Talk:Hazel Barnes

The article says "was" but it's in the category living people? Why is Wikipedia so hopelessly lazy? Can whoever wrote this article try and find out if she's alive or dead, or if that's not possible to determine, reword the article accordingly.

WP can be edited by anyone, even yourself, Anonymous. Please feel free to not be "hopelessly lazy" and make appropriate changes. Regardless, the tense has been altered. Cheers RobLinwood 01:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

When I was a postgraduate at Southampton University in the late 1970s, the late professor of philosophy, Anthony Manser, produced a long typescript of errors in Barnes' translation of "Being and Nothingness". Manser spoke French fluently, and wrote several works about Sartre, so his corrections should be taken seriously.

Unfortunately, I have (at present) no idea of whether the typescript still exists. I do recall that it was just under 40 A4 pages in length.

This note does not constitute an attack - personal or otherwise - on Professor Barnes: rather, it notes that one of her translations was, in parts, not as good as it might have been.

Hair Commodore 20:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

As of November 2006 Hazel Barnes is still alive.

Translation is an art. It is well known that poetry, literature, and arguably philosophy really don't translate at all except perhaps in closely related languages or different registers of the same language. If you are learning a new language, you are urged to stop translating ASAP. Was Professor Manser French? There could be both a best English translation produced by a Frenchman and one produced by a native speaker of English. French and English while related are sufficiently different that especially in the case of a "stylist" (according to him) like Sartre, whose translation from the original French at best is likely to be a matter of subjective judgement. Like it or not Hazel's have become normative for the Anglosphere. (Note: the user above is apparently deceased). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Barnes's translation may not have been perfect but it is better than having no translation. Too bad Prof. Manser's corrections weren't sent to Washington Square Press so that they could include them in a later edition.Lestrade (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)LestradeReply

Indented Lestrade's comment. Accidentally edited this page with my named identity, so the hiatus is 4709, not 2011. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also, noting that Hazel speaks at length about criticism of her translation in her autobiography. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is complete bullshit, the image was provided personally by Hazel's executor. There are other things I'd rather do with my time than deal with crap like this. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is to note that the photo of Hazel Barnes which has been incorrectly deleted was taken by me, Reed Lindberg. Permission was granted to Wikipedia, for its use, by myself and my wife, Hazel's literary executor, Betty Cannon. It was taken on the event of Hazel's 92nd birthday party in my home. I have a series of pictures taken of Hazel at the same time and in the same place, though this was the best of the series. We would like to see the picture restored, and we plan to add to the article as soon as we have time. We would like to say in regards to the remarks about the accuracy of Hazel's translation, that Sartre himself communicated with Hazel and sent her his notes for the fifth and final volume of the Flaubert biography, which Hazel used in writing Sartre and Flaubert. Simone de Beauvoir also communicated with Hazel after Sartre's death (Hazel visited her in Paris) and Simone expressed her gratitude for Hazel's work, and noted that Sartre was also grateful for her translations of Being and Nothingness and Search For a Method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.102.71 (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see that it is recommended that I post this on the "image talk" page - which I can not find. Perhaps the original editor or someone else can assist in these efforts

Reedling (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

The image has been deleted, so the talk page is not available. What kind of license were you releasing the photo under? -- Donald Albury 14:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the types of license Wikipedia will accept for images that are under copyright. You need release the photo under an acceptable license and list that license on the image page when you upload the photo. If you need help in doing that, just ask. Please note that licensing an image for free-use on Wikipedia means that while you (or, rather, Hazel's estate) will retain the copyright, you will not be able to control reuse of the photo. -- Donald Albury 14:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Another question. Who took the photo? Copyright generally belongs to the photographer, not the subject of the photo. The comments above still apply. -- Donald Albury 14:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

According to a statement at WP:REFUND, the person who's requested undeletion has taken at least some of these photos himself. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I took the photo (Reed Lindberg), in other words I am the photographer. There was one photo on Hazel Barne's page. It is a photo taken in my home on the occasion of Hazel's 92nd birthday. - And I grant use of the photo to Wikipedia. I believe the person who originally posted the photo noted that permission had been granted. I am requesting undeletion of the photo. Hazel was very fond of that particular photo and approved it's use as representative of her. It is fine for the photo to be widely disseminated, and if there is a particular format for approving the use of the photo, I would be happy to provide that, but I'll need some more info about how it's done. Reedling (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Go to Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries and send the text within the black border/box to the email address given on the page. Choose a good license (a really one would be Creative Commons-BY-SA and GFDL (duallicense)) and send the original place where the picture was placed. Regards, mabdul 00:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just a note that I have submitted the appropriate permissions to "permission-commons". Thanks to everyone above who has helped me complete this. I understand that this "complication" was a goodwill effort to protect and establish the proper formats and procedures for all involved. Reedling (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Reedling, I'm sorry I requested the photo in the first place as I see you've been subjected to the special kind of idiocy which we in the English speaking world are about to be without for a day. I reiterate that this is complete bullshit, and btw one of the things you can do since the photo is so manifestly your own is upload it to your user space. It could then be used to replace the original here. I read Hazel's biography completely and what you say above could be sourced from it. One thing though which isn't conveyed is that Hazel was quite modest in that work about having built a career as and on a Sarte scholar/scholarship and also that she did not follow the direction he took in and after the Critique, which he himself considered his most important philosophical work. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, he cannot upload it to his own user space on Wikipedia. Reedling, you should just upload the photo to Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) and mark it as your own work. Given the history, you probably should leave a note on the talk page of the image saying that an earlier version of the image was deleted because you didn't know how to claim it as your own work. -- Donald Albury 02:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I uploaded the original photo. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hazel Barnes. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070424153004/http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/barnes.html to http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/barnes.html

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) 21:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply