Talk:Michel Foucault/Archive 2

Date of Demise
Hi,

This is regarding the date of demise as mentioned in the article. The first line of the first paragraph says that Foucalut lived between October 15, 1926 to June 26, 1984. So, the date of demise is June 26, 1984.

But under the title BIOGRAPHY, and subtitle THE LATE FOUCAULT, the last line of the paragraph says, "Foucault died of an AIDS-related illness in Paris July 20th, 1984".

Which of the two versions is correct??

202.68.145.230 14:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Pranesh Bhargava IIT-Bombay, India.

I've changed the date
The article of the date 26th June says that Foucault died on that day. You don't find such a mention on July 20th page. So, I've corrected July 20th to June 26th. Kindly check up again.

202.68.145.230 14:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Truly, Pranesh Bhargava, IIT-Bombay, India.

Why is that last sentence included at all? It's subtly subjective and seems completely out of place. As does news of his death. Get it together, you bungling editors.

Clarifaction of wording re The History of Sexuality
I was fixing up The_History_of_Sexuality which says that a fourth *was* written This sentence: "Foucault scholar and friend, Arnold Davidson, has denied that an intended fourth and fifth volume in the series had ever been written." I take it this means that the fourth and fifth volumes were planned, but never written? HardwareBob 23:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In J.G.Merquoir's book on Foucault, he cites a manuscript of volume four which he was allowed to read... if I remember correctly. Will check it properly. 202.50.126.177 08:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

U Buffalo
Is he actually an alum, or did he just teach there? Someone just added him to the uni buffalo alumni category. Babajobu 15:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He just taught there as a visiting professor. --Panopticon 06:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
I think that is a good idead to add an infobox to Foucault's page, so a made a very incomplete sketch of it. Here it is:

201.2.201.222 19:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A good thing to read over would be the Template_talk:Infobox_Philosopher page. Personally, I agree with the criticisms of the template: the information is or should be redundant, it's not attractive, and it vastly oversimplifies content (much of the interesting information is debatable). In fact, the ideal template would probably pale to one or two well written paragraphs (and fill the same space). --Vector4F 21:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Discontinuities
A reader's perspective. I enjoyed this article very much, and learned a lot from it. Still, I don't think it captured the Foucault idea of discontinuity, which (in my reading) is the fundamental idea in The Archaeology of Knowledge. This metaphor suggests geological strata, which is how Foucault (as I read him) sees history -- epochs of uniquely constituted structures that are mutually incomprehensible... what we think of today as  "mental instsitution," for example, has (in a strict structuralist sense) has very little to do with the way insane asylums were seen a century ago, let alone five centuries ago. Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but I don't get a sense from this article of what made Foucault's work so special, controversial, and -- I might add -- enduring.

Zizek?
Where has Zizek criticized Foucault for relying on enlightenment ideals while criticizing them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.28.21 (talk • contribs)


