Talk:Michel Foucault/Archive 3

Congratulations Wikipedia!
This is the first online article I've read through on Foucault that didn't mention that he was gay or some sort of HIV spreading lunatic. I am quite proud at the standards put forth in this article. 208.2.205.162 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would it be a problem to mention that he was gay? 38.117.213.19 (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem mentioning he was gay. But I see a huge problem that he is in the "Anti-Psychiatry" article. He is being considered as "anti-psychiatrist". I've already said he was not and even left a note where he is claiming he is not anti-psychiatrist. But his name is still on the article.--Justana (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Influences
Can Georges Bataille be added to the list of Foucault's influences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.107.144 (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Foucault FOR lowering consent?
This section is unclear. Did Foucault support lowering the age of consent from 15 or was he campaigning to have it raised from 15?

Surely if he was trying to have it lowered this would be a very serious and damning act. 'Foucault loved along with discourse, structuralism... a nice plump child's arse.'

This needs clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.72.74 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 January 2007(UTC)


 * Can you cite any evidence that Foucault was a pedophile? Nothing that I've read, not even the most sensational things such as Miller's "The Passion of Michel Foucault," makes such a claim, at least so far as I recall.Frederick Dolan (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Foucault supported abolishing the age of consent laws in france completely, "children are sexual" [...]"It could be that the child, with his own sexuality, may have desired that adult, he may even have consented, he may even have made the first moves. We may even agree that it was he who seduced the adult" [...] "In any case, an age barrier laid down by law does not have much sense. Again, the child may be trusted to say whether or not he was subjected to violence." Is it known he did the act of pedophilia? No. Was he seeking to make it easier to have sex with those under 15 yrs old? Yes. guy HOCQUENGHEM said in the same interview: "On the one hand, we didn't put any age limit in our text." [...] As far as this question of consent is concerned, I prefer the terms used by Michel Foucault: listen to what the child says and give it a certain credence." his citation of Foucault's own words is highly suspect in reference to Foucault's own preferences. At the very least it indicates that Foucault doesn't mind if ya do. (http://www.geocities.com/foucault_on_age_of_consent/) josh jeffries 17:52, 24 June 2008

During the '60s/'70s there was a great deal of debate about such things. This was a time when the voting age was higher than it is now, when consensual sodomy was largely illegal, and so on and so forth. At a time when gay marriage was too radical to even imagine in the US, reconsidering the age of consent was on the table. But that is neither here nor there... Foucault was EXTREMELY involved in all sorts of left-wing political movements. Many of them had to do with the reform of prisons and asylums, and with rolling back the criminalization and institutionalization of social deviance. I'm not sure why this letter (which apparently was signed by a large number of academics, like anti-Israel letters today) gets two paragraphs, but not GIP or Vincennes or the student riots or Iran, all mentioned in passing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.163.163 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed; it gets too much attention here because it has the whiff of sensationalism. csloat (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is one more thing that should be mentioned in the article, though perhaps only briefly, since it does have its own article. Skoojal (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Habermas/Foucault debate (what is it?)
This seems to have good citations for research and it probalby should be linked from both of the participants pages. Is there a justification for removing the see also from Foucault in your mind? because I don't think that given the amount of coverage this had in main media and in scholarly journals, that it wasn't worthy of mention, much like the Foucault-Chomsky debate.--Buridan 01:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "See also" sections are almost always a crutch for articles. They tend to be added when no one actually has enough material to add to the concrete discussion, because they are just too easy.  Without some sort of motivating explanation, highlighting the debates Foucault had with Habermas in particular, just reads like special pleading.  Why not Foucault/Althusser? Or Foucault/Lacan? Or a dozen others?


 * I'm not at all against including the actual issue if it really relates to Foucault's notability. I'm not particularly convinced it does so, but a well written couple sentences that explained why this debate was important to Foucault's career or notability would be lovely to have (with an appropriate link in the narrative text).  Absent that, I just don't see a reason for a bare link.  LotLE × talk  02:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * but the bare link was a see also... there should probably be othe see also's like the foucault-chomsky, etc. It just takes time for people to latch onto that and its meaning.  It hardly needs noting that any time two of europes leading intellectuals at the time sit down and talk... that it is significant, people who recognize foucault's name should probably see the foucault/habermas debate.  it really doesn't need extended definition or clarification... I'm not sure adding to notability is the reason it is there.  it is there because the event itself is notable in the life of Michel Foucault. Just like his testimony before the committee on prisons and the chomsky-foucault debate.   I think it should be left for expansion since it actually was something that occured. --Buridan 02:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If the event is significant to the life of Foucault, you should be able to describe its significance in a sentence. Just because something vaguely relates to a biographical subject doesn't mean it warrants inclusion in the biography itself (and nothing in The Foucault/Habermas debate convinces me it has that significance.  I'm not hostile to including that, I just want to see explicitly why it is worth mentioning in the biography.


 * Is the testimony about prisons in the article now? I can go take a look. But likewise, if it is, I want a sentence telling me why it matters to Foucault's notability.  Just to push things slightly in a sarcastic direction, even if it warranted an article, "Lulu's first published paper on Foucault" would not necessarily warrant a mention in Foucault's own biography.  Biographies should not be grab bags of trivia, but should stick close to the actual reasons a biography subject is notable.  Just disagreeing with some other intellectual doesn't make the cut in an academic biography.  If there's more than that, let me see it.  LotLE × talk  03:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * if it were trivial, i would have let it pass, but this debate is probably in the top 20 philosophical exchanges in the 21st century, but like the habermas/derrida exchanges about the future of europe are likely to be for the 21st. google has 649 articles for habermas/foucault debate, 280 in scholar.google.com and amazon has 3 books centering on the topic, which is about 1/2 of the amount as russell's interaction over 30+ years with wittgenstein. --Buridan 11:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is it so very difficult to come up with a sentence saying why it is important then? For all the work spent convincing me an unadorned and unexplained link is important, why didn't you just write a good quality description indicating the important of this debate to Foucault's notability? (The Google vs. Scholar hits seem odd, I'm curious exactly what search you made).  LotLE × talk  14:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear that I'm not exactly a babe-in-the-woods here. I'm not a Habermasian or Habermas scholar: i.e. I haven't read Theory of Communicative Action. But I have read The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, which seems to be what the entire "debate" amounts to. I.e. After Foucault died, Habermas published a well-read book that was partially about Foucault. From what I know, it's really not so much a "debate" as the normal process of critical writing: Given that it is Habermas' book, it makes sense to discuss in Habermas' article. But any debate consists of later theorist trying to imagine what Foucault "might have said" had he lived long enough to read Habermas' book.

It's not necessarily unreasonable to read an important thinker through their later reception. A philosopher's death doesn't necessarily end their notability, or its reasons. I haven't looked, but it would be reasonable for the Hegel article to mention both Kierkegaard and Marx, for example, who shaped "Hegel, as we know him". But without being willing to give even a sentence explaining why this example is like that, I just don't see its place in this particular biography (thousands of people have written about Foucault, after all, both before and after Foucault's death). LotLE × talk 14:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm only passingly familiar with Habermas, but I've read quite a bit of Foucault, and I can certainly voice my agreement with the following argument:
 * "I just don't see [the Habermas/Foucault debate's] place in this particular biography (thousands of people have written about Foucault, after all, both before and after Foucault's death).
 * Lately, someone linked to Discordianism in the See Also section for the article on the Kantian Noumenon. Although there is certainly an arguable connection between the two concepts, it's a stretch, and while the Noumenon may or may not be a notable concept in Discordianism (about which I know very little), Discordianism is certainly not particularly relevant to discussions of the Noumenon. If it's fair to include a link to Discordianism there, it's also fair to include any other ideology that is connected similarly to concepts in the article on the Noumenon-- we would, in other words, have to create a list of "see also" pages that would quickly exceed the actual body of the article in size without adding much useful content.
 * Similarly, while Foucault himself was obviously a very notable element of the Foucault-Habermas debate, that debate isn't necessarily of great relevance to a biograpical article on Foucault. While it may or may not have been "in the top 20 philosophical exchanges in the 21st century", it shouldn't, as I see it, anyway, be mentioned only via a link without an accompanying explanation of how it was, for example, an event of particular formative influence on the life of Foucault. If it is such an event, or if there's some other compelling reason to put it here, then that reason should be further-explained: I agree with Lulu that even if some given subject deserves an article, and even if that subject is definitely connected with the subject of the biography, it shouldn't necessarily be included in the biography, and I think it certainly shouldn't be included without any accompanying evidence for its importance to the biography. How, indeed, is it fair to include the Habermas-Foucault debate and not hundreds of links to other recorded debates in which Foucault engaged during his lifetime in the See Also section here? I'm not saying that it necessarily isn't sensible or fair-- it's just that I can't currently see the reasoning for doing it.
 * And, again, while it is indeed useful to a student of Foucault to know that Foucault participated in this debate, it isn't particularly productive to have a list of hundreds of debates between Foucault and others in the See Also section. If such a list were created, I think it would be better treated as a separate article altogether ("list of debates between Michel Foucault and others", or something like this); that article might more clearly deserve inclusion in this one.
 * I guess my real problem here is that other users need to know precisely why "this debate is probably in the top 20 philosophical exchanges in the 21st century", or at least to see some sources verifying that this is a common position: in my opinion, at least, if it were indeed evidently the case that this debate were of such monumental influence and importance, it would indeed warrant mention in the Foucault article (even though it would still need an explanation).
 * Tastyummy 20:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

