Jump to content

Talk:Simone de Beauvoir/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Additions re masculism

I need to admit that I have not actually read this work. What I've added is essentially my interpretation from my "Men in World History" teacher's explanation of the work. My understanding was that Simon was arguing within a dialectic: that for masculism to get anywhere further, they needed to stop arguing for a female ideal, or even a male ideal, and find the higher viewpoint. I don't feel up to the challenge of explaining this, however, so I've added what I consider a stub to a stub article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daelin (talk • contribs) 06:29, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Stubbing?

I've submitted this article for wikification, as the wikification seems to end prior to The Second Sex. I'd be happy to do it, but I don't have time at the moment. As well, what do you all think of stubbing--or re-stubbing, as the case may be--this article? It seems to be quite short for someone so well known and researched. --onesong

Definitely needs to be stubbed: the article is quite short and hardly covers any of Simone de Beauvoir's works (among the extremely important ones are Pyrrhus et Cinéas, The Blood of Others, Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter, and Adieux) nor the questions about the relationship of her work to Sartre's. --Paultopia 16:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

La Beauvoir

Per the literature, I note that sophisticated side references to Simone de Beauvoir use the term "la Beauvoir" (of course), so I created a redirection as such. Other more banal references simply go by full name, whereby only the name "la Beauvoir" had failed to enlighten the uninitiated as a potential link, which had not been previously provided. The new redirection seems to have worked out quite well (très bien). -Wikid77 12:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Focus on philosophical writings

I just want to hastily point out that this page needs serious expansion on the philosophical side. This should be possible to do without doing original research now that she's finally been granted attention as an independant philosopher in several fairly recent publications. I might undertake expanding later on after or while I'm writing an essay on her at my uni. Meanwhile, well, I just wanted to point it out :-)

This article is terrible. "out a feminist existentialism with a significant Freudian" my computer didn't fully copy this little foible, but either way, de Beauvoir is not comparable to Freud. In fact, she strongly disagrees with his work in The Second Sex; the theme of transcendence alone opposes Freud.63.3.5.1 04:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, at least about Freud not being an influence. However, I couldn't find the sentence you are referring to. I did see that Freud is listed under influences in the information box. That should be removed, unless anything one has read counts as an influence. Nejtan 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It has already been fixed:) The new sentence reades... "De Beauvoir's The Second Sex, published in French in 1949, sets out a feminist existentialism which prescribes a moral revolution." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.254.200.19 (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
Without making a big issue of it, I for one would very much appreciate a little more philosophical context as well. While reading The Second Sex english translation I find myself a bit bewildered by the whole immanence/transendence dichotomy in the existentialist context which as I understand mostly denies the existence of god, whereas a cursory scan of the wiki articles seem to treat these as opposing views as to the nature of god. Reading The Second Sex, however, immanence and transcendence are treated more as aspects of female and male conditions, that is human qualities, socially constructed or otherwise. Any thing that might shed some light on this would be appreciated. I will do some surfing in the meantime. InternetProtocolDroid 04:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In due course I'll try to add some useful philosophical material, though there are really major differences of judgement about the value of B's philosophical views as such (the importance of 'The Second Sex' as a feminist text is beyond dispute): she does go beyond Sartre in applying an existentialist framework in areas where Sartre never trod, but there is serious debate about whether or to what extent some of her specific philosophical views are different from those of Sartre and the status of any such independent views that can be identified. TEKARNSIDE 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As for Freud, it depends upon exactly what is meant by an 'influence'. Beauvoir, like Sartre, had very mixed views on Freud. Some aspects of psychoanalytical description or interpretation were regularly and systematically adopted by both, but both believed that the kind of 'determinism' that can be seen as at the heart of Freudianism is fundamentally mistaken. Their own brand of 'existentialist psychoanalysis' bases everything upon free and fundamental CHOICES made by the individual. (A fascinating short work by Sartre effectively claims that we CHOOSE our emotions!) TEKARNSIDE 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Have reverted article to this state have a number of edits from Indian IPs adding spam and unsourced connections to Sarojini Sahoo. If there are any connections between the two please source them - I'd love to read about it. But until such information can be surced it has to stay out--Cailil talk 19:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

i have cited the moi article ````

Carole Seymour-Jones

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) 08:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Mistranslation?