 * Probably in The Ticklish Subject – I'll try and have a look later. mg e kelly 00:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Foucault
User:Jossi just changed the title of this section to "Criticism." I changed it back, because I think that title is too ambiguous&mdash;it could mean criticism by Foucault, for example his literary criticism. mg e kelly 06:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Foucault and The West Wing
I'm in the middle of watching the finale episode of the NBC White House drama series, The West Wing, in which the fictional United States President Josiah Bartlet is handing over power to his successor. As the White House staff are moving Bartlets' belongings out of the White House, a book with the cover with the title or author name "Michel Foucault" is prominently displayed being taken off the President's bookshelves. President Bartlet, in addition to being an American patriot of the Democrat variety, is a Nobel Prize winning economist and devout Catholic who originally wanted to be a priest. He seems unlikely to be a Foucault fan or even one to own books on Foucault - and The West Wing is not an exercise in radical irony or anti-historical problematization. Cultural critics and TV scholars - what are to make of this insertion of a Foucault shout-out in the final episode then? Bwithh 00:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see why Bartlet would need to be a "Foucault fan" to own a book by Foucault. In the episodes I have seen Bartlet is portrayed as open minded and well read. Perhaps that "explains" what might not need explination if one isn't biased against Foucault. Hyacinth 03:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think its more accurate to describe Bartlet as well-read and highly opinionated, sometimes to the point of close-minded stubborness. Foucault has a reputation as being scorned by "mainstream" academics (with the exception of cultural studies perhaps) as being "anti-progress", and Nobel-winning religious economist heavily involved in official US politics would certainly fall into that category. Even setting the question of whether Bartlet would believably own such a book, there's still the question of why the writers chose to reference Foucault in the final episode. Bwithh 05:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question. Thanks. Hyacinth 20:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand, but correct me if I'm wrong, that the book was "Society Must be Defended". Perhaps the script writers or prop dressers were more interested in the title than who the book was by. In response to Bwithh above - how does being an economist and a Catholic preclude one from being interested in Foucault? This is very slippery ground. One might draw attention to the fact, for example, James Bernauer, a Jesuit priest, is one of Foucault's most well-known sympathetic commentators. There are lots of economists out there who read Foucault's work as well. Panopticon 22:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If that is the book shown, then I agree. Using Foucault's name makes little sense, as it's not particularly tied with a single idea.  The English volume's title, however, invokes a sense of statesmanship, responsibility, civic action, etc. - regardless of what Foucault was talking about. Typical Hollywood. --Vector4F 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncited claim of favoritism
In a recent version of this article, User:Kmaguir1 added the following sentence: "[Foucault] gave his lover an assistantship, and in response to this, there was a faculty inquiry." Does anyone have evidence to back this statement up? --Vector4F 03:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's part of a review or something of that sort on the Miller bio--it's by Roger Kimball. http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/11/mar93/foucault.htm

Looks like you've got a reversion war on!
How about discussing the material here before anymore reverts?

Why are these details important enough to an understanding of Foucault's work and character to be included in the page? Personally, I don't think it's notable at all if he got his lover a job, or if he slept around at sex clubs. However, the review being used as the source for this gossip talks about some of the extreme sex stuff as an expression of the ideas in Foucault's work, and of ideas he admired in Bataille. Can that perspective be supported from the Miller bio or other biographical sources? DanB DanD 05:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus Eaters
Why are these details unimportant enough to be excluded from this webpage? I don't understand Lulu's aversion to homosexuality or that he showed favoritism towards other homosexuals. If it happened, it should be contributed in an unbiased article in search of the truth. I am also unappreciative of the thinly vieled ad hominem Lulu engaged in, accusing myself of being a sock puppet, or kmaguir1 of being my supposed "sock puppeteer". Please disengauge and have a wonderful night. -Truthseekers 06:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If any admins happen to be watching this, and would like to do something about this use of sock-puppet to try to evade 3RR detection in insertion of homophobic original research, a nice solid block of Kmaguir1/Truthseekers would be a wonderful thing. LotLE × talk  06:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your attacks are not only amusing, but entirely baseless. kmaguir1 is my compatriot, not the operator of this account. You'll find that the IP address is completely different, and there is no basis for punitive action. These accusations are merely ad hominem, conducted by a seemingly frustrated individual. I have full right to edit a wikipedia page and include such things as the unbiased information I included in the article that is in question. If this frustrates user Lulu, perhaps he should get more aquainted with the truth, as I am here to stay. -Truthseekers 06:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Phraseology like "It is of considerable speculation..." is neither truth nor original research, it's just gossip.
 * I actually agree that a discussion of Foucault's risky sex practices is on-topic, given his ideas about how attempts to control disease become a means of social control and social division.
 * But the way you're doing it is just gossipy and smutty. Make it relevant by tying it to the ideas expressed in his work--as the Criterion article does.
 * DanB DanD 06:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll conceed that the way kmaguir1 worded it could concievably be construed as smutty. However, kmaguir1 and I are united on this front. Nowhere has he raised question to the wording, but simply re-edits, screaming homophobe all the while. I appreciate your respectful replies and look forward to more innteraction in the future. -Truthseekers 06:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't intend to make it look smutty. But if students, the young and the impressionable, come on here, they should know what Foucault is alleged by his own lover to do (The AIDS/San Fran angle) and what he did for his own lover (the faculty inquiry angle). It goes to his character, integriry, and actions, and who he is as a moral person. Would we cut the Monica Lewinsky stuff from the Bill Clinton article, or the duck-hunting stuff from the Dick Cheney article? These people acted in a way, acceptable or unacceptable, in untraditional. And that should be chronicled--faculty inquiries into his decision go directly to his professional (and in this case perhaps personal) character. I will not budge on this. I'll make edits when the 24 hours for editing are up--Truthseekers, he's my friend, he and I see largely eye-to-eye on this, which is why I brought him in. If he edits, that's cool too. The information was left on this site for the longest of times with no objection. The only objection came when other people from other pages invaded here and felt they possessed moral supremacy. -Kmaguir1 07:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Lewinsky is in Clinton because it had a huge effect on his career. Absent that--no, a brief affair certainly would not meet the criteria of notability for the bio of a public figure.
 * DanB DanD 07:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * An affair that brings into question his ethical fortitude, if you will, has no place in an article about a philosopher? That's strange. By what standard do you draw that conclusion? I think it's very relevant to readers that they realize he is no bastion of ethical perfection but did, in fact, do something questionable. While it had no major effect on his career, it does have a major effect on his memory and how people view him. That's the underlying reason for the volitile reaction the facts have gotten. -Truthseekers 08:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. -Kmaguir1 08:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh for heaven's sake, "It is of considerable speculation" isn't even proper English! I'm going to bed, but at least fix the grammar.
 * DanB DanD 07:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you feel the grammatical stucture is wanting, you are free to edit it. The facts will stay up, however. -Truthseekers 08:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is amusing. The efforts of the Foucault sympathizers is admirable. The staunch bias of some seems to have set them firmly against any insinuation that he committed anything possibly immoral. The edits will stand despite you wanting to hide his unethical behavior. -Truthseekers 09:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Limit Experience"
You know what it's weird that Wiki doesn't have? An article on the limit experience concept in Battaille, etc. Somebody make one--I don't know enough about it, myself. DanB DanD 07:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have left a broken link in the article in the confident hope that someone will swiftly fill the need.
 * DanB DanD 07:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Roger Kimball
After reading through the Roger Kimball hatchet job on Miller's Foucault, I thought it best to delete the passages in the article sourced to that piece. I see above that there is a Wikipedia editor and his acknowledged meatpuppet announcing that they will defend to the death the two sentences I deleted, so I will explain my deletion in some detail below.

First of all, it is clear that Kimball is talking about Miller and not Foucault. It's quite obvious he has never actually read Foucault's work directly. It is certainly possible he was assigned History of Sexuality volume 1 in college by someone he considered a "tenured radical" and felt intimidated because he did not understand it, but I doubt he ever gave much effort to actually trying to get through the book. Kimball is, of course, no philosopher or scholar; he is a right-wing shill. For an obvious example of how feeble his analysis is, just look at this passage on Marcuse: Among the many articulations of false freedom that sprouted in those years, none was more influential than Herbert Marcuse’s Marxist-Freudian tract, Eros and Civilization (1966). Eagerly embraced by countercultural enthusiasts who wanted to believe that heating up their sex lives would hasten the demise of capitalism and bring forth the millennium, it outlines a portentous struggle between “the logic of domination” and the “will to gratification,” attacks “the established reality in the name of the pleasure principle,” and fulminates against “the repressive order of procreative sexuality.” Very Foucauldian, all that. As indeed is Marcuse’s splendid idea of “repressive tolerance,”... Setting aside Kimball's misrepresentation of Marcuse, he seems to miss completely that L'usage des plaisirs (oops)The Will to Know is rather explicitly written in response to Marcuse (as well as Wilhelm Reich). The entire first half of volume one is a critique of the repressive hypothesis; to state that Marcuse's thesis is "very Foucauldian" is, frankly, idiotic. Foucault's thesis is almost the exact opposite of Marcuse's.csloat