His fourth work.
"Some believe that a fourth volume, dealing with the Christian era, was almost complete at the time of Foucault's death. Foucault scholar and friend, Arnold Davidson, has denied that an intended fourth and fifth volume in the series had ever been written."

I didn't want to edit this before discussing it. In Religion and culture: Michel Foucault selected and edited by Jeremy R. Carrette. The author states on page two that, "In his lecture series form 1979 to 1980 Foucault extended his analysis of government to its 'wider sense of techniques and procedures designed to direct the behaviour of men', which involved a new consideration of the 'examination of conscience' and confession in early Christian literature. These themes of early Christian literature seemed to dominate Foucault's work, alongside his study of Greek and Roman literature, until the end of his life.  However, Foucault's death from AIDS left the work incomplete, and the planned fourth volume of his History of Sexuality on Christianity was never published". The author goes on to say in the footnotes that "The fourth volume was to be entitled Les aveux de la chair (Confessions of the Flesh). The volume was almost complete before Foucault's death and a copy of it is privately held in the Foucault archive.  It cannot be published  under the restrictions of the Foucault's estate." The author goes on to include material from Foucault's work in his book in Part III and the following are the title heads.

Part III	Christianity, sexuality, and the self: fragments of an unpublished volume

TWELVE		On the government of the living (1980)

THIRTEEN	About the beginning of the hermeneutics of the self (1980)

FOURTEEN	Sexuality and solitude (1980)

FIFTEEN		The Battle for chastity (1982)

http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Culture-M-Foucault/dp/041592362X/sr=8-2/qid=1158193047/ref=sr_1_2/103-3716621-7326227?ie=UTF8&s=books —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfumoo (talk • contribs)
 * 1) Paperback: 217 pages
 * 2) Publisher: Routledge; 1 edition (August 17, 1999)
 * 3) Language: English
 * 4) ISBN: 041592362X

So fix it! Please go ahead and make an edit that clarifies the facts of the matter. We'd need a better citation to substantiate the "Arnold Davidson" claim, and it's not very important to retain the claim in the face of the published drafts. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

garbage about MF spreading AIDS
We've been through this debate before and it was decided that it was not notable. How many times must we cover the same territory? The unsourced comment that Richard hamilton made some homophobic remarks is really not encyclopedic. It adds nothing to a study of Foucault. I have been reading Foucault and works about Foucault for over 15 years and have never once seen a serious scholar make this claim or address this claim in any serious way. It is simply not a part of the scholarly discussion of Foucault's work or its reception. As far as I can tell, all we have is unsourced speculation from a "Richard Hamilton" -- presumably the "Social Misconstruction of Reality" guy -- portrayed as if it were the opinion of Foucault's critics in general. The speculation itself is completely bogus as even the supporters of hamilton are forced to acknowledge, including the information that the claim lacks evidence and is "implausible" (I would say, impossible) given that Foucault died in 1984, before much was known about AIDS at all. Why is it necessary to include speculation from one guy (without a freakin' citation!) that we acknowledge is without evidence or plausibility? And then attribute that speculation to "conservative detractors" in general? I haven't read Hamilton's book; it is possible that he makes this bizarre claim in there - from the reviews all I can tell is that he does not seem to have understood Foucault's Discipline and Punish. But Hamilton's a scholar, from what I can tell; sociology professor at Ohio State - it seems "implausible" that he would make such an incendiary and homophobic claim in an academic work that he expects people to take seriously. If he does make the claim, quote the passage here in the discussion page and let's talk about it. If there is evidence this claim is serious and that it is taken seriously, then perhaps we can include something here; otherwise, I don't see the point of a passage on a page about foucault dedicated to exposing the fact that a relatively unknown scholar said something stupid, implausible, and lacking in evidence in a book that nobody has really read.

By the way, it is poor form to switch from a named account to an anonymous ip just for the purpose of revert warring or evading the 3RR. It is even poorer form to charge people with "vandalism" for making substantive edits (even deletions) that are well explained. So, Mr. 208.100.228.2, if you are Timeloss, log in as Timeloss; if you are someone else, please get a login, and please stop edit warring. Discuss your proposed change here, as I have. I will not revert again as I am at my limit, but we need to resolve this.--csloat 07:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Foucault and HIV/AIDS source
I still don't think its notable enough to include in the article, but I think I've stumbled upon the source for all the rumours about Foucault spreading HIV. The person who is well documented making these claims, and internationally known, is Camille Paglia.


 * Camille Paglia: People say this was not true, blah blah blah. I'm sorry, I happen to believe it. This information came to me very reliably. There were only two people between me and Foucault. Foucault told a famous gay writer, who told my close friend, who told me, that when he realized he had AIDS, he was so angry that he determined he would take as many with him as he could. He would take as many to death as he could. That he deliberately went to bars and would deliberately have sex with people and not tell them and try actively to take them with him.
 * Source: http://privat.ub.uib.no/bubsy/PagliaAIDS.htm

Presumably she wrote or spoke about this somewhere else as well because the interviewer seemed to be already aware of her comments.--Agnaramasi 16:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "famous gay"
 * "close friend"
 * Paglia is one step away from E!TV.

This search yields more info in the form of an article by Page DuBois that mentions it. Apparently this started with Miller's biography rather than with Camille, but the latter was all too willing to help spread the ludicrous rumor. This would have been 1983, when the disease was barely understood. On Foucault's deathbed, according to Defert, his doctors were still saying "if it's AIDS..." Eribon writes that Foucault suspected but did not know that he had AIDS -- "He never knew the nature of this suffocating illness. Even in the hospital he was making enthusiastic plans for a trip to Andalusia." I haven't read Miller's bio, but according to O'Farrell's (also found through google books), "Even Miller has to admit that he believes the rumor about Foucault's alleged behavior to be 'essentially false' (Miller, 1993: 375)." O'Farrell cites Michael Bartos: "The rumour that Foucault had gone to American bath-houses to deliberately spread HIV should be seen for what it is: a commonplace of the demonisation of people with HIV and an iteration of the standard myths of the malevolent importation of HIV/AIDS." (1997:687-8). OFarrells book is Michel Foucault, SAGE 2005. Sara Mills writes "These stories do seem to be simply part of a fictional backlash response to homosexuality and bear little resemblance to reality." (Michel Foucault, Routledge, 2003, p. 19). There is more for the enterprising researcher to follow up on -- there is more written about this than I had imagined, but looking through google books, almost every mention of the rumor discounts it. Truly, it does not make a lot of sense. And the most likely first source for the rumor does not believe it himself -- according to Jonathan Dollmore (Textual Practice, 9:1 p. 42): "The rumour that Foucault deliberately tried to infect others is discounted; although circulating for almost a decade, Miller finds no evidence for it." Apparently Miller wrote that the rumor was circulating in 1983; this too does not make sense. Among whom was this rumor spreading, one must ask? But of course by stringing together out of context quotes from Foucault about sex and death ("Sex is worth dying for") and placing them in a context where a lot more is known about AIDS than 1983, Foucault is imagined as this predatory killer. It's a vicious way to discredit a scholar. And it's a fascinating example of the academic telephone game. Miller states the rumor and immediately states that it is false, but others reproduce the rumor, citing Miller without noting that he also found no evidence for it. As for Paglia, I find her utterly delusional, and this is far from the only example of that.--csloat 19:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * These rumous are very interesting, and very dubious indeed. I think its especially telling that its not necessary "conservative detractors" but, in the case of Paglia, an anti-Foucaultian feminist critic that spreads them...--Agnaramasi 22:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Prima facie, it appears to be a rumor and nothing more.Vector4F 16:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Power/Knowlege?
Most of us know his theory of Power/Knowledge. However, shouldn't there be something more about the book, than just the title? At least a link to an external site that explains it a bit?