This article says that The Second Sex was badly translated. The basis of this statement is I believe this article http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402EED6163FF931A1575BC0A9629C8B63&pagewanted=all

However I just read The Second Sex and can verify that this statement of the article,

"In addition to misconstruing words and phrases, the American edition deleted nearly 15 percent of the original French text (about 145 pages), seriously weakening the sections dealing with women's literature and history -- Beauvoir being one of the first to declare these as legitimate subjects for study. Gone were numerous quotations from women's novels and diaries, including those of Virginia Woolf, Colette and Sophie Tolstoy, that she used to support her arguments. Little-known historical accounts of women who defied feminine stereotypes, like Renaissance noblewomen who led armies, also vanished from the English edition."

Is untrue. While its possible portions were deleted, (I can not testify to that) quotes from Virginia Woolf, and Sophie Tolstoy were in fact included. I read the 1986 version, so perhaps this information should be included. 216.201.33.24 21:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a single Beauvoir scholar with a knowledge of both languages who does NOT accept that Parshley's translation is a highly misleading one. There are flagrant misunderstandings of the French, and the omissions as such are highly significant in both their scope and their nature. These are detailed in a number of academic articles (the fact that some quotes from Woolf and Sophie Tolstoy remain does not, of course, mean that none have been omitted!). TEKARNSIDE 19:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see how that is relevant. I read The Second Sex 1980's edition, and it included all the information that these articles say it didn't, what's more her existentialist philosophy was clear to me, of course I also had a basic grasp on it. Example when she talks about things going against her feminine nature, she is talking about the existentialist social construct, not the essentialist nature.

I haven't read the french version, as I am not proficent in french, so I can't say, but as most of these complaints come from the feminists that de Beauvoir detested, I am skeptical of these claims primarily because feminists in recent years have quite often fabricated all kinds of complaints.

An example of all this is the inclusion of a statement about Mary Wollstoncraft in the discussion of The Second Sex, yet Mary Wollstonecraft was only mentioned once, or twice, in passing, and had less then two sentences devoted to her, so that statement is really erroneous. 216.201.33.27 00:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is sad that 216.201.33.27's latest comments about Parshley's English translation, The Second Sex- like his/her earlier comment, which illogically argued that because some Woolf and Sophie Tolstoy quotes remain, it therefore follows that others have not been omitted! - should do still more to mislead readers into believing that the translation of Le Deuxième Sexe is a good, or even adequate one.
How can anyone who has not read 'the french version' (sic) and is not 'proficient in french' (sic) possibly be in a position to judge whether the English translation is a complete and accurate rendering of the French?
In addition to committing further errors and illogicalities, 216.201.33.27 makes it absolutely clear that he/she has NOT done what a number of scholars proficient in both French and English have done, which is to compare, thoroughly and systematically, the French and English texts. At the very least, it is incumbent upon anyone wanting to make any worthwhile pronouncement on this issue to read carefully the original article by Margaret Simons which drew attention to the inadequacy of the translation by listing errors and omissions. Only by showing Simons to be wrong can anyone mount a serious defence of Parshley's translation. I have checked for myself: the English translation is very selective and contains many misleading mistakes.TEKARNSIDE 16:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
216.201.33.27 if you look at the The Second Sex's article you will see that the problems with the English translation of the book are recorded and analyzed by Toril Moi's article 'While we wait: The English translation of The Second Sex' in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society vol. 27, no 4 (2002). TEKARNSIDE is correct the fact that some quotes from Woolf & Sophie Tolstoy are retained does not explain why others are omitted. Nor does it ameliorate the standard of the translation from the french. However the fact is Wikipedia makes determinations based on reliable sources and verifiable information. 216.201.33.27 you would need a major source to back up what is an "exceptional claim" that feminists have "fabricated" complaints in regard to this book.
Please bear in mind that wikipedia is not a forum and not a soapbox, making flamebaiting remarks like "feminists in recent years have quite often fabricated all kinds of complaints" is an inappropriate use of wikipedia's talk-space see WP:TALK--Cailil talk 16:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
(please note that I fixed the indention of this converstaion for readability's purposes--User:Cailil16:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

