Talk:Existentialism Is a Humanism

message: 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)
thread_title: Peer Review

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Title of the book, and title of the article?

message: 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)
thread_title: Vote on redirect

message: *Seth Mahoney 22:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Why "Existentialism ''and'' Humanism"?

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

text: *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)
thread_title: RfC responses