If a link is need, here's a good one: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory54.htm

I just wanted to ask before doing it myself and being considered a vandalist for doing so. 65.23.211.62 23:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, feel free to be bold and edit the article! --Robdurbar 09:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Misleading phrasing about postmodernism
Hullo -- In the introductory paragraphs MF's relationship to postmodernism (he is not "postmodern" in any well-articulated sense of the word, but it often considered as such) is presently correctly but in an order likely to confuse a reader who is new to Foucault. Suggestion (if no one objects after a while I'll change it):


 * During the 1960s, Foucault was often associated with the structuralist movement. Although he was initially happy with this description, he later emphasised his distance from the structuralist approach, and he always unequivocally rejected the 'post-structuralist' and 'postmodernist' labels. Nonetheless, his work is often described as  post-structuralist or postmodernist by commentators and critics.

Sounds good? 140.247.163.163 08:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only a philosopher
Foucault was both a philosopher and an historian. He spent half his life buried in historical archives, was utterly concerned with historical method, and had at least as much impact on historians as he did on philosophy. His archival research was concerned with many other research areas than philosophy, and his interest in these areas was not merely philosophical. It is diminishing Foucault's contribution as an historian not to name him as such in the first line of the entry. The first line should read: "Michel Foucault was a French philosopher and historian." FNMF 15:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was in two minds about editing that because I think the claim needs to be discussed, not least because Foucault himself explicitly denied, more than once, that he was a historian. None of his works, as far as I know, are commonly classified as works of history; I doubt if they'd commonly be found on the syllabus of history courses.  That he enjoyed working with archival sources, and that he has things to say of relevance to historians, is undeniable.  The latter, at least, is true of many philosophers.  Is there any citation which can be provided confirming that Foucault is a historian, or mentioning him in a list of historians?  I only have cites to the contrary: Foucault, intro to volume 2 of his History of Sexuality; Megill, "Reception of Foucault by Historians"...  KD Tries Again 15:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)KD

A number of points can easily be made in relation to the above queries: If that is not enough, here is a quotation from Edward Said that sums up the issue eloquently: "For one, he was the most wide-ranging in his learning: at once the most concrete and historical, he was as well the most radical in theoretical investigation. [...] He was neither simply a historian, nor a philosopher, nor a literary critic, but all of those things together, and then more still. [...] In short, Foucault was a hybrid writer, dependent on—but in his writing going beyond—the genres of fiction, history, sociology, political science, and philosophy. [...] This is by no means to say that Foucault's histories, for example, have no historical validity or accuracy, but it is to say that—like the other works I have mentioned—the form and concern of these histories as artifacts require principal attention as self-aware, mixed-genre performances in the present, full of learning, quotation, and invention. (Edward W. Said, 'Michel Foucault, 1926–1984,' in Jonathan Arac (ed.), After Foucault: Humanistic Knowledge, Postmodern Challenges [New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988], pp. 2–3)." Note that Said's implication here is that Foucault can be classed as, at least, a philosopher, an historian, and a literary critic. Note that the quotation says that Foucault was all these things and more. Note that it refers to his "histories," arguing that while they have historical validity and accuracy, they also require other kinds of attention to be properly understood. If Foucault wished to qualify his status as historian, I do not believe this qualification applies in any way that means an encyclopaedia should not categorise him as an historian. Just as, for example, even though Nietzsche or Derrida (or Foucault) might not quite describe themselves as philosophers, this obviously does not mean an encyclopaedia should not describe them as such. To not be limited to a category, to exceed a category, is not at all the same thing as a decision by an encyclopaedia to exclude someone from that category. FNMF 04:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He wrote a book called The History of Madness in the Classical Age (translated as Madness and Civilisation).
 * He wrote a book called The History of Sexuality.
 * He wrote a book called The Birth of the Clinic.
 * He wrote a book about the history of imprisonment.
 * He gave his chair the title "History of the Systems of Thought."
 * No doubt he was not a conventional historian. Neither was he a conventional philosopher (especially according to the current Wikipedia definition of philosophy). But being an unconventional historian is not an argument against describing him as an historian. If he's not an historian, he's not a philosopher either.
 * It is extremely common for his works to be studied in history courses, and he has been extremely influential in the study of history.

To the above can be added citations from Foucault himself. A typical pronouncement of Foucault's position on his work as an historian is the following: "I would like to write the history of this prison, with all the political investments of the body that it gathers together in its closed architecture. Why? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that writing a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means writing the history of the present. (Foucault, Discipline and Punish, pp. 30–31)." Again: Foucault is concerned here with the way he is not a conventional historian, but is quite explicit that he is a writer of history. Given Foucault's range of interests and methods, and the discipline and commitment with which he explored the depths of historical archives, it is clear that there is no way of claiming that he is somehow not an historian, nor does it make any sense to argue that his work fits better simply within philosophy. He cites obscure historical references far more often than he cites renowned philosophers (which is not at all to deny his philosophical significance). As I stated originally, Foucault was both a philosopher and historian (and more than this). The opening line of an encyclopaedia is not the place to contest this designation, nor the place to argue for one over the other. FNMF 11:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple Question
In this phrase "Foucault became fascinated with psychology. He earned a licence (degree) in psychology, along with one in philosophy; a very new qualification in France, at the time. He was involved in the clinical arm of the discipline, which exposed him to thinkers such as Ludwig Binswanger," I'm curious about the ambiguity of the "new qualification". Surely philosophy was not a new qualification in France athe the time, but psychology was. Right?--AdamFJohnson 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In Popular Culture
What difference does it make if some band has mentioned his name in a song? This is one thing I will never understand about Wikipedia: someone's name is mentioned in some obscure song and that mention is then immediately decreed valuable enough to be embedded in an article about said person. ("Decreed" = Just try erasing it and you will be branded a vandal.) If I made a song and called it Foucault, should I enter this worthless piece of information on an encyclopedia? It would have next to nothing to do with Foucault; it would only be a mention of a name in a song, in other words it has no encyclopedic value whatsoever in context of Michel Foucault's life and works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.233.169 (talk • contribs)


 * Actually, Wikipedia's guidelines are quite explicit in discouraging the addition of nonsensical trivia like the "in popular culture" section you mention here. See WP:TRIVIA.  And feel more than free to remove the section -- as you say, this kind of thing really has no place in an encyclopedia article on Foucault. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. Deleted. FNMF 23:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

College Courses
The table only lists the published courses, but appears to list all the courses. Should All be listed, with publication dates left blank for the not yet published? Agent Cooper 13:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Someone needs to get a picture of Michel up there real fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.211.232 (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Order of Things
What is the source/reference for "A review by Jean-Paul Sartre attacked Foucault as 'the last rampart of the bourgeoisie'." I would like to know where to find this review, or at list another source that explains the polemics. Is it possible to add this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.21.113.141 (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

college de france
Foucault's tenure at Vincennes was short-lived, as in 1970 he was elected to France's most prestigious academic body, the Collège de France, as Professor of the History of Systems of Thought.

I'm not sure you can speak of College de France as "the most prestigious academic body". The Academie is also regarded as very important and prestigious.Rares 11:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This article needs some work if it is to remain FA-class
Just saying. More citations, a bit of cleanup. It is good though.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 02:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Foucault and AIDS
I think the article should mention the rumour that Foucault spread AIDS. The rumour is not part of scholarly criticism of Foucault, but that is beside the point. It is a famous/infamous accusation against Foucault, and is therefore notable. Naturally, I think it should be mentioned only as a rumour; the article certainly does not have to suggest that it is true.