I have now added to the page The Second Sex a careful and extremely detailed summary of the content of the original edition of Le Deuxième Sexe. Because of the very length of the two-volume book (nearly 1000 pages), I hope that the summary will be useful for a number of purposes, but simply looking at the way in which Parshley has altered the numbering of some parts, sections, chapters and added his own titles to chapters that have no title in the original already tells us something about how he fails to respect Beauvoir's text. TEKARNSIDE 15:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In regards to what was written, first off I never said that other quotes had not been deleted, hoever that I have read articles presented claimed that all of this had been deleted, which was not true. Or when they claimed that history part about women leading armies in Medieval Europe or about literature was deleted, that wasn't true about the edition I read.

Secondly as for feminists fabricating things, I did not say they had fabricated anything in regards to this book, I said that many feminists are known for fabricating facts and this may be a case of this, example of feminists hoaxes being Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth which claimed that 100,000 women died a year from anorexia, or the claim that SuperBowl Sunday is the most violent night of the year.

By the way so far nobody in this conversation has stated they themselves have in fact read The Second Sex, (apart from myself) or read it in both langauges, so far your entire arguement is based on what other people have said, and I was providing what I know based on the articles I have read and included, I was not aware anyone said that some quotes had been retained while others were deleted, so far all articles I have read said all quotes by these people have been deleted.

I am not claiming an absolute on any of this, or that parts of it may have been mis-translated, I am simply stating that some of this stuff which was included in the article I provided, was not entirely true as far as the edition I read, which I provided examples of to let people know. That doesn't mean that there may not be problems, but I was raising a valid, and legitimate concern.

Additionally I don't appreciate your rude tone, or flippant attitude, especially since you haven't refuted anything I have said, only responded with sarcasm. This is a place for open discussion, if you have more information than I or anyone else does you can provide it and include it without resorting to a snobbish, arrogant, condescending tone, so knock off the abnoxious attitude. 216.255.40.151 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe this last intervention speaks for itself, in all respects!! I personally have read both the French and the English versions of Beauvoir's text in full (and, indeed, as I mentioned, have compared many sections in detail) - it was part of my professional work to do so. If I am given precise enough references, I shall be happy to take up specific SERIOUS points about the original text and/or Parshley's translation. TEKARNSIDE 17:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI 216.255.40.151 I have read the book. Also please review WP:TALK - wikipedia is not a forum for debate. We make judgements on what is included in articles on verifiability (ie that it has been shown in published scholarly research elsewhere) not truth. In short 216.255.40.151, if the newspaper article is flawed then use the scholarly source--Cailil talk 19:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

i have cited the moi article Michelle````. i think it is obvious from this discussion that not having a section of the viability of the one and only translation of The Second Sex is once more a silencing of de Beauvoir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Me1atwiki (talk • contribs) 02:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Petite

Should be petit.

for simone yes, for a man no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Slight Vandalism

As of 3:58 AM EST on Monday, August 24th, 2009, there is a bit of vandalism under the section "Sexuality, existentialist feminism, and 'The Second Sex'". A part of the section reads,

"She rode through the streets of America on her armadillo crying to all that the British were coming and would destroy them if they did not give women equal rights. This action gave women the same rights as men from voting to using the men's bathroom. Simone de Beauvoir was a great figure in the modern feminist movement."

I will however edit this article to delete this vandalism, I just felt it necessary to bring it to attention in the discussion section before I made the edit, in case something should go wrong with the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uofkentucky2008 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Notes

Does anyone kow what the little notes, held down by pebbles, on her grave / headstone are? (See the phot of her and Sartre's grave). Katie1971 ( Let's talk!! ) 09:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I took the photography, so I could tell you. They are one-way metro tickets. Though, I can't tell why people are putting them there. //Aerin, 2010-04-26

French nobility?