 * I'm not quite sure if Foucault and Marcuse are opposites, but neither has any semblance of a connection to Kimball's mischaracterization, certainly. After all, Marcuse invented the concept "repressive desublimation" precisely to explain how "heating up sex lives" could itself be recycled as a tool of control by the state.  In this sense, the actual Marcuse doesn't point in such a different direction than the actual Foucault (with very different explanatory frameworks though)... and both point far away from the Kimbal bugbear.  LotLE × talk  15:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that is basically correct; where they are opposites, IMHO, is in the locus of resistance -- which for Marcuse, following Reich, seems to be the liberation of desire from its desublimated state. Marcuse's "Great Refusal."  Foucault pretty explicitly responds to this.  Perhaps I need to re-read Marcuse on this point.  In any case though, the main point here is accurate - Kimball presents a cartoon version of both.--csloat 21:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But my point is this -- Kimball's review is a review of Miller more than Foucault, and the obsessive focus on S/M and gossip is something Kimball is drawn to in Miller, and not Foucault. (Kimball also seems to take for granted that consensual S/M is the focus of evil in the modern world - to borrow a phrase - ignoring its normalization in Western popular culture. The iconography of S/M sexuality is so prevalent in television, movies, music video, advertisement, etc. as to make it more banal than "transgressive," but that is neither here nor there). The speculation about whether Foucault infected others with AIDS is bizarre; if it appears in Miller's biography, Kimball never quotes it directly. (I have not read Miller's bio, but I have read many reviews of it, and this is the first in which I have seen this claim.) If this claim is to be put in the article, let us be clear on who is speculating what, and whether or not they have any information to back up said speculation. Was there a dying lover who accused Foucault of infecting him via deception? Evidence of nonconsensual unsafe sexual practices? Was Foucault accused of rape? Without something more concrete than Kimball's non-notable and decidedly prurient conjecture on the matter, it is just ludicrous to claim that "it is of considerable speculation" whether Foucault exhibited "homicidal behavior." The obvious grammatical issue aside, nobody seems to be speculating about this except for Kimball. It is possible that such speculation exists in Miller; if so, please quote it here so we can discuss it. (BTW, I'm still not sure that makes it notable -- speaking of prurient gossip, Miller's biography is notorious for such.) csloat


 * No matter who said what, the claim itself is bizarre. When Foucault died, the mode of transmission of HIV, and its relation to AIDS, was simply not known.  Actually, there were just barely preliminary announcements that a virus perhaps existed at all.  The accusation seems to be that Foucault either should have or did predict the medical consensus that would emerge years after his death, and then acted in disregard to that consensus. This isn't "speculation" it's paranoid delusion.  LotLE × talk  16:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this entirely true. The HIV virus was discovered in 1983, but it was found because people were looking for it--it was pretty clear that a sexually transmitted pathogen was the best explanation for a sudden epidemic confined to a group of people who have sex with each other.
 * And the Band Played On depicts a fierce debate over whether or not to shut down the bathhouses as a precautionary measure in the early eighties--they were shut down in 1984, the year of Foucault's death, so the debate was happening in the final years of his life. He may well have been aware of it, and he may well have still been visiting the bathhouses at the time the debate was going on.
 * In the movie of that book (that's right, I don't even read, I'm referencing a movie, go Philistinism!) the main guy opposed to closing the bathhouses uses pop-Foucauldian arguments against it: that the supposed public health measure is really just a covert attempt to control and marginalize "abnormal" sexuality.
 * So I think it's worth talking about. Obviously not in the terms we've seen so far.
 * DanB DanD 17:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Montagnier announced a preliminary result in 1983, but the existence of a specific virus was not widely endorsed (particularly in the USA) until the Gallo/CDC "rediscovery" in 1984; and a specific etiological role was hardly consensus at that point. Certainly, contagious explanations were considered and plausible prior to 1983, but such were certainly not consensus opinion until at least 1985-6.  FWIW, I read the Shilts book, but also read far more than just that about the specific medical history and the consensus process (being an erstwhile philosopher of science myself, and all).