Skoojal (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree - we've been over this before; check the talk archive for the various arguments. The overwhelming consensus was that such rumors do not belong here, since they are completely impossible based on the available evidence (Foucault died in 84, which means he would have known more about the disease than most medical practitioners - not to mention the general public - at the time if they were true).  The sources for the rumor are entirely suspect, and the only credible sources that mention the rumor at all do so only to explain why it has to be false.  There's really no point in wasting time with the extremely volatile claim that someone is a murderer when all the facts, not to mention the general consensus of experts, make pretty clear that the claim was a pretty vicious lie.  Now, the claim might have a place on this page, for example, but it does not belong here. csloat (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that this issue has been raised before. I am aware of the arguments against mentioning the rumour. I am not satisfied with them. The truth or otherwise of the rumour is simply not the issue. It is a well known claim about Foucault, and should be mentioned. Mentioning it in the article is not the same as saying that it is correct. Since there is no evidence that Camille Paglia was the person who originally started this particular rumour, there is no reason why it should be mentioned on the page about her. Skoojal (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a WP:RS that mentions the rumor in the context that you wish to add it?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The rumour is mentioned in James Miller's biography of Foucault. Skoojal (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Provide the quotation in full and we can discuss it, but you have not responded to the arguments that have been raised (over and over, it turns out) when we had this discussion about a year or so ago. Camille Paglia started the rumor, or at least it is first printed to my knowledge (and then later defended it in interviews) -- had you looked at the previous discussion on this matter you would already be aware of that.  As I recall we also discussed the Miller passage as well, but since you seem dead set on defending it here please let us know what you would like to add and we shall discuss again. csloat (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I struck out the above because I misremembered the discussion completely; my apologies. You are right, Miller started the rumor, but it was Camille who repeated it and perhaps popularized it among a fringe group of pseudo-academics who seem to relish scandal but who refuse to engage the thought itself.  The comment I made back in Oct 2006 specifically on the Miller passage is here; if you want to add a paragraph that states that Miller published a complete lie about Foucault that led to the rumor, and explain that Miller himself acknowledges that the rumor had no basis whatsoever in fact, I'd like to see the paragraph but I still suspect it would be more relevant on the Miller page (or Paglia, if you want include the fact that she continues to spread a rumor she knows well to be have been disavowed by its source) than here. csloat (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The rumour is discussed in the postscript to James Miller's The Passion of Michel Foucault. Miller says there that he heard the story from someone else. Unless you have proof that Miller is lying, you can hardly say that he started the rumour. In any case, as Miller did not endorse the story, it makes no sense to accuse him of publishing a lie. To write in the Foucault article that Miller published a lie would quite likely be libellous. It would also probably be libellous to add the comments you suggest to the Paglia article. Paglia did not mention Miller in her interview with Huw Christie. Skoojal (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dumb question, perhaps, but how do we know the Paglia interview is authentic? The web site seems a little sketcky and she comes out of it looking like a fool and a libelous one at that.  Since she's still alive, perhaps the website needs to be verified, however that is done?Editor437 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree that we can't use self-published sources like this. As for the Miller quote, we still don't have it yet, so this whole discussion is academic.  But it's clear that skoojal's response to the above is inadequate.  I never accused miller of lying, I said that he published a lie (and he has acknowledged that it is a lie).  In any case, I wasn't suggesting that we edit the paglia page, only that this nonsense might be more appropriate there than here.  Personally I feel it belongs in neither place.  It's a shame that we can't focus on Foucault's actual works rather than on this utterly vicious accusation (and, by the way, it is a little hypocritical to complain about libel while advocating that we publish baseless accusations that Foucault was a murderer). csloat (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The refutation that "Foucault would've known more about the disease than the doctors did at the time" doesn't hold weight. Even if Foucault didn't know the exact nature of his illness, he had obviously heard of STDs before. The bickering over the Paglia/Miller stuff here is also ridiculous in a few different ways. It's more than a little paranoid to suggest that someone just wrote up such a long fake interview with Paglia--but with that said, that webpage is useless to wikipedia unless a more professional version of the interview can be found (something without a puke green background, maybe?). And the Miller stuff... Really the whole issue here is whether to include the RUMOR or not. While Paglia's quote enthusiastically gives fuel to the rumor, Miller's quote condemns it. (If someone wants to be paranoid again and think Miller only condemned it so he could mention it, that's really beside the point and extremely paranoid. Just because "we" can't find a source that predates the Miller quote doesn't mean that HE started it. If someone REALLY wants to, I suggest they actually do a scholarly search for "Foucault" through some real, printed materials such as biographies, early AIDS articles written by related theorists, journal articles on him from the '80s, etc.) Personally, NO, I don't think the rumor should even be listed here! It's difficult enough to find all that much information about it. The fact that someone as prominent as Paglia supports the rumor is somewhat important, though, even if it makes her look bad; if a credible source of that interview could be found, I think it would go maybe 1/3 of the way toward justifying this rumor on the Foucault entry. As it stands, though, the rumor seems like something a biographer would touch on for one or two paragraphs in a 350-page book, not something wiki-worthy. But again, get a clue: the rumor about Foucault wanting to spread his disease, while unlikely, is not completely IMPOSSIBLE, because other STDs obviously existed before AIDS. Foucault could have speculated that whatever was wrong with him could be passed on sexually. This is SUCH a tenuous rumor, though, and it seems to have died down somewhat over the years. 78.86.140.151 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of adding anything to the Foucault article immediately. I am simply letting you know that I am seriously considering doing so at some time in the future. Exactly how the issue should be addressed is something I am still considering. It's very common for wikipedia articles about famous people to mention rumours about them, without taking a position on whether the rumour is correct or incorrect. Do you see something wrong with this? I think there would be a problem only if it were not standard practice for articles to mention things people have said about their subjects. Skoojal (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have no intention of doing anything about this, then why are you wasting everyone's time with rehashing a discussion that was resolved over a year ago? You haven't even bothered to look up the quote from Miller that you seem to want to add, nor to respond to any of the points made here.  If you just wanted to use the talk page to remind us that a sensationalist like Paglia called foucault a murderer based on a rumor first published by Miller, thanks for the reminder.  But I don't see anything in any of what you've said establishing that such a claim is notable or encyclopedic. csloat (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to re-read what I wrote. I wrote that I have no intention of adding anything immediately. I very likely will add something in the future, possibly in the near future. I am not necessarily going to quote Miller. Instead, I may simply add a brief mention that Foucault was rumoured to have spread AIDS, and that Miller mentioned this rumour and basically dismissed it. I wasn't planning to say anything about Paglia's views; you brought her into the discussion, not me. Nothing that you have said establishes that the claim is not notable; wikipedia articles frequently mention rumours. Skoojal (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The claim is definitely not notable; if you do add it, especially without reliable sources as you are suggesting here, I will remove it. If you want to add something that will not be removed, you should read WP:V and WP:BLP first.  Even though Foucault is not living, we should be very careful about using this page to call him a murderer.  What I would suggest, if you are so dead set on adding information to this page, is that you read not only the relevant Wikipedia policies but also read some books by this gentleman, and try to focus your attention on the discussion of his ideas here rather than on homophobic rumors and scandal.  I'd suggest the same thing about this page, where you seem similarly focused on such trivia rather than on the real content of the page. csloat (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that the rumour about Foucault spreading AIDS is not notable is presented without argument. I have offered several arguments why it should be included, which you have not answered. You offer no evidence that James Miller is not a reliable source. Most of what you are saying comes down simply to the fact that you don't like the rumour, which is not a valid reason for not mentioning it. Your attempt to engage me in discussion here about a different issue is inappropriate. Skoojal (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made arguments, but you chose not to answer them. Instead you answer arguments I never made; I didn't say Miller wasn't a "reliable source."  You have yet to actually quote Miller on any of this anyway!  I never said I didn't "like" the rumor.  I said it wasn't encyclopedic.  And I repeat my point above -- why are you fixated on this?  Why not actually try to write about the notable things that have actually been published about Foucault? csloat (talk) 07:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell me specifically which arguments you think I have not answered. I will answer them. You have not answered my argument that wikipedia articles about famous people often mention rumours about them, and that there is therefore a precedent for including this rumour about Foucault. Your other comments are beside the point. Skoojal (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument that this rumor is not encyclopedic has not been answered. See above and below for several more arguments you have yet to respond to. csloat (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have it answered it, by observing that there are precedents for including the rumour. If you have other arguments, then let's hear them. Skoojal (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not an answer. You haven't cited any precedents; I would suggest such precedents are wrong.  The only reliable source mentioning this rumor says there is nothing to it.  Sorry, but it doesn't belong here.csloat (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention any particular articles because I assumed that you could work out which examples are relevant and look at them for yourself. No one is stopping you from doing that. Suggesting that the precedents are wrong is not helpful without giving a reason. Skoojal (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggesting that precedents exist but that I need to find them myself is unhelpful. Please see burden of proof, which you have not met. csloat (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you really need me to suggest examples, then see, for instance, the page on Sigmund Freud. It mentions several rumours, and not only about Freud's sexual behaviour. See also the page on Adolf Hitler, which also includes rumours about sexual behaviour. Before you complain about it, the mention of Hitler is not intended as a slur against Foucault; wikipedia articles about totalitarian dictators have to follow the same policies as articles about anyone else. The relevant things that Foucault has in common with these two men is that he is famous or infamous, that he is the subject of rumours related to sex, and that he is dead. The burden of proof page has nothing that directly addresses this issue. Skoojal (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is on you to establish the notability and encyclopedic nature of this material; so far you have refused to. The cases of Hitler and Freud are not at all analogous and you must be aware of that.  