Beauvoir is categorised as "French nobility," yet no reference is made to this in the article. As a rule, I object to any categorisation that isn't substantiated in the article, with the possible exception of stubs. Anyone have any info as to this claim? Buffyg 13:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm totally with you regarding your position on categories and articles. The addition was made by an anonymous user, who I tried to contact just now via their talk page. Hopefully we'll hear from them regarding the change. In the mean time, I'll do a little research. -Steven Mahoney 19:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Well, she does come from a family with a noble background (according to absolute Simone de Beauvoir by Florence Herve, et al) , which is also indicated by the 'de' (French for 'of') in her last name. I don't know if categorizing her as French nobility is useful although she is technically noble, since this isn't mentioned in the article (and shouldn't be considering the irrelevancy of this fact).--Carabinieri 20:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I read a history of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, that explained the difference between the British and French peerages. In the British peerage only the eldest inherits the title. Their siblings are commoners. In the French system all the legitimate offspring were nobles. The book said that, at the outbreak of hostilities, Britain had just 92 peers, whereas 1 in 25 French citizens could claim to be a noble. If it was one in twentyfive 212 years ago what fraction of the French population can claim noble blood today? Is it more than 4%? If it is significantly more that 4% I wonder whether it is worth mentioning? -- Geo Swan 23:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Even though the "de" does denote nobility, the de Beauvoir line is extremely obscure and no-one is sure of the origin thereof or of how much noble blood there still remained. Weili 07:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The de Beauvoir family was never aristocratic (they are not listed in any directory). The "de" particle doesn't necessarily denote nobility in France (as it was never regulated as it once was in certain German provinces). Many middle-class or aspirational families added the particle to their own name (as in the case of Dominique de Villepin). The de Beauvoir's must have added it to their own name. Avaya1 (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Relations

Really, I can't see the point of using such a big space of Beauvoir's biography for pointing out several people she had affairs with. Sure, the relationship with Sartre is famous, but all her lovers are not. In comparision, the page on Sartre mentions the polyamorous relationship with two sentences, not more. Delete the catalogue aria? //Aerin, 2010-04-27

Beuavoir wrote multiple books which use her affairs and relationships as source materials. Since she used these relationships in her books, it seems inappropriate to delete them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.45.173 (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Aerin that the Relations section is unnecessary. Beauvoir is notable for her writings, not her relationships. If there are verifiable instances of these affairs as inspiration for her writing, that should be noted in the discussion of her works, not in her biography. Jenbendewood (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree and think they ought to be here. This is her biography, and not only a discussion of her writing. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't disagree that we should mention her notable relationships, but devoting a whole section to it (when we don't for comparable male philosophers) seems ironic in the entry for Beauvoir. Judith Thurman's introduction to the new edition of The Second Sex brings up this very quandry, of an arguably undue focus on Beauvoir's personal life rather than her work output: [1] Jenbendewood (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
That's fine then and if you'd like to rewrite this that's great. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Need help with de Beuvoir and femism section in Bad faith article, and "The Look"

We need help with de Beuvoir in existentialism and femism sections of the Bad faith article, and "The Look". HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Emma Goldman

Was Beauvoir in no way influenced by the work of Emma Goldman? There is no reference to it, and it does not appear under "Influenced by". I don't know enough of Beauvoir to know for certain, but she must have had an effect (Like she influences most of later and contemporary philosophy, particularly feminism). --Torsrthidesen (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

synth removed

I just reverted several edits by an IP, the statements appear to have poor or no support in the sources to which I have immediate access. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted again. I believe the book review in the UK does not mention pedophilia. The Lamblin book is a primary source, and thus not reliable according to WP:RS. I do not have access to Seymour-Jones, can anyone provide a quote for the pedophilia claim I reverted? Also, I think that placement of the pedophilia charges in the lead places undue weight. --Nuujinn (talk)
Primary sources are acceptable, it is only summarising them that can be potentially unreliable or POV. Please re-read wiki policy on primary sources. As for weight, since there are a lot of secondary sources covering this area (as cited), we can give it corresponding weight in the article. Avaya1 (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Erica Jong is mentioned as a feminist in the article. She is not.