 * So the very most you can possibly claim—and even this is wild speculation still—is that Foucault may not have taken the absolutely most prudent and restrictive plausible medical explanation as controlling for his actions. But even this boundry claim is original research, and doesn't belong in the article.  LotLE × talk  18:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the comment about him getting his lover a job and causing a "faculty inquiry" - again, let's hear what Miller has to say on this, as Kimball is vague on this. He cites a flippant remark allegedly made by Foucault in response to "a faculty-council query," whatever that means. Is a "query" a formal inquiry? Or a question asked in the hallway with a raised eyebrow and a curled lip? Were there actual charges of misconduct brought against Foucault? If so, what was the outcome of these charges? To cite charges without indicating whether he was found innocent or guilty of such charges seems prejudicial. Foucault does not appear to have lost his job over this issue. Did anyone publish a claim that Foucault behaved unethically in this instance? Again, I think Miller's bio might be more illuminating that Kimball's attempt to summarize the most lurid parts of said bio in the most unflattering manner possible. Kimball obviously set out to write a hatchet piece on Foucault using whatever ammunition he could find in Miller; we should not simply reproduce those claims uncritically here. If there is evidence of a formal faculty inquiry into Foucault's behavior, then by all means let's put the claim in, along with whatever is known about that inquiry's outcome.--csloat 09:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Baseless attacks abound from the offended Foucault worshippers. I suggest you drive to my hometown and interrogate me in order to acertain whether or not I created this account of my own volition, out of concern over the bias in the Foucault article. It is my holding that I did, in fact, create this account of my own free will, and moreover, concern over the tyrannical regulation of material in this article. Enjoy your day. I am mine. -Truthseekers 13:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an incomprehensibly strange response. If you feel that the article could be improved, please be clearer than this about your proposed editing.  Jkelly 17:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He's responding to my charge that he is a meatpuppet, which I stand by. His friend acknowledged as much in a post to the Judith Butler talk page.  He is not answering the problems with this vague charge of unethical behavior.--csloat 21:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Prove the meat puppet accusation. To do so, you need to prove that Kmaquir1 had me create this account to further a specific goal and that I had no further involvement other than that. That means that you're going to have to prove that I didn't agree with the revision in the first place, and created only to perform such a revision that I was in niether agreeance or disagreeance with. Should that have been the case, one would think I would have logged off and left by now, rather than refuting the vindictive claims of people trying to sweep enethical behavior under the mat. (Note: I did use the word agreeance above. To some, apparently, that is damning evidence that I'm a sock puppet!) -Truthseekers 03:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No; all I need do is cite the place where Kamgiru admits you are a meatpuppet. Your mental state is not relevant to the issue; I have never claimed that you were not convinced your edits are accurate in some way.  I have no idea what goes on in your head, nor do I particularly care.-csloat 20:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Revisions have been made and sourced, however, they have been ignored and reverted repeatedly. The information submitted brought to light some of the shady dealings of Foucault, something that many appear to want to push under the rug, going so far as to say it is unimportant. I still don't understand how unethical behaviour doesn't pertain to an article about a philospher. -Truthseekers 18:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that you think his "behaviour" was "unethical," does not make it relevent to this article.


 * But the fact that it took place does. Judge for yourself if you think his behavior was unethical. -Truthseekers 04:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And the drama continues.... DanB DanD 19:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no, I was told to make my edit--and so I did. And as I suspected, someone reverted it immediately. -Kmaguir1 19:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Kmaguir1's edit at Michel Foucault. Questions
Some questions about your use of The perversions of Michel Foucault by Roger Kimball as a source for the article on Focault: ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:43, 12 August
 * Is Mr. Kimball a notable authority on Foucault?
 * Is "The New Criterion" website a reliable source as per WP:RS ?
 * Has this speculation by Daniel Defert, been reported on any reliable sources?
 * Why don't you use The Passion of Michel Foucault, by James Miller instead?


 * This discussion should really be here, rather than where Kmaguir1 is carrying it on at the Judith Butler page. Jossi was following a thread there, I understand; but while there is likely overlap, Foucault experts are not necessarily Butler experts, and vice-versa.