All you can come up with is that they all involve "sexual behavior."  That may be telling in terms of your own obsession with this material but it does not establish some sort of isomorphic equivalence among these biographies.  First off, the rumors mentioned on those pages are far more prevalent and published and taken seriously by far more reliable sources than this one.  Second, this is not a rumor about "sexual behavior" -- the claim here is that Foucault was a murderer, consciously spreading a disease that he knew (strangely, before anyone in the medical community) would kill its victims.  Third, there is consensus -- near unanimity in fact -- among everyone who bothers to mention the rumor at all that it is completely false.  This material doesn't belong here. csloat (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 'A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.' You have not tried to show either that Miller is not reliable (or I missed it if you did), or that the mention of the rumour in his book is not significant. The examples I mentioned show that there is no reason in principle why rumours cannot be mentioned, even rumours that may well be false, as some of the claims about Hitler's sexuality likely are. You probably know that one recent book that made a certain sensational claim about Hitler's sexuality received a lot of bad reviews. Skoojal (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have shown that the topic has not received "significant coverage." The few people who bother to mention it dismiss it as completely false. Again your comparison to Hitler is inappropriate; the two cases are nowhere near analogous. First this is not a claim about Foucault's sexuality. Second, if an entire book is devoted to Hitler's rumor yet only a sentence or two on page 375 is devoted to Foucault's, only one of these is receiving "significant" coverage. In addition, I agree with the substantive comments of Cailil below on this. csloat (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)First of all Skoojal, Miller actually admits that the rumour was false (page 375 of the 1997 version of his bio of Foucault) he just publicized these remarks - like Paglia did - Miller did not verify them. Commodore Sloat already pointed this out to you above. Raymond Tallis aired the same rumour again in the TLS but his comments were quickly shown to be rubbish. Clare O'Farrell's book Michel Foucault deals with this in a few short pages and shows the rumour to part of a pattern of demonization of HIV infected people, as outlined by Michael Bartos. The only way this rumour can be treated is if it is acknowledged that third party reliable sources regard it as false, anachronistic, unprovable and wrapped up with stereotypes of homosexuality-- Cailil  talk 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether the rumour is true or false is not the issue. It is a widespread and hence notable claim about Foucault. Miller did not quite say it was false. Skoojal (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Skoojal the only thing that is notable about the rumour is that reliable sources regard it as false, stereotypical and without proof. And yes Miller admitted it was "essentially false" (see page 375 of his book).  Being "widespread" on WP means that it is published in multiple reliable sources (who have a good record for fact checking).  Once again the only record of this rumour in sources is where it is discredited.  In short if you are going to deal with this rumour you have to record what is written in reliable sources about it-- Cailil   talk 12:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether the rumour is notable or not. The fact that a reliable source - Miller - mentions it makes it notable. Its truth or falsity is not the issue. Miller does say on page 375 that the rumour is essentially false, but then he goes on to say on page 381 that it was 'highly unlikely' - which leaves open the possibility that it could be correct. Skoojal (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One would have to engage in novel interpretation to make Miller's book support the possibility of the rumour being true - becuase Miller never says that. Once again Skoojal, the rumour is only notable if you record the fact that the reliable sources dealing with it are discrediting it-- Cailil   talk 02:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing I am considering doing is adding a short note reading something like this, 'During the 1980s, a rumour started that Foucault deliberately spread HIV. Foucault's biographer James Miller, who investigated this rumour, concluded that it was highly unlikely to be true.' I don't see why I can't add something like this and give Miller as a source. Skoojal (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you add it, it will be deleted, so what's the point? You haven't been able to justify it, and there seems to be no reason for it other than a rather vicious sensationalism.  Again, I'd urge you to read a book by Foucault, or an essay, if you are really interested in contributing something useful to this article. csloat (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I could equally well ask you what the point would be of deleting it. After all, if you delete it, I will put it back, so what's the point? Try something more constructive than threatening edit war. Your assertion that I have not been able to justify it is again only an assertion. Skoojal (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't threaten an edit war. I suggested it would be removed because it does not belong here.  It is not encyclopedic and it adds nothing of value to this entry.  This is not a tabloid; it is an encyclopedia.  Strangely, you still do not appear to have read any Foucault since my previous suggestion.  Why are you bothering with this page when you don't appear to know anything about this author other than this vicious (and impossible) rumor?  Get back to me after you have read something; I would suggest starting with this essay given your little obsessions, but really you can't go wrong reading any of it. csloat (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone is going to have to add a request for comment. I don't think Commodore Sloat's remarks above really merit a response. Skoojal (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually they do merit a response; your choice not to respond suggests you are conceding that you are wrong. And your refusal to even read anything written by Foucault makes suspect your obsession with adding this claim to the encyclopedia. csloat (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not respond to irrelevant and baseless personal invective. [actually, I take that back - I do respond to this stuff, at least when it's as persistent and as stupid as this] Skoojal (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Skoojal the problem I would have with you adding what you suggest above is this: it doesn't record what the sources say. The sources say that the rumour was: "false" and "unlikely' (Miller); and that is anachronistic, unprovable, part of a discourse of demonization of HIV infected people, and a negative stereotype of homosexuality (O'Farrell). The issue is this if one only records part a the source (ie "there's a rumour") and not the other - one is doing original research through novel interpretation and that would cause it to be removed because that would violate site policy.  If you want to include this you have to record "all significant views (at least O'Farrell as well and any other significant sources) - you couldn't just use Miller. Your sentence would have to read "There was a rumour which is unprovable and discredited by scholars and those who knew Foucault that while in America [...] There is no evidence to support this rumour.". Now bear in mind that this is a featured article written to WP's highest standards. It would very hard to justify why a line like that (about a totally discredited rumour) could be kept in an encyclopedia article-- Cailil  talk 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree -- particularly when we are talking about a totally discredited rumor that calls someone a murderer. csloat (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My proposed two sentences include a mention of the fact that Miller concluded that the rumour was probably wrong. Obviously, since I am suggesting citing Miller as a source for this, it would be wrong not to mention the fact that he rejected the rumour. 'Essentially false' could easily go there instead of 'probably wrong.' I am not sure, however, how 'all significant views' could be included - who decides exactly what is 'significant'? I do not think that the article should say that the rumour has been discredited; it would be just as difficult to prove that it was wrong as that it was right. Skoojal (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV decides what is significant. You might want to read what Clare O'Farrell says about this rumour - my points above are referencing her book Michel Foucault-- Cailil   talk 14:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The page you mention stresses the importance of including significant views. It does not, as far as I can see, include a precise definition of what is significant. Perhaps, in addition to mentioning what Miller says, the article could also mention the views of Edmund White, who knew Foucault. White mentions the rumour in his autobiography and dismisses it. Skoojal (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well as long as the mention is not trivial and as long as it wasn't given undue wieght, the source might be okay. But the overall problem remains.  One would have to say that this rumour is widely discredited, that it is dismissed by the people who knew Foucault, that it is considered part of stereotypes of HIV infected people and homosexuals (O'Farrell), that it is described as unlikely and false (Miller).  Where does a false and discredited rumour (as it is described by reliable sources) fit in an encyclopedic biography article?
 * About WP:NPOV - the policy links to WP:V which explains what views are reliable and significant but one has to read these policies together and with WP:NOR in mind.
 * This conversation could go on and on but Wikipedia is not usenet. I and Commodore Sloat have pointed out that this edit is a)dubiously notable b)disputed & c)very hard to justify since it is a discredited rumour and would be giving undue weight to false information and discredited claims that Foucault "deliberately" infected people with AIDS - thus branding him a murderer-- Cailil   talk 16:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at the article on Sigmund Freud, you'll note that it does mention certain false claims about Freud, in order to discredit them. So even if the rumour were definitely false, there would be no reason why it couldn't be mentioned, in order to discredit it. The fact that the rumour is dismissed by people who knew Foucault may have more than one possible explanation. Skoojal (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh stop already. This is the Foucault page.  If you find something wrong with the Freud page, please use the discussion section there to raise your issues - they are not relevant here.  Your claim that "there would be no reason why" this false rumor "couldn't be mentioned" is hardly a reason to mention it.  I still have no information about why you think this is worth wasting so much of our time and yours with.  