resulted, however, in a misunderstanding of the more carefully nuanced position developed in Being and Nothingness. It is for this reason that Sartre later came to regard Existentialism and Humanism as a mistake. Regardless of Sartre's own view of Existentialism and Humanism, however, this little work has become the classic statement of existentialism and is probably the most read of all existentialist writings." The work can be searched at Google Books here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ack, forgive me for my cynicism. Now that we've established that Warnock isn't the only person in the world to make this claim, I'm satisfied that is both accurate and suitable for inclusion. It is worth noting that I don't deny Warnock is an authority. However, context matters, and sometimes exceptions apply. My concern was that a widely-accepted viewpoint about an important philosophical treatise should have more than one source advancing it; now that we have established this is the case, I'm satisfied there's nothing odd here.

Lastly, I should note that it would probably be appropriate to change the statement in the lead to more closely synthesize these two sources (and any other noteworthy ones we may find). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes when only two people are involved in a editing process, this becomes quite polarized. Both of you have made your points; I would suggest you step back and listen for a while. My own impression is that better citations would help the process -- thanks to @FreeKnowledgeCreator: for bringing in another source, which should be brought into a citation here. This does seem to make it clear that Sartre really did have concerns about this, and regretted some of his formulations.

I have tried to improve the article's flow. Best wishes! Clean Copy^talk 16:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

the main point for me is that the article says, explicitly states that Satre "rejected some of the views he expressed in it", yet does not give a citation as to what views he rejected, nor does it cite where and when he made this alleged rejection, nor does it give any clue as to how one might independently verify this statement. While it is indisputable that the person who made this assertion to be true is a reliable source as to her opinion, any assertion as to Sartre's opinion would need to be cited to Sartre himself. Frankly I am disappointed that such a basic principle of sourcing has become such a point of contention.Dlabtot (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You write, "any assertion as to Sartre's opinion would need to be cited to Sartre himself". No. Wikipedia's policies simply do not work that way. Please re-read basic policies such as WP:VERIFY and also the guideline WP:RS. If you disagree with Wikipedia's basic policies, the talk page of this article is not the place to get them changed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge our fundamental and intractable disagreement about basic Wikipedia principles and policies, and look forward to the input of other uninvolved and disinterested editors. After all, that's what an RfC is for. Dlabtot (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This passage from WP:NOR. may help:"Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic." A philosopher or historian describing Sartre's views can be aassumed to have researched the theme and gained an overview of the situation. Clean Copy^talk 16:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The questions remain: What exactly did Sartre reject? Where and when did he do so? What are the nuances that were later developed in Being and Nothingness that are missing in this work? Absent any of this context, placing this vague assertion in the lede seems to a disservice to the reader, since it is not explained or expanded upon in the article. Frankly I just want to know the answers to these questions, as a student of philosophy and existentialism. Dlabtot (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.