Talk:Jean-Paul Sartre

That petition (we all know which one)
Ok so first off we need, if we are going to bring up that petition, to contextualize it both within the core of the complaint being about the unequal treatment of gay men by the law compared to straight men and also within the context of the activist milieu in which it arose. Furthrmore, we do have a whole article on that petition at French petition against age of consent laws and it cites a whole array of sources more notable for a matter of historical record than a random article in a newspaper. This isn't a current event and there's no good reason to use non-academic sources as a basis for citation here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree. Separate issues entirely. 2001:56A:FCFE:E200:7437:80D5:5A6C:86E2 (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

P.A. Amongst other David Thorstad types.
Thorstad is listed as a P.A. in his intro, why not Sartre? I’d call this a minor addition, if you will. 2001:56A:FCFE:E200:4063:3F77:64BF:36FC (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Can we lock this article?
I have noticed that this article seems to be a frequent target of vandalism. I recently reverted a change (see the revision I made on 24 November 2023) which promoted the claim that Jean-Paul Sartre stated a belief in God while on his death bed, a claim that has no credible evidence. After looking through the history of this article to find the original author of said addition, I found to my amazement that the change was made all the way back in October of 2021. The fact that an unsubstantiated paragraph of text can survive two years on such a significant philosopher's Wikipedia article without seemingly anyone noticing is alarming to me.

For this reason, and because of a history of other occurrences of vandalism on this article, I would like to open a discussion for locking this page. Stephanos100 (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the sexual abuse section be 'alleged'
It's all written as if this is 100% confirmed (i.e. 'Sartre did...') when as far as I'm aware it's not entirely confirmed. Ofc I'm not defending his actions, but shouldn't it be necessary to use phrasing like 'Sartre allegedly did' rather than treating it like it's something known for definite. 2A00:23EE:2770:2CAD:D8FD:4ACD:ECD2:EE99 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)