By the way, I suggested some Foucault reading for you earlier in this discussion - I look forward to hearing your thoughts about something other than this phony scandal... csloat (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said I saw something wrong with the Freud page. What gave you that idea? The Freud page deals with rumours quite properly, which is why I mentioned it. It is relevant as a precdent. What I have in mind specifically is the mention of the seduction theory episode. The key sentence is, 'Despite this change in his explanatory model, Freud always recognized that some neurotics had been sexually abused by their fathers, and was quite explicit about discussing several patients whom he knew to have been abused.' That's basically the equivalent of saying, 'Foucault did not spread AIDS', and then giving Miller, or whoever, as a source. Since you persist in your stupid attempts at provoking me, I'll add that I have read some of Foucault's books. They make Foucault look bizarre and pathetic, especially The History of Sexuality. What could be more pathetic than for someone who died of AIDS to discuss ancient views about the relationship between sexuality and health? There were numerous times, when, reading Foucault's discussion of some ancient piece of health advice, I wanted to interrupt him, and say, 'Yes, Michel, and if only you had payed more attention to that sensible advice, you might still be alive today.' I know this isn't usenet, Commodore Sloat, but you started the personal abuse, so perhaps you need that reminder more than I do. Skoojal (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) This has become tendentious and is veering off-topic. I recommend you both disengage from each other and I would ask Skoojal to consider refactoring that last comment in light of WP:EQ and WP:CIVIL please. If discussion can't stay on topic it will be removed. Wikipedia is not a battleground-- Cailil  talk 00:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding your point about the notability of the rumour: the notability page says that notability does not directly limit the content of articles, so why raise the issue? As for significance, I still have not seen a definition of this term in any wikipedia article. Skoojal (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a reference to FRINGE. Significance of sources should be commonly understandable but a general rule of thumb is "how widely cited" a work is.  You can only find  that out by doing reading around the topic and finding out how a source is regarded.  Skoojal I'm having to point out that this conversation is tendentious please review the policy explained to numerous times above.  Enough has been said here - wikipedia is not a forum.  I will again ask you to please refactor your above post to Commodore Sloat in light of WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ-- Cailil   talk 01:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree with Cailil here - there is no need to attack me, Skoojal, nor to accuse me of "invective" simply because I have explained my disagreement with you or asked you why you think this proposed change enriches the page in any way. It is telling that when you finally bring yourself to discuss an actual work of Foucault's, all you can do is call it "pathetic" and then turn the discussion right back to the topic of AIDS.  Wikipedia is not a tabloid; it's an encyclopedia.  It is definitely not the appropriate arena in which to sensationalize a rumor that nobody in their right mind actually believes. csloat (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of deleting or modifying my comment. Everyone involved in this discussion knows what I said, and even if I were to delete it from the talk page, it would still be there in its archive. I apologize for nothing. Commodore Sloat accused me of not having read Foucault on the basis of no evidence (or no evidence that I know of - does being an admirer of Foucault give you ESP powers and clairvoyance?)
 * He or she also misunderstood my comment: I didn't call Foucault's books pathetic. I called Foucault pathetic. There is, or should be, no avoiding the feeling that someone who wrote so much about health should have been more careful about his own health, and that someone who wrote about ancient advice not to indulge in sexual excess should maybe have considered following it. Commodore Sloat is not in a good position to talk about others not being in their right minds. This is relevant to the discussion insofar as it shows Commodore Sloat's fanaticism and incapacity for objectivity, and hence the urgent need for people who are not admirers of Foucault to take an interest in this article. Skoojal (talk) 06:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And regarding the page Cailil directed me to, it has to be pointed out both that there is no proof that the idea that Foucault deliberately spread HIV is a 'fringe' theory and that it does not say that 'fringe' theories cannot be mentioned. In any case, none of this is even relevant. That there was (and is) a rumour that Foucault spread HIV is certainly not itself a fringe theory, so the rules about fringe theories have nothing to do with whether it should be mentioned or not. Skoojal (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal is absolutely correct. A rumour that has published sources mentioning it, regardless of its veracity, is certainly noteworthy in wikipedia. The claim "it is not encyclopedic" is a subjective personal opinion that cannot be proven. The claim "wikipedia is not a tabloid" is applying a personal opinion to a proposed edit (i.e. the rumour). You may say it is tabloid like, I may say that a rumor of this behavior is very important when judging the scholarship of Foucault and hence extremely important in an encyclopedia. I believe the argument against the inclusion of the rumour has a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a "scholarly" tool that only presents information that is correct http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michel_Foucault&action=edit&section=18 Editing Talk:Michel Foucault (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaor true. Rather, wikipedi presents all sourced available information, regardless of veracity, to the reader and leaves the judgemnet of veracity completely to the reader.38.117.213.19 (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides the fact that Paglia is certainly a scholar who is sourced as saying that the rumour is true. Accusing her (within the article) of being subjective is fine- as long as it is a sourced accusation.38.117.213.19 (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Skoojal is incorrect, as are you. Until one of you explains how this trivial (not to mention impossible) nonsense would enrich the page in any way, I consider the matter closed. csloat (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It enriches the page by presenting important information about Foucault. If indeed he engaged in this activity than that is certainly important. To sum up: This is sourced information as per Wikipedia standards; a well-known scholar is sourced as lending credence to the information; readers will make their own judgement about its veracity; if it was true than it certainly is important. Why do you believe it to be unimportant (if true)?38.117.213.19 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 20:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This rumour is hardly trivial, at least not if one supposes that deliberately spreading HIV is not trivial. You know very well that hearing it is likely to significantly affect people's ideas about what sort of person Foucault was, as well as the merits of some of his ideas. Were the rumour trivial, it would be inexplicable why you have spent so much time arguing (or simply asserting) that it should not be mentioned. The point of mentioning it is to show people what has been said - rightly or wrongly - about Foucault. That's what an informative, neutral article should do. Skoojal (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually no that is not what is sourced. What is sourced is that the rumour is "dismissed by the people who knew Foucault", that it is considered part of stereotypes of HIV infected people and homosexuals" that it is "unlikely" and "false". Once again, where does a false and discredited rumour fit in an encyclopedic biography article? This open-ended tendentious conversation is disruptive.  No source has or can prove the rumour.  Paglia's remarks are not to WP's standard.  Even if you or anyone else can show a third party source that does not describe the rumour as untrue it would be undue to record fringe theories - especially discreditted ones-- Cailil   talk 23:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You say that this conversation is disruptive. To whom is it disruptive? I was under the impression that the talk page's sole purpose was to discuss edits, and do not appreciate comments that attempt to force acceptance of a specific POV. Please assume good faith. To the issue: it seems that finally we are in agreement that the rumour would indeed "enrich" the page if it can be sourced. We are making progress. Now, to the sources (I am starting a new heading) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.213.19 (talk • contribs)
 * It is disruptive to take what people say out of context and to distort their arguments in order to try to win your point. Cailil did not agree with you that this rumor would "enrich" this page in any way.  The only one asserting that is you, and you have not provided a single reason to support this claim.  Cailil pointed out that all that can be sourced is the fact that this rumor is completely false.  csloat (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comment's personal speculation concerning other editor's motives is innapropriate and an unfortunate degeneration of what should be a serious discussion about the issues. It is important to learn how to assume good faith and refrain from any personal attack. The discussion has continued below where many sources were provided. Good luck.38.117.213.19 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa. I never said anything about Cailil's or your motives and I think it's clear at this point that you are the one personally attacking.  I'd like to ask you formally to stop it.  Thanks. csloat (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the point of my comment seems to have been misunderstood. Here is your comment of above: "to distort their arguments in order to try to win your point." Clearly a direct personal comment concerning another editor's motives. Again, please refrain from personal attacks that merely degrade the level of discourse. Please know that it is the goal of other editors, as I am sure it is yours, to create the best possible article that carefully presents all important information in an unbiased way. Learning to have this assumption of good faith is extremely important in order to reach any concensus, and most certainly on a topic of a controversial nature. Please note that the discussion has continued below where sources are being discussed. Good luck,38.117.213.19 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources for the AIDS information
Here is the quote from Miller in a postscript to the biography: Here is Paglia in her article "Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders: Academe in the Hour of the Wolf" (Arion, Spring 1991): And Paglia again on the University of Bergen's website:Source: http://privat.ub.uib.no/bubsy/PagliaAIDS.htm: Here is a quote from Roddey Reid in "Cultural Critique" No. 35 (1996-1997) in his article "Foucault in America: Biography, 'Cutural War' and the new Concensus" [Source: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0882-4371(199624%2F199724)35%3C179%3AFIAB%22W%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0]: Thus, the rumour is not only well sourced, but is also sourced as saying that it is "reliable" (Paglia), and is significant and part of accepted opinion (Reid).38.117.213.19 (talk)
 * "One evening in the spring of 1987,an old friend who teaches at a university in Boston, where I live, relayed a shocking piece of gossip:knowing that he was dying of AIDS, Michel Foucault in 1983 had gone to gay bathhouses in America, and deliberately tried to infect other people with the disease." (Miller, page 375). He then goes on to doubt the rumour, but eventually concludes "I now had to wonder whether the rumour that had gotten me started was closer to the truth than I had come to think possible". (Miller, page 376-377).
 * "if what I have reliably heard about his [Foucault's] public behavior after he knew he had AIDS is true, then Foucault would deserve the condemnation of every ethical figure." (page 230).
 * "...I happen to believe it. This information came to me very reliably...that when he realized he had AIDS, he was so angry that he determined he would take as many with him as he could. He would take as many to death as he could. That he deliberately went to bars and would deliberately have sex with people and not tell them and try actively to take them with him."
 * "Who was Michel Foucault? A corruptor of youth? A sixties activist intellectual who later answered the call of totalitarian nihilism?...A willing carrier of HIV who spread death in underground sex clubs? As grotesque as they may seem, these judgements about the French philosopher have been circulating in the United states for some years, and have come to represent part of accepted opinion about Foucault's significance." (page 179).


