Talk:Jean-Paul Sartre/Archive 1

message: Did Sartre embrace 'communism' or 'Communism'?  I would tend to think that the sentence should read something like: "Sartre embraced the philosophy of communism, but never joined any Communist Party." --Jizzbug
Sartre does have a conception of self-consciousness. In fact, he wrote a whole book on it (The Transcendence of the Ego). Here is a quote, "“a consciousness has no need of a reflecting consciousness in order to be conscious of itself” (11). The for-itself does not have a reflective consciousness of itself, but it does have a pre-reflective consciousness of itself. Other than that, all other points are correct.
In Being and Nothingness he wrote of consciousness that its being is only in question when that being implies being other than itself.  Reflective consciousness is "thetic consciousness" or "positional self-consciousness".  In the French there are two uses of the term reflection.  There is self-consciousness, but there is no unity of consciousness, and the two concepts can be confused. Amerindianarts 03:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Communism: doctrine or party?

message: Ian Hacking writes
:Readers of Camus or the early Sartre can form a picture of a self with absolutely no center, a self that constructs itself by free acts of will.
I assume that "center" is Satre's or Camus' term, and not Hacking's. If so, can someone explain what it means to have no "center"? Does it just mean that there are no fundamental limitations on what the self can choose? Or does it say something more, perhaps that there is no conscious "self" at all, or that there are multiple selves, none or which are at the center? Is "center" a profound idea? --Ryguasu 04:05 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)
What he means is that to Sartre/Camus, the self is purely contingent on the acts of the person, and not on any inherent traits (of the personality, etc.). Hacking is correct, but his choice of words ("center") is his own. Furthermore, It should be noted that Sarte's view of consciousness is also one of contingency; To be conscious, to Sartre, is to be conscious of something other than the self. To be self-conscious then, is an odd and ultimately detached phenomenon (Hence Sartre's views on the self as "being for others") 216.26.202.22
--I would add: the lack of "center" is the result of Sartre's conception of the universe as infinite and overflowing Being - what some other traditions would call the really real - this might be traced back to the Kantian "copernican" example. No center to the self is connected to "no center to the universe". These are just musings.Looking in from the outside (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "No center"

message: Is there a WP guideline on the format of foreign book titles?  This article contains a mix of English and French titles, sometimes with the translation together (sometimes French first, sometimes English first.)  If there's no official policy, I'd suggest that all titles be listed French first, English in parens, i.e.: Essai sur les données immédiates de la conscience (Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness).  It will give a more polished look to the article.  Any thoughts?  Ocon 17:14, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Consistency is king, always. ❝Sverdrup❞ 17:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign titles 

message: We need to swap Sartre and WW2 to section 3 and Sartre and communism to section 4. Someone? I don't know how.  --Xjy
:done. Bmills 09:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the order of sections 3 and 4 

message: Letters with diacriticals are messed up on my screen. If they are not messed up in your browser, it's because your nonstandard browser is compensating. Need use diacritical insertion bar at the bottem of edit page, for universal operationality. I'd fix them, but I'm not sure what they are intended to be.67.118.119.165 20:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  diacriticals mess up 

message: Please consider this link.
That Link is dead --Harpakhrad11 18:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sartre's anarchism? 

message: I've added a section on this polemic after the repeated edition attempts by anonymous 62.2.204.234.  Althogh anonymous was wrongly masking his critique as neutral commentary, it is indeed a well known argument and should be mentioned.  cesarsorm August 10, 2005
What are Levy's references? If Sartre said it, surely one can find a book or newspaper quote or somewhere in which Sartre wrote or was quoted as having said it somewhat more directly than in writings written rather later about him. Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Munich 1972 

message: Anyone have any more information about this? There should be at least one sentence explaining this, or a link to Trix the cereal if that was what he was referring to.
It shouldn't be in the article without more explanation.  Very questionable.  What is the source, anyway? Amerindianarts 01:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trix: last word? 

message: There needs to be a lot more information in the article about Sartre's political views.  There needs to be a sub-section about his love-hate relationship to the French Communist Party.  His positive opinion of Israel (citing the exception of his tolerance of the attacks in Munich) and his phil-semetism also need more attention.
I propose creating a section on titled Sartre's political views' in which these two main aspects (his communist and philo-semitic views) of his political ideology are explained.--Carabinieri 14:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political views 

message: I found and listed a source claiming that Sartre converted to Judaism shortly before his life ended. Any discreditation/clarification in the name of furthering education would be greatly appreciated.
*After having checked several other sources, I am quite confident that this is incorrect.  "Hope Now," which contains the controversial interview of Sartre by Benny Levy, offers no suggestion of a "conversation."  Rather Sartre finds Jewish Messianic and related ethical concepts "interesting," which is something far less dramatic.  He also explictly says that he is not a Jew, and has no interest in the Jewish concept of the "Name" (i.e. "God"), which "means nothing to me," but rather in the implications for ethical practice and "metaphysical character" of Judaic Messianism.  I have corrected the page accordingly, and urged NNDB to correct their biography as well.  The internet has a plethora of sites with a quotation from Sartre indicating that he now believed he was the creation of a God, apparently traceable to a National Review article by Thomas Molner (1980, p677), which gives no citation, but which in turn comes from a 1974 interview with de Beauvoir (found in Adieux and Harper's February 1984, p39).  The context makes it clear that Sartre remains a staunch atheist and that the oft-quoted passage is referring to a psychological tendency which might explain, in others, the tendency towards spiritualism, but which Sartre considers erroneous. --ScottForschler 22:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sartre's Judaism

message: How does one pronounce "Sartre"?
Sartre is pronounced sar-tra.  The "a" in the second syllable is pronounced like the "a" in sofa.
To be (in my opinion) slightly more accurate, it's pronounced more like "sar-truh" (if you're using an American accent, that is).
I've heard a number of professors and scholar pronounce sartre as "saart" -- is this closer to the french pronunciation of the name?
sar-truh (with a short second syllable) is the one I agree with, but I am not fluent in French, but an explanation is that in French you do not speak out the last letter (normally).  
SAR'treh with a very short second syllable.  The second syllable's pronunciation is started with the tongue and lips, and ended in the throat.  The t is very strong, followed by the slightly muted "gutteral" r, and the e is sort of like exhaling "eh" after you pronounce the first two letters.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.56.124 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: Why was it? I´m adding it again
:Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.
:Probably because it was unsourced.  See Wikipedia:Cite your sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, WP:NOR, and Wikipedia:Common knowledge.  -Smahoney 21:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's one source http://books.google.fi/books?id=yuL98MtZ5poC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=jean+paul+sartre+mescaline&source=bl&ots=dSYHOOAezX&sig=PzmPXmdM0ZVd0CLMfRiPzdP_S9A&hl=fi&ei=T8ASStiSJJGxsAb9-umPDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5 --Custoo (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sartre's Mescaline use removed from text 