 * In any case, summarizing what everyone here other than one-or-two young Lutherans in Memphis agrees on:
 * Kimball is by no means any sort of authority on Foucault; Kimball's knowledge seems to have started and ended with reading one biography, and not very carefully.
 * New Criterion in some general sense can often meet WP:RS. It's a real and longstanding publication; but while it is by no means an "extremist" source in the way WP:RS defines, it is definitely a highly partisan one.
 * Apparently the allegation about a "faculty inquiry" has no source other than Kmaguir1's misreading of Kimball. Kimball tries to insinuate something negative by saying that Foucault's colleagues "queried" him, Kmaguir1 transforms that into a formal inquiry.  As someone above points out, if it happened at all, it was likely in the nature of an informal question in the hallway, and possibly a raised eyebrow.
 * Given than Kimball (as discussed above) doesn't actually write about Foucault at all, but simply reviews Miller's bio, the bio itself is unquestionably more relevant (but less laziness would be needed to read it).
 * I confess that I have not ever much cared about Foucault's biography, so have not read Miller's bio. I've read all (or almost all) of Foucault's actual works, but his personal life is of no particular interest to me (likewise of all the other philosophers I read for their works).  LotLE × talk  21:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also want to say that it isn't really anything unusual for professors to negotiate jobs for their spouses/partners when they are hired at a university. It happens all the time and isn't in any way notable.--Agnaramasi 22:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you read my comments, Lulu, you would see I never wrote nor thought "formal inquiry". I wrote "inquiry" in line with the Kimball article saying 'query'--the same root, as in to inquire, in that they did inquire. The formal inquiry stuff is a TOTAL intentional red herring. Some can inquire of me what the temperature is outside, but for them to formally inquire as to that, that's different--it implies more of a provable misdeed. That's not what the Kimball article states--merely that he was queried about it, in other words, that he was asked about it. You can think that's irrelevant, but that has not been the prevading argument. -Kmaguir1 03:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And Agna, you're rationalizing--the faculty inquired. That is fact. You saying it isn't anything unusual constitutes your own judgment, and not theirs, the judgment they made to query Foucault. Take it up with them. -Kmaguir1 03:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If someone inquires what the weather is, it doesn't belong in wikipedia. This is not notable at all if it is just a "query," and you know it.  If you don't believe there was a formal inquiry, then why do you insist on putting it in wikipedia?  You are clearly trolling.--csloat 03:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought you Christians were supposed to avoid lying. Isn't there some stricture about that?  Jesuits have a rather elaborate system of lying-without-lying, but Lutherans surely not.  Anyway, Commodore Sloat is onto the right point here, of course; something can be verifiable (which this "query" isn't, in any case) without being notable.  If we have strong evidence that Foucault said it was raining to his colleague or that he liked his green sweater, it's not our job to "leave it to readers" to decide whether that's important... it ain't.  And likewise, the possibility that a colleague asked Foucault about Defert's appointment just plain isn't notable by the wildest stretch of imagination (of course if what Kmaguir1 tries to pretend were true were true, there might be a better argument: but there just plain wasn't any "faculty inquiry" into the matter).  LotLE × talk  03:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh. Religious bigotry, eh? Go you. I hope you don't make your edits on that basis. DanB DanD 07:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a Calvinist, not a Lutheran. Get your religion at least somewhat straight. -Kmaguir1 03:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If somebody queries me about whether or not I hired someone because I was having sex with someone, I think that would make it into my bio whether or not it was resolved positively for Foucault. For help with this, see every political sexual harassment scandal in history which was dealt with on allegation-level only. -Kmaguir1 03:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Resolved positively"? So, then you are claiming there was a formal inquiry now?  Where's the evidence?  If we're just talking about a query in the hallways, no, it does not belong in a bio.  If there is a formal inquiry, there may be more to talk about (but even then, yes, the resolution of such an inquiry would be extremely relevant).  As it stands, you can't even demonstrate that Foucault was asked in the halls about this, much less that there was a case brought against him.--csloat 03:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no. No claim of formal inquiry because it's not in the Kimball. Again, ,we have a suspension of edits on that which I have agreed to, in order for me to gain access to the materials (the Miller book). I have no idea of how long that will take, the book is not in my area. I can demonstrate from the Kimball article that Foucault was queried about something by the faculuty... if he were queried about what he wanted for lunch, that's not Wikipedia. If he were queried about whether or not he allegedly murdered someone, that is Wikipedia. Him giving a position to his lover, and that generating controversy, it lies somewhere in between, which is why, along with jossi's request, I am searching for yet more evidence. -Kmaguir1 03:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