 * This is ridiculous. (1) is out of context; he finds the rumor impossible, as you well know (and of course, it is -- are you suggesting that Foucault knew in 1983 what most scientists did not know, and what his own doctors did not know (they were not even sure he had AIDS then).  How many gay men went to bathhouses in 1983?  Were they all murderers according to your logic? (2) a university website is not a WP:RS for such a quote, and the quote from an RS does not say anything specific about the rumor.  All this stuff shows is that Paglia is delusional, and if you want to make that claim please take it to the Paglia talk page. (3) the article you quote completely out of context here explains what is wrong with your source #1.  Miller's biography is the problem here, and Paglia sensationalizes it even more, but that does not make any of this encyclopedic. csloat (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 38.117.213.19, you are misrepresenting sources and you have misrepresented me above. The way you are using all of these sources especially Miller is as a synthesis to make a point - that's original research. The key words in all of Paglia's remarks about Michel Foucault are "if [...] it is true". She did not and she can not prove this rumour.  It is impossible for Foucault to have known he was dying from AIDS.  There is consensus on this issue not to include it.  Also inclusion would violate site policy - WP:UNDUE.  The only way this rumour can be included is if it recorded that it is considered to be bogus by multiple mainstream sources.  Bogus rumours don't belong in encyclopedias.  This conversation is as I pointed out to Skoojal, tendentious - tendentious behaviour is disrupting this project to make a point-- Cailil   talk 12:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On to the sources. As above you are misrepresenting Miller - because you are being partial in what you quote.  You are also completely misrepresenting Rodney Reid who's essay si about how the "AIDS" spreading ""Foucault," modeled by Miller, operates as a powerful narrative device in a new discourse that plays on populist antiintellectual, anti-gay, and xenophobic sentiments while casting itself as sober, trustworthy, and non-ideological...'" - above in your points the opening paragraph of Reid's essay has been ripped completely out of context in order to advance a point.  In so doing the source is utterly misrepresented.  Reid actually argues that these rumours are false, politically motivated, homophobic and "need to pathologize at any price Foucault's body and the body of his work".
 * The Paglia piece is not a reliable source - http://privat.ub.uib.no/bubsy/ is not the website of Bergen university - it is private ("privat") or personal webspace provided by the University - there is a huge difference.
 * Discreditted rumours are the worst type of fringe theory and fringe theories don't belong in encyclopedia articles - simple as that-- Cailil  talk 12:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, bogus rumours do belong in encyclopedias. One couldn't properly cover Jewish history without mentioning anti-semitic rumours, for example. Likewise, something important is missing from an article about Foucault if a widely repeated rumour about him is not mentioned. Skoojal (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I decline to engage in personal speculation as to whether the rumour is true, and I would advise you to do the same. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however Wikipedia relies on sourced material. Now, to the sources- It does not matter whether Reid is saying that the rumours are not true. He indeed disagrees, however he remains a source for the idea that the rumour is part of significant accepted opinion about Foucault. James Miller also disagrees with the rumour, however he remains a source that such a rumour is extent. Paglia is certainly a well known scholarly source, which we seem to both agree on, and she is quite clearly quoted in the article- beside the university website- as saying the rumour is reliable. Again, you may personally disagree with her, however Wikipedia relies on sourced material.38.117.213.19 (talk)
 * Um 38.117.213.19 that's the point. That interview is not a reliable source - it is self-published becuase it is NOT in the university's official webspace, it's in a private webspace - that's not acceptable.  And once again you are misrepresenting Reid and Miller.  "James Miller also disagrees with the rumour, however he remains a source that such a rumour is extent" - first of all you mean extant, secondly Miller does not "disagree" with the rumour he calls it 'false'.  You cannot manipulate sources that call a rumour false so that it is given credence - that is misrepresentation of sources and is very very serious.  It is also original research.  Demanding the insertion of OR is disruptive.  Continued use of talk pages to push tendentious points is disruptive.  Don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point-- Cailil   talk 08:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)s