message: I will be adding a section on Sartre's metaphysics unless there are any objections.Joseane 08:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bold.  I believe the statement "The basis of Sartre's Existentialism (and Simone de Beauvoir's) " is too presumptive, and generally an overstatement.  I can't cite anything off-hand, but they had their conceptual differences, which is enough to make the statement non-NPOV.  You could do a better job at inline citation also, but this entire article needs that anyway. I am a member of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography and before long articles such as these are going to be tagged as "B" quality because of the lack of sourcing WP:CITE. I think Wikipedia:Academic_and_artistic_biographies is worth a look.  Amerindianarts 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I apologize for the "opinion" character of the assertion. It is, however, hard to argure that Sartre's Metaphysics is not the basis of de Beauvoir's work. (I added "possibly") "The Other" as a derivitive of the reflective consciousness forms the basis for expalnation of Racism and Sexism in all of their work. Their differences were not on the Metaphysics, though they disagreed on other things, of that I am certain.  Nonetheless, I will try to improve the sourcing in general. Please change anything you feel is too bold. If we paraphrase, we should cite. So I've added one. ps. Paraphrase is NPOV, correct?Joseane 17:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, paraphrasing can be NPOV.  However, it is my interpretation of Wiki policy at WP:CITE that if an original work is cited, and then a paraphrase added which includes quotes which refer to the text, that a more specific notation may be required.  I still think the reference to de Beauvoir's work should be cited by a secondary source rather than your observations.  I say a secondary source because an examination of her work and examples would be lengthy and more appropriate to her article. I could do the citation for Transcendence myself, but I'm busy doing the same thing to the article on Immanuel Kant. Oops.  I checked your changes and I think what you did works, except for the notation on de Beauvoir, which I still think needs verification.  It may be true, but it has to be verifiable.Amerindianarts 19:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the notation on de Beauvoir and will add something of that form in her Bio when I find a source. I made a couple more changes which I hope are supported sufficiently. Well, no one said it was going to be easy! Joseane 13:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just another point. I would like to suggest that where Philosophy Bios are concerned we may wish to find a separate rating to the B rating. In an ordinary Encyclopedia, the entry is made by an expert in the field - chosen through rigourous discussions by the board.  The difference here is that entries are made by anyone. Facts need a citation. When did Sartre do Mescaline? Refuse the Nobel Prize then ask for the cash. Interpretations of the work, however, must be carried out with the same boldness that any expert in a "private" Phil. encyclopedia would apply. Sourcing to secondary expert is therefore a little problematic. What we want, I would say, is boldness mediated by the test of time in a free environment. Otherwise, the Phil. Bios will be boring Bios about what so-an-so did rather than what their work "means". If someone disagrees with the interpretation made on Sartre's Metaphysics, they will change it. Hopefully for the better. What do you think?Joseane 14:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Part III – Sartre’s Metaphysics and Freedom
Let us begin by stating what our freedom is not, in terms of what Sartre calls “being-in-itself”. Sartre writes that:
Being-in-itself has no within which is opposed to a without and which is analogous to a judgment, a law, a consciousness of itself. The in-itself has nothing secret; it is solid. In a sense we can designate it as a synthesis. But it is the most indissoluble of all: the synthesis of itself with itself.14
The “being-in-itself” is a solid mass. It also has no within, no ‘mind’ as it were. It is in isolation with what it is; and can never transcend itself or have a connection with that which is not itself. As Sartre goes on to say that “Being is isolated in its being and that it does not enter into any connection with what is not itself.”15 What we can conclude, above all else, is simply this:
Transition, becoming, anything which permits us to say that being is not yet what it will be and that it is already what it is not—all that is forbidden on principle. For being is the being of becoming and due to this fact it is beyond becoming. It is what it is. 16
A stone is a “being-in-itself” because it has to do nothing to be a stone; it is not living a life of making itself anew, redefining itself, or transitioning beyond what it is. A stone simply is. However, it may be objected that living things, unlike rocks, are becoming and so do not fit Sartre’s notion of what exists “in-itself”. It surely seems that the acorn is transitioning beyond what it is by becoming an oak tree. To properly address such a criticism would mean to go beyond the scope of this essay. I will state that Sartre’s central aim is to speak of the ontology of human beings; thus the need to consider the ontology of an acorn is of no importance to us here. There are things in the world that do not have life and are only solid mass, and this is Sartre’s model for the things in the world as they confront our consciousness. A lot more can be said about “being-in-itself”, but for our purpose here let us take this one concept and move on: a “being-in-itself” cannot become anything else. It simply is what it is.
If we consider the “being-in-itself” as what is, we can start to see what a “being-for-itself” implies. Sartre defines the “being-for-itself” “as being what is not and not being what it is.”17 If we consider the notion of negation, we will see that it plays a big role here in defining what human reality is. Negation is simply moving toward that which is not, or, in better words, acting according to the recognition of that which is not. “Action necessarily implies as its condition the recognition of a ‘desideratum’; that is, of an objective lack or again of a négatité.”18 For Sartre the concept of negation is essential to tt t he very actions we perform. He uses the example of Constantine and the construction of Constantinople to illustrate this point:
The intention of providing a rival for Rome can come to Constantine only through the apprehension of an objective lack: Rome lacks a counterweight; to this still profoundly pagan city ought to be opposed a Christian city which at the moment is missing. Creating Constantinople is understood as an act only if first the conception serves as an organizing theme for all later steps. But this conception can not be the pure representation of the city as possible. It apprehends the city in its essential characteristic, which is to be a desirable and not yet realized.19
When we consider this example, we can see what Sartre means by negation; realizing that there is something missing in the world, and then acting to make this realization actual. The Roman Emperor Constantine realized that Rome lacked a counterweight, and in realizing this, he acted to negate this lack. In other words, he made what was not actual, actual. When one acts, one does so in terms of negation. The dynamiter from our example has acted and has done so in terms of negation. This is evident from the desire to destroy the quarry; he wanted to make a void where the quarry once stood and did so through his intended action. As Sartre says “How can anyone fail to see that all these considerations are negative; that is, they aim at what is not, not at what is.”20