Erica Jong is not a feminist although sometimes defined as such. One of the reasons some think of her as a feminist might be her book "Fear of Flying," in which she writes about sex as experienced by a "liberated woman." Her definition of a "liberated women" has little or nothing to do with feminism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandavyhua (talk • contribs) 10:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

New Information re her Feelings about Sartre's Other Lovers

I have recently read somewhere (and I am wracking my brains to remember where) that letters have recently come to light that indicate that Simone was not as blase about Sartre's fooling around as she claims to be in the Second Sex. The lack of possessiveness and clingyness that she displays in the Second Sex toward Sartre was a model to many women of my generation (coming of age in the late '60's, early '70's). It would be interesting to learn her real feelings towards Sartre's many amours. FrancisDane (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sartre section

What the devil is this? Half of it isn't relevant to anything. More on her actual relationship with Sartre and how that was relevant to their respective philosophies or writings and less about how they had an "imaginary marriage" or "signed a 2-year lease" or how he was "dazzlingly intelligent" would be nice. 67.1.18.67 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Studies at Ecole Normale Superieure

According to what sources did she not attend Ecole Normale Superieure? According to absolute Simone de Beauvoir by Florence Herve, et al, she did attend this school. The École Normale Supérieure article also lists her as an allumni.--Carabinieri 20:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

According to her own autobiography, she clearly states that she studied philosophy at the above-mentioned school - how can there be any debate about it? Weili 07:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

She didn't follow lectures at Ecole normale supérieure because girls weren't allowed to do that at the time, but I believe she was allowed to sit for the final exam. I could be wrong, and I don't remember where I picked this up, so pherhaps someone else can confirm? (Gatsway (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC))

I took a sentence out, because while I have no reason to doubt that she was accused of breaking age of consent laws while she was a teacher, or indeed that she supported the abolition of such laws, the latter fact is out of place in that section. To place it there is to imply that her political stance was a result of her personal experiences or sexuality, which is an unfair accusation to make without evidence. 190.42.153.189 (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

An Eye for an Eye, Oeil pour Oeil

References to the 1946 essay Oeil pour Oeil and it's translation seem to be completely absent from Wikipedia AND wiképedia (those are the only two I can read, really). It is not listed or mentioned on the disambiguation page, here, or in the Eye for an Eye concept article in either language. Not sure how to add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.42.123.38 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Qualifying surname edits

It's generally agreed to drop the first part of a double barrel surname if the second part contains more than one syllable. A quick glance shows many biographical works about her follow this rule as well, so I've changed "de Beauvoir" to "Beauvoir" in the instances where the subject is referred to by surname only. Ongepotchket (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me? Agreed upon by whom? What evidence do you have of this? I'm sorry, but you've got no idea what you're talking about, as far as works about de Beauvoir are concerned. She is always referred to as "de Beauvoir" in English, never simply as "Beauvoir". See, for example, Claude Francis and Fernande Gontier's biography Simone de Beauvoir, Penny Forster and Imogen Sutton's Daughters of de Beauvoir (an anthology with multiple contributors, who often refer to "de Beauvoir", but never simply to "Beauvoir" - in the few cases where they call her anything other than "de Beauvoir" it's "Simone"), Juliet Mitchell's Psychoanalysis and Feminism (which has a chapter dealing with de Beauvoir), Mary Anne Warren's chapter on de Beauvoir in her The Nature of Women, the article on de Beauvoir in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, and Genevieve_Lloyd's The Man of Reason. The list of examples could be extended, but there would be no point. You're just plain wrong. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I had a look earlier on Googlebooks and am surprised to discover that Ongepotchke seems to be right. [2] All the books I looked at state only Beauvoir, including the Cambridge Companion. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Please keep the discussion civil, no need to be unfriendly. Cheers Span (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for providing those references. I can only repeat that to my knowledge she's usually called "de Beauvoir", not "Beauvoir". I don't see that your link to Googlebooks proves anything either way. I strongly doubt that calling her "Beauvoir" is a well-established convention. I'm certainly opposed to it for this article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The links given don't prove what convention we should adopt, but are given to show that the Cambridge Companion to Simone de Beauvoir and many hundred biographies and academic texts use the single word convention. The Independent, The LRB, and Oxford University press also use it. Both approaches are, perhaps, used, though I only found one in my searches. I had a look for WP conventions in this matter and could not unearth any. The way we usually go about things is to provide evidence for various view points and discuss their pros and cons until we find a consensus or get bored and give up. Span (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that - and you'll note that I haven't reverted the article back to "de Beauvoir." I've no intent of trying to unilaterally impose my personal preferences. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The proper usage in French is when a person is referred to by their last name only you do not include the 'particlule,' in this case 'de.' This also applies when you refer to a family, so "the Beauvoirs" not "the de Beauvoirs." Just one example, Deidre Bair's biography of Simone de Beauvoir refers to her as Beauvoir when she doesn't use Simone's first name throughout the book. Also, I know this for sure because my last name is "de Montmollin" and I've researched the question of how to refer to myself in writing in English. In North America a lot of people don't know the rule, or are even aware there is one but in Europe there is no question about it. So I think in this article it should be put back to "Beauvoir." If you look at the French wikipedia article on SdeB you will see that's what they use. Gdemontmollin (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
To be quite clear about it, I no longer care about this issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence is a train wreck: "... was a French writer, intellectual, existentialist philosopher, political activist, feminist and social theorist. "