<<<Yes, I am still awating for your responses to my questions above, Kmaguir1. All these philosphical discussions about the meaning of queries, lying, and having sex, are fun but irrelevant to the discussion about the validity of the material in your edit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree with you more. The material may take weeks to get here through interlibrary loan. Unless the noble, unpolitical Wikipedians want to assist me in how I might find the darn book. -Kmaguir1 04:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Until then, I won't edit the Foucault page to include the disputed material. I'm having too much fun on the Reformed University Fellowship page.-Kmaguir1 04:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To find the book in a Library near you, click here: ISBN 0674001575 and use the find this book' feature. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 04:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the closest one is Nashville, 3-4 hours away, and my car can't make it that far, so I'll have to wait for Interlibrary material. -Kmaguir1 04:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, while you're ordering books, it might help to order one or two actually written by Foucault and Butler before insisting on further edits to these pages.--csloat 04:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the following: Undoing Gender, Precarious Life, Discipline and Punish, parts of Order of Things. -Kmaguir1 04:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Terrific. Perhaps you could use your no doubt thorough understanding of these texts to illuminate this discussion rather than relying on your equally thorough skimming of Kimball's execrable hatchet-job?--csloat 06:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, in contrast to Kmaguir1's doltish ad misericordiam, it is of no conceivable relevance to Foucault's bio whether some colleague of his asked if he murdered someone. If there were evidence or charges, of course; but just the fact that someone might have once made a bad joke or crass comment is hardly notable. Perhaps Kmaguir1 should consider writing a new series of article "Inane gossip about < >". Heck, maybe start his own Wiki devoted to that, and spare those of us who want to write an encyclopedia. LotLE × talk 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit
Sonofhealfdane, please cease and desist from editing, although I agree with your actions--I think we have consensus in the community that the article should stay the way it is until we can determine the facts of the Miller bio. -Kmaguir1 05:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Brucktard.

I object to your attempts to promote idealised styles of biography, Kmaguir1. De facto hero-worship brought about by failure to fully describe Foucault's documented depraved behaviour does no researcher any good.

-Sonofhealfdane

That may well be, but we're trying to worrk together here. I'm going to go get the Miller bio, and then the discussion will rekindle, hopefully with a bit more tact, and reserve. -Kmaguir1 05:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I reverted, so I don't know why Lulu did--but nevertheless, I agree that we should revert those original changes until a time when we can get confirmation in the Miller bio. Ok, Sonofhealfdane? -Kmaguir1 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I strenuously object to the labelling of Foucault's purported sexual behaviour as 'depraved'. My earlier post, while sensible in spirit, was clearly motivated by an alarmist, homophobic desire to slander Foucault's good name.  While the assertions about his behaviour may be true, they have no place in a source intended for public consumption, for a vast, beautiful rainbow of reasons ranging from Kmaguir1's astute doubts about their factuality to respect for the dead.

-Sonofhealfdane


 * Son, we don't want to be homophobic, nor label Foucault anything. You seem a pretty unstable editor. Let's have a rational discussion about the matter.-Kmaguir1 06:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely, KM1. Shall we proceed according to the rules of formal debate?  I would like you to attack my thesis:


 * Resolved that Michel Foucault was a malicious, sociopathic pillowbiter who willfully infected men with the HIV. -Sonofhealfdane