An objection might be raised, however, that we are not negating but rather positively creating. For example, I am writing this essay on Sartre and it seems that I am destroying nothing, but rather positively creating something. However, if we consider the intention behind this essay, we can plainly see that I am indeed negating. I am negating the lack of a good understanding of Sartre’s notion of freedom. In other words, by writing this paper, I am destroying the lack of a good essay on Sartre’s conception of freedom.
For a human reality, becoming what is not is “negation”; I deny what I am and strive to become what I am not. For example, if I want to be a philosopher, I must first realize that I am not a philosopher, and then act to become a philosopher. I must negate my human reality as a non-philosopher to become a philosopher. However, if I keep in mind the condition of human reality “as being what is not and not being what it is” I can see that I can never be a philosopher. I can only be becoming a philosopher. Human reality is never what it is, and is never what it is not. The person who wants to become a philosopher cannot be one, as to be a philosopher is to be something in-itself.
To think one is something “in-itself” is to be in “bad faith” according to Sartre; it is to lie to oneself as to what human existence is. To accept ourselves as that which we have become is to deny human reality. We can see that to be a philosopher is to deny our ability to not be a philosopher. Sartre writes, referring to “being-in-itself”, that “It knows no otherness; it never posits itself as other-than-another-being.”21 If I am to say that I am a philosopher “in-myself”, then I must deny the idea that I could not be a philosopher as well; and this, of course, is absurd. I could always close my philosophy books in favor of becoming an elementary schoolteacher or a gardener. In other words, human reality allows us to negate what we are in favor of becoming what we are not. If I can think that I am something, then I am thinking in “bad faith”, according to Sartre.
We can always have intentions, and these intentions are the driving force of negation. This is so because in order to have intentions or desires, I must first recognize a lack in the world and in myself. Once I recognize this lack, I perform actions in order to make my intentions actual. Because human reality can never be anything, as it is always acting by way of negating a lack, we must ask ourselves what then is it. Sartre writes “there is no human reality except in action.”22 However, is this to say that we are our actions? If human reality is its actions, then what is doing the intending? Surely, it does not make sense to say that actions are doing the intending, as that would be circular given what Sartre defines as action. If an action requires intention to be an action, then action cannot be the foundation of whatever it is that does the intending.
What is doing the acting and what is doing the intending? What is negating and perceiving a lack? We have come to see that human reality is the one doing these things, but what then is human reality? Sartre writes:
The for-itself is, in so far as it appears in a condition which it has not chosen; it is in so far as it is thrown into a world and abandoned in a situation…It is in so far as there is in it something of which it is not the foundation—its presence to the world. 23
Consider the words “It is in so far as there is in it something of which it is not the foundation”. Sartre is proclaiming that we may have a foundation but this foundation is not what we are. However, if human reality cannot be its foundation, then it would seem that it is nothing, as all things have a foundation, or an essence. Surely human reality exists as we experience and act within the world. However, if we consider the line “Something of which it is not the foundation—its presence to the world” we are left to ask what this presence to the world is in human reality.
For Sartre, the existence of freedom precedes its foundation, and so defines it. He writes:
Ordinarily, to describe something is a process of making explicit by aiming at the structures of a particular essence. Now freedom has no essence. It is not the subject to any logical necessity; we must say of it what Heidegger said of the Dasein in general: “In it existence precedes and commands essence.”24
Unlike the “being-in-itself”, freedom has no essence for Sartre. It is because freedom has no essence that it is not “Subject to any logical necessity”. However, we must ask what not being “subject to any logical necessity” entails for freedom. If freedom has no foundation could we consider this to be the “something of which it is not the foundation—its presence to the world”25 which Sartre speaks of as human reality? If we consider what Sartre writes about the “for-itself” looking into itself, we can see that we will only find motivations:
The for-itself looking deep into itself as the consciousness of being there will never discover anything in itself but motivations; that is, it will be perpetually referred to itself and to its constant freedom26
However, as we have established, we can act in terms of these motivations, but we can also deny these motivations as well. It is because I can deny my motivations that what I am referred to my constant freedom.
Since, as Sartre writes, “The for-itself is necessary in so far as it provides its own foundation”27 we can conclude that human reality is freedom, as that is what it finds when it looks deep into itself. In order for human reality to be its own foundation, it must first possess no essence before its existence, and its existence must be freedom. It must be freedom because “If negation comes into the world through human reality, the latter must be a being who can realize a nihilating rupture with the world and with himself…The permanent possibility of this rupture is the same as freedom.”28 If I have the possibility of nihilating the world around me and what I am, then this permanent possibility must be freedom.
Let us return to our question of what it means for human reality not to be “Subject to any logical necessity” 29. If human reality, or freedom, is the cause of negation, then human reality must be beyond determining causes; for the very essence of negation is to make what is not factual, factual. For Sartre, the factual cannot alone determine an act, as an act requires freedom in order to make what is not factual, factual. He writes:
No factual state whatever it may be is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine what is not. No factual state can determine consciousness to apprehend it…as a lack.30
If we are to say that human reality acts, then we must allow for freedom; else the act is not an act but rather merely a set of movements. As Sartre writes: “If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or of itself…Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements.” The determinist may reply that there are no actions, given what Sartre has defined them to be, but that would also entail eliminating responsibility for human actions. While explaining responsibly would go beyond the scope of this essay, it would be best to define responsibility for Sartre. He writes, “We are taking the word responsibility in its ordinary sense as consciousness (of) being the incontestable author of an event or of an object.”31 Without action, according to Sartre, there can be no responsibility; only a series of movements. We cannot say that Einstein lectured about special relativity or that David Hume was responsibly for his famous problem of induction. We can only say that everything is a series of movements that bears no responsibility for the great (and not so great) things that have happened throughout the course of history.
(all quotes from Being and Nothingness)
Joshtrimble (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metaphysics 