Can someone reduce the number of descriptors to two or three? What would one expect to see in a textbook? LK (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Simone de Beauvoir. 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) 00:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal life

Hello, User:Mathglot. The section "Personal life" begins with a lot of information about a book. That book is never cited in this article's references. Even though de Beauvoir is dead, I believe that unnecessary denigration of her personal life is inappropriate for Wikipedia. My interest is only in that section, so I will add a flag to let you know it's still in progress. Sorry I didn't add that flag yesterday when I ran out of time. Here is the direct quote to which I object: "Nigel Rodgers and Mel Thompson in their 2005 book Philosophers Behaving Badly say de Beauvoir had a very turbulent, often scandalous life." This article appears to be a plug for the book and the entire paragraph proceeds from this erroneous (the book was first published in 2004) and uncited topic sentence. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

This edit removed several sentences that never got around to saying anything. One source, Seymour-Jones, was already in the bibliography plus is used earlier. Two others have now been omitted (BBC Radio and one I don't own, Contingent loves: Simone de Beauvoir and sexuality, By Melanie Hawthorne (London, 2000)). And one seems to be missing on The Independent's site but sounds interesting (New studies agree that Beauvoir is eclipsing Sartre as a philosopher and writer, The Independent, by Lesley McDowell, Sunday, 25 May 2008). We had a copyvio from a The New York Times blog. Just storing these all here in case anyone needs them. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: I'm done and removed the "in use" flag as well as the copyvio. I hope you approve. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Background, Paris district

I have added sources concerning Paris and the background on the family. The family was of bourgeois background with a pretensions to nobility, wiyh her father adding a nobiliary particle. The father was a a spendthrift that had ruined the family economy (https://www.lastampa.it/2008/08/31/blogs/views-across-the-channel/sartre-and-la-grande-sartreuse-a-dangerous-liaison-X48GCcmhms2rsngr3YPS7O/pagina.html, https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/books/excerpt-introduction-second-sex.html)Doctoral historian (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Quality of article

Please, someone fix this article. It's so, so, so bad it's literally offensive. Everything is cited up the ass and yet completely inappropriate (example: "Sartre was dazzlingly intelligent and 5 feet tall. He allowed Beauvoir to talk about herself.") Can someone who actually knows something about Beauvoir please contribute to this article and ideally rewrite it from scratch because holy shit?

