Talk:Genealogy (philosophy)

Final Paragraph
The last paragraph of this entry is awful - it reads like uncited original research, contains grammatical errors and uses a number of very specific terms in a manner in which they don't really fit. Can we remove it? 89.247.11.127 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Separate entry
i think it is better as a separate entry for search-ability. the concept is not limited to foucault. what is the advantage of merging this? they are already linked.

Definetely should be merged. The text in this page that talks about Foucault is almost the same as the text on Foucault's genealogy article. Also, there are no references to other usages of the term aside from Foucault's and Nietzsche's (which are deeply related). If we were talking about big articles with a lot of information, then two separate ones would be the way to go, but for this almost identical tiny ones, why keep them separate? Rogeriobwp (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rogeriobwp. Merge the two articles, they are very alike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.70.117 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about such a change. This is anecdotal, but I'm repeatedly running into this as a more generally used term (eg. in sociology courses with regard to Aztec mythology and other odd places) --Hrimpurstala (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Genealogy is definitely broader than Foucault. Nietzsche is certainly the father of genealogy and influenced both Foucault and Deleuze and others. Why limit it to Foucault? Renaissance.lawyer (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Genealogy is bigger than Foucault. Foucault discusses it in relation to Nietzsche, but it is also becoming a method in social sciences. This item should be given time to develop, even if the two articles are alike at the moment. User:ayshemm —Preceding undated comment added 01:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC).

Odd Revision
Most of this article's content was removed by Esperant and replaced with "Genealogy is a term of art " which is both ungrammatical and false. I have reverted it to the earlier version, which while having problems doesnt suffer from being useless and wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.78.225 (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)