message: "Jean-Paul Sartre, French Philosopher who abandoned the idea of a God at an Early age. He apparently died a Messianic Jew." 
Is it true?
See List of ex-Roman Catholics. Rafael, the Gawain 13:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messianic Jew? 

message: In a program produced by either the Archdiocese of New York or EWTN, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, a Franciscan priest, described Sartre's last days before dying. Groeschel indicated that the philosopher came to believe in some type of order and meaning in the universe, though I don't believe Groeschel said it was God that Sartre came to believe in necessarily. Does anyone know anything about this? Is it relevant to his life's story?
:Relevant to his life story only insofar as it can be cited and verified by a reputable source.  A lot of stories circulate about Sartre's life and lifestyle, and I think most are not credible.  Did Sartre die a theist?  I think it is a guess. Amerindianarts 16:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: given the length of this article, i think it's pretty silly to have so much talk about sartre's alleged judaism. If you've studied sartre, it's more than clear the overwhelming majority of his life is dedicated to existential, and leftist thought, etc. If he was brainwashed to say he believed in god for about 10 minutes before his death, that might be an interesting bit of trivia, but it's really nothing more than that.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.98 (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Died a Theist?

message: Wiki Manuel of Style is consensus and dictates that the Chicago Manuel of style be consulted "when all else fails".  Italics are recomended-bold is not. Bold in print is an emphasis that can be POV. Amerindianarts 16:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of bold print

message: Place of birth recorded in the column (Paris) not consistent with the one found in the text (Rome).
:All references to birthplace should be Paris. Amerindianarts 22:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of birth recorded in the column (Paris) not consistent with the one found in the text (Rome). 

message: Just removed an offensive sentence.--189.135.70.129 23:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, it was removed as i wrote this.--189.135.70.129 23:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: This article contains a number of sections containing information copied directly from another source. I'm not sure how to handle that this, so I'll leave it up for discussion.
The following paragraph is one example.  
"Besides the obvious impact of Nausea, Sartre's major contribution to literature was the The Roads to Freedom trilogy which charts the progression of how World War II affected Sartre's ideas. In this way, Roads to Freedom presents a less theoretical and more practical approach to existentialism. The first book in the trilogy, L'âge de raison (The Age of Reason) (1945), could easily be said to be the Sartre work with the broadest appeal." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.191.136 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagarism (Plagiarism)

message: Just added the section Trivia to mention Sartre's smoking, since I could find no better place where to mention it. Smoking is one of Sartre's trademarks and it ought to be noted in the article. If anyone finds a better place where to mention it, I ask that they move it and delete the whole Trivia section. The reference is also not perfect, but it does reflect the relevant information, so I stuck with it.
And, I would very much like to apologize for my four consecutive edits. I didn't cite right and I made a grammatical error. I will make sure to use the preview the next time. Promise. :) Have a nice day! Aljoša Avani 00:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: The article contains this quote from Sartre "I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God." Yet he is also an atheist. So what does this mean?-mattawa  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.99.135 (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did this mean? 

message: Could someone more familiar with the article please archive talk items that are no longer active or otherwise resolved? Benjiboi 17:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive old talk items 

message: I think the article should have more on Sartre's relationship with de Beauvoir.-Richard Peterson130.86.14.90 (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Simone de Beauvoir]]

message: Sartre had divergent strabismus (wall-eye), in which both eyes are turned away from the nose. He did not have convergent strabismus (cross-eye) in which both eyes are turned toward the nose.Lestrade (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Strabismus

message: I have just been listening to a programme on Radio 4 with Carole Seymour-Jones, author of the book Dangerous Liasons, which is about the relationship between Sartre and de Beauvoir. I've not added it to the 'further reading' section of this article, but from the talk, it sounds like it would be a useful resource for these articles. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carole Seymour-Jones 

message: Is it proper to have the Nobel Prize medal at the top of Sartre's infobox?  He did refuse to accept the prize. [[User:Kristamaranatha|Kristamaranatha]--79.13.23.43 (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel Prize 

message: I've made significant grammar revisions without compromising the references. Any comments?
: Sign and date your bulletins. Also Sources and Further Reading are redundant and should be merged in lex order. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sartre as public intellectual