The quality of this article is poor, I don't think it warrants B-Grade status, more like C. I have tried to improve it mainly with edits of the "Middle Years" section but do not know enough about life or work to make the more substantial improvements required. I think the focus on Beauvoir's personal life detracts from her status as a significant philosphical figure of the 20th century. I suggest that as well as the biographcial section there should be a section on her thought and writing. This would aptly mirror the structure of the article on Jean-Paul Sartre. Pugsworth (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. It does no justice to her, and looks like a barely passable GCSE essay. SandySue845 (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Impact section

When I looked at the article, I was kind of amazed that the enormous impact of de Beauvoir was barely mentioned in the article, so I started a new section on it, and seeded it with a couple of paragraphs. This is just the tip of the iceberg, and no doubt the topic of de Beauvoir's influence could fill an entire article on its own. I'd love to see the #Impact section get expanded (or spun off to its own article, and summarized) but I don't have a lot of time right now to devote to it, so will have to leave it to others. So, I'm calling on trusted editors @Dreamyshade, SlimVirgin, Pyxis Solitary, Gorilla Warfare, Carbon Caryatid, -sche, Rosiestep, Crossroads, Lotje, The Vintage Feminist, and SusanLesch: to have a look at that section (or the rest of the article, which needs work as well) and see if it's something you'd enjoy working on. P.S. there are a couple of names in the list who may be surprised by the ping, because we haven't interacted directly. Don't be; I've seen your work in related topics, and I trust you to do a good job here, if you are so inclined.

If you don't have time to help at the article, but could add a bullet point or two below summarizing what you think needs to be added to the #Impact section, that would be helpful as well. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Development of Social Theory

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Majoag1120 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Majoag1120 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

On a quote by Beauvoir from "La Force de l'âge".

In order to find an agreement on the modifications related to Beauvoir's statements contested by editor Gzeike: Brief summary of the story, from my point of view, relating to the statements of Beauvoir contained in "La Force de l'âge": I quoted the statement of Beauvoir in which she states that Natalie Sorokin (whom she calls in this work "Lise") was to her a mere friend and not a lover, adding that her parents' denunciation of her was due to resentment against her. Initially, I had incorrectly assumed that "Lisa" was Bianca Lamblin. I proceeded to correct the error, which had been noted by Gzeike, whom I thanked. After that, the latter removed my edit contesting my interpretation of Beauvoir's words (which I had translated into English) claiming that I had "subjectively interpreted" Beauvoir's words. Furthermore, he justified the deletion by stating that "Lise" would not be Natalie Sorokin, or that I could not be sure because I had initially stated that "Lise" was "Bianca". I thought I had solved the question by adding the original text of Beauvoir with the precise sources and adding a text taken from a specialized publication in the footnote, in which it clearly stated that in the "Force de l'âge" Natalie was called "Lise", as I had subsequently argued. The reaction was negative and my contributions were repeatedly removed also because Beauvoir's statements were not considered convincing to Gzeike. I invite Gzeike and anyone who wishes to express their opinion on the matter and to give me constructive suggestions in order to be able to communicate the contents in the most effective way and corresponding to the truth of the facts. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I might suggest that using homebrew translations is getting perilously close to the edge of WP:OR - particularly when said translation is to further a statement connecting a person identified pseudonymously by the author in the original language to a known identity. Can you find any WP:RS that support your assertions explicitly? Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I mentioned it extensively in the last edit before the block. It is a text published by the journal "Recherche féministes" by the scholar Chantal Théry. The title of the essay is "Simone de Beauvoir : Journal de guerre et Lettres à Sartre". I have attached the text in pdf (in French): I have reported 5 pages (from 171 to 175), on page 173 (line 14 starting from above) it clearly says "Nathalie Sorokine (Lise Oblanoff dans la 'Force de l'âge')". I have reported in French the entire sentence in which these words were contained, plus my translation "homebrew" into English. More than that, I don't know what can be done. Keep in mind that this is not a "featured" or "good article", and that, unfortunately, there are still many requests for necessary citations in the article that have not been satisfied, without deletion. I have made, as can be seen from the "history" of the article, many contributions in Beauvoir's article before this unpleasant situation, and I usually do not write any unsourced edits. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Just to know, how long does it usually take to restore temporarily suspended edits awaiting agreement between the parties? In the absence of objections, it would seem reasonable to me that the fruits of my labor should not be made in vain. Otherwise, the attitude of those who unnecessarily obstruct others' work would be rewarded, especially those who have clearly targeted only one editor. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Since the only suggestion to improve my edits was Simonm223's, I comply with it and proceed to replace the citation with another with the same informative content but in English, and publish it. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simone_de_Beauvoir/Archive_1&oldid=1242741917"