 * Son, you know that's not called for--Foucault's personal life, while germane, is not for us to attack--we don't want to critique the philosophers' lives, just present them fairly. He made a lot of accomplishments, and those should be recognized. This charge you make--it's slander. I think it's ridiculous, and sad, and that you should really bring yourself closer to Foucault's actual texts, which, while themselves pompous and overlying reliant on the Enlightenment, are a key part of 20th century philosophy. Shame on you for calling him a p**********. That's just sick, man. -Kmaguir1 06:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * KM1, it's unsettling that you obscured the term 'pillowbiter'. It's time we overcome the irrationial fear of pillowbiting which runs wild on Wikipedia and reclaim the term 'pillowbiter' for proud, unafraid use by proud, unafraid pillowbiters everywhere on the Wiki community.  I think Foucault's pillowbite-abetting lifestyle should stand as an example, and I think it dishonours his legacy to thusly obscure the true extent to which he allowed others to bite pillows.  Given his pioneering work on the cutting edge of pillow cuisine, what's a little HIV among friends? -Sonofhealfdane


 * This is just buying into postmodern swill, Son. And I'm displeased you make light of a disease that is affecting the world in staggering proportions, and that you think that that it is a matter of humor. People die every day of it. Do you know that? Have you seen the faces? They're crying, shedding tears. and you think it's a matter of humor. It's just sick. Please try to address matters rationally. -Kmaguir1 06:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Km1, I'm afraid you confused 'pillowbiting' with 'pigfeeding' in your swill accusation. I'd suggest having a look at paraphilia.


 * Secondly, addressing matters rationally hasn't done much for those rationally-minded empiricists trying to cure AIDS, has it? As a Christian Scientist, I recognise that horrible illnesses are impervious to the application of rational thought and experimentation when greater powers desire their existence or elimination through appeals to said greater powers.  Besides, why is tear-shedding a more appropriate reaction than laughing in the face of death and destruction?  When I lost my Haldol prescription in the wash today, I laughed about it rather than cry, because there is no RATIONAL mandate to feel one emotion instead of another.  I happen to find HIV hilarious, and you can't RATIONALLY tell me I'd best find it sad.  Eat your words, heathen.-Sonofhealfdane

Nice trolling Kevin
OK, so it appears that Kevin Maguire has another sockpuppet, Mr. Sonof heaf dane or whatever, and he is arguing with himself in order to ... well, I have no idea what his point is, other than that he's a troll. I suggest that both users be blocked if possible.--csloat 06:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not pleased to be labelled a s********* by the likes of a Wikipillowbiter who has some sort of bias against the letter 'l', motivated no doubt by an irrational fear of lepers, lemurs and lingerie. As neither of us has tampered with the actual resource Wikipedia provides, but have only conducted a heated but civilised discussion in the WikiWank area, I don't see how blocking is justified. -Sonofhealfdane


 * Would you mind, Commodore Sloat, adding the new sock-puppet to the existing report on Kmaguir1 sock-puppets?


 * Btw. Sorry about my last edit, somehow my use of the popup tool to try to restore the last good version went spastic, and I wound up going to the bad version. Apologies, and thanks for fixing it.  LotLE × talk  06:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, again, more accusations of sockpuppetry--he has no association with me. I edited back his changes because I wanted to keep the encyclopedia in a consensus format until facts could be found on the Miller bio. If you ask me, he sounds mentally disturbed, and intent on making extreme sarcasm, inappropriately. I'm going to keep an eye on him, and I'll help to revert any changes. -Kmaguir1 06:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He is not my sock! He can't even keep his line of argumentation straight. I fully support blocking him, for his comments about HIV alone. I would like if you could tell me, csloat, how I could support the process of getting him blocked.-Kmaguir1 07:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't the evidence page about my alleged sockpuppetry contain any mention of my name? -Sonofhealfdane


 * You div, it does! -Sonofhealfdane

Reiteration
I want to reiterate for the record: I reject all of Sonhealfdane's comments, I reject them categorically and without exception, and I support moving to block him for wikipedia, but of course not for sock-puppetry, which is a ludicrous and incredulous charge, but instead for the offensive remarks he made about HIV. That just cannot be permitted, even in jest. Please let me know, again, how I can assist in starting the process of getting him whatever block we can tag him with. -Kmaguir1 07:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: Sonofhealfdane and Truthseekers are blocked indefinitely, KMaguir1 for ten days. --Anthony Krupp 17:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)