Please control the urge to engage in personal speculation concerning other editor's motives. It is extremely important to assume good faith. To the issue: Please read my comment carefully. I provided TWO sources for Paglia, one from a journal (Arion, spring 1991. Reid also quotes her in his article as saying the rumour is reliable). Thus, she is a scholarly published source that the rumour is reliable. Secondly, it seems we both agree that Miller is a source that the rumour is extant (thank you for your sagacious correction). It does not matter whether Miller goes on to say the rumour is false, he remains a source. Thirdly, concerning Reid, I believe your comment fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia policy. It does not matter in the slightest whether Reid personally believes the rumour false; he still remains a clear source, without any interpretation, for the idea that the rumour is part of accepted opinion about Foucault's significance. To sum up, Miller is definitely a source that the rumour is extant. Paglia is definitely a source that the rumour is reliable (again see the article- not the university website). Reid is definitely a source that the rumour is part of accepted opinion about Foucault's significance. 38.117.213.19 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 38.117.213.19, Reid is not a source stating that the rumour is reliable nor is Miller, nor is Clare O'Farrel. Reid and O'Farrell both state that it is an ideologically driven smear campaign - that's what Reid's essay is about.  And no Paglia does not say the rumour is true.  She is very very careful not to say that.  She says "If [...] it were true".
 * And yes context is key. Linking out of context quotes is novel synthesis.  Information must record what the sources say and why they say it.  As I have said above, a whole paragraph would need to be devoted to talking about how a rumour is untrue, unprovable, impossible, part of stereotypes of gay men and those infected with HIV; and also used in an anti-intellectual campaign to discredit Foucault's work.  That's what the sources say about this rumour and frankly if that is what the majority of mainstream reliable sources say then there is no place for that rumour in an encyclopedia article because it would be giving it undue weight.  The issue here is simple the rumour is discredited and is a fringe theory.
 * BTW I have not speculated about your motivations, I described your post and your suggested edit-- Cailil  talk 16:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Paglia was obviously implying that the rumour was true. The context (eg, the immediately preceding remarks about Foucault being a man of mutilated psyche) indicates as much. Someone already made a long post in one of the discussions about how there is no way of knowing that the rumour is false. The claim that the rumour is 'unprovable' would be irrelevant if the claim that it was untrue were correct, and actually contradicts it: if something is 'unprovable' that leaves open the possibility that it is correct. That there is a stereotype about gay men deliberately spreading HIV is irrelevant; such stereotypes certainly are not true in general, but there is no reason why they cannot be true in particular cases. Equally irrelevant is the accusation of anti-intellectualism: how the rumour might be used has no relevance to its correctness.Skoojal (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comment carefully. Reid indeed does not say the rumour is reliable, and I never made that claim. However, he does say that the rumour is part of accepted opinion about Foucault's significance. Do you dispute he says that? Paglia herself says the rumour is reliable. Do you dispute she says that?38.117.213.19 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Anonymous, I'd suggest you re-read Cailil's comments above. Also, just a point of clarification -- Paglia never says the rumor is "reliable."  She says she "reliably heard" something (she doesn't specify what in the only WP:RS you cite).  That could mean a number of things -- e.g. perhaps she trusts the source of the message but not the truth of the message.  (That is quite likely in fact given that Paglia is intelligent enough to know the rumor is impossible but still sensationalistic enough to continue to spread it anyway).  We do not need original research stringing these quotes together; the only way to make this acceptable is to give undue weight to a fringe theory by including a long paragraph of information about the false rumor as Cailil notes above. csloat (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you re-read my comment carefully. Paglia is quite clearly quoted in the Reid article as saying that she believes the rumour is reliable, and this is how Reid understands her. You are entitled to your own personal (and quite interesting) interpretation, however it remains just that- yours and unsourced. Additionally, you have failed to respond to the main points of my comment- Miller is a clear source that a rumour is extant. Do you deny he is? Reid quite clearly says that the rumour is part of accepted opinion about Foucault's significance.Do you deny he says that? Paglia is understood by Reid to be saying that the rumour is reliable. Do you deny he says that?38.117.213.19 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Paglia is not clear about that at all as I pointed above -- saying you heard something "reliably" is not the same thing as saying the thing is "reliable." Again, you're missing the rest of the points above.  Reid clearly says the rumor is false, as does Miller; not that it is "extant" and certainly not that it is encylopedic.  If it is to be added at all, we're going to need to include a long paragraph of information discussing why this rumor is false; ultimately, such a paragraph would violate WP:UNDUE by attaching too much importance to a fringe theory that doesn't belong here in the first place. csloat (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are perfectly obvious reasons why the rumour belongs here. It belongs here for the same reason that any widespread rumours about any person or group belong in articles about them. Or would you remove all mention of anti-semitic rumours from articles about Jewish history? To say in the article that the rumour is false would violate neutral point of view. Skoojal (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I suggest you re-read my comment. Reid quotes Paglia in his article and understands her to be saying the rumour is reliable. You are entitled to your own interpretation but it is just that - yours and unsourced. Additionally, you make the claim that the rumour is fringe. However, again that is your personal opinion until it is sourced. I have brought a reliable source (Reid) that says that the rumour is "part of accepted opinion about Foucault's significance."Reid states this even though he personally believes it to be untrue. Thus, I have brought a source that the rumour is extremely important, regardless of its veracity, and you have (until now) brought nothing more than your personal opinion about the importance of the rumour. 38.117.213.19 (talk)
 * There has been no rebuttal of the sources mentioned for over a month. One- Reid understands Paglia as believing the rumour to be reliable. Two- Reid says that the rumour is part of accepted opinion about Foucault's significance. Thus the rumour is sourced as being extremely far from a fringe theory, and indeed important, with one known scholar actually professing belief. Certainly enough to mention it in the article. Until other sources are provided, these will be the only ones quoted in the article (which will certainly include Reid's personal belief that the rumour is a conspiracy). I will start working on a fair re-write. 38.117.213.19 (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a fringe theory with no possibility of being true, as discussed thoroughly above (and documented with several sources other than the ones you mention). Please do not continue to waste everyone's time with this nonsense, as any additions of libelous and abusive fringe theories such as this one are likely to be reverted.  Thanks! csloat (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone is responsible for how they spend their own time. If you consider participating on this talk page to be a waste of your time, you are always free to stop. Libel does not apply to the deceased. Skoojal (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say participating on the talk page is a waste of time; I said continually disrupting this page with disingenuous arguments that have long since been dispensed with is a waste of time. And your legalistic comment about libel is duly noted but irrelevant -- I suggest that we avoid libeling Foucault because it is the right thing to do, not because we might get sued by his ghost. csloat (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just re-read this entire discussion, from its beginning in early March. The arguments that you and Cailil have made against mentioning the rumour, including the one in your post above, are insubstantial. It's inevitable that someone will add a mention of the rumour, and you will have to face the fact that you don't have a serious case against them doing that. Skoojal (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't troll. If you have a serious argument to make let us hear it.  I have yet to hear  one from you.  Saying your opposing arguments are insubstantial really doesn't cut it. csloat (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 38.117.213.19, tendentious editing is considered disruptive - do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point-- Cailil  talk 17:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your personal opinion as to the veracity of the rumour, however Wikipedia relies on sourced material. You are also entitled to believe it is fringe, however again, that is your unsourced opinion. I have provided sources that you have not responded to. Again: Reid quotes Paglia and understands her to be saying the rumour is reliable, he goes on to disagree believing it is a conspiracy. Reid also says the rumour is part of "accepted opinion about Foucault's significance." This last source is perhaps the strongest reason to include the rumour in the article, regardless of any one scholar's personal belief/disbelief. Ignoring these sources won't make them go away. Cheers,38.117.213.19 (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. By the way csloat, threatening to revert future edits in no way strengthens your argument and is extremely unhelpful. 38.117.213.19 (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. Here is a new direct source where the interviewer asks Paglia what she meant by "reliably heard" and she responds "I happen to believe it." http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/continuum/v4n2.pdf, bottom of page twenty. Add it to the list. 38.117.213.19 (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, 38.117.213.19, if you want to be taken seriously around here, you should probably get a login rather than editing anonymously -- you're very aggressive about this point and it would help people take you seriously if you had at least a pseudonym to stand behind your edits. As it is I have a hard time believing you are for real. You have yet to show any evidence whatsoever that you have ever read a single word Foucault ever wrote, yet you have been on this page for months now demanding that we publish abusive and patently false, homophobic, and vicious rumors just because you think Camille Paglia believes them. The rumor is obviously false as has been discussed to death above -- it is simply not possible for Foucault to have known in '82 or '83 more about AIDS than medical scientists claimed to know. Everyone except Paglia who has mentioned the rumor -- even the sensationalist scandal-mongerer Miller -- agrees that it is false and vicious. Now, if you want to quote the above interview - and I read the entire thing, not just the one sentence you quote - on the Paglia article as evidence of her vicious sensationalism (or even of her complete lack of ability to engage complex thoughts coherently), please go for it. But I don't see how it is relevant here. csloat (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here we go again with you accusing people of not having read Foucault! Wow! You have yet to show any evidence whatsoever that either I or 38.117.213.19 have not read Foucault, or that this is even relevant. The only reason you're focusing on this is because you don't have a serious, plausible argument against mentioning the rumour. Skoojal (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here we go again with you trying to shift the burden of proof in absurd and nonsensical ways. I never claimed to have evidence that you have not read foucault. I said that 38.whatever has not shown any evidence of having read foucault.  And the reason I am focused on this is because I am wondering why he/she wants to be so aggressive on this page.  It's obviously not because of any expertise on (or even interest in!) the topic.  The only value to this suggested addition is to spread a rather vicious homophobic rumor -- why would someone want to do that?  I'm honestly curious.  It would be nice to see this person - or you, perhaps, if you are not the same editor - actually comment on the meaningful points on this page, such as Foucault's quite influential work.  But this nonsense of trying to give credence to an obviously impossible and clearly mean-spirited homophobic rumor, while ignoring Foucault's actual work, really seems to be tangential to the ostensible topic of this page. csloat (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Skoojal this is a serious recommendation and a caution, tendentious editing is disruptive and this conversation has not progressed since your very first post was answered. You turned down the opportunity to have an RfC and have stated above that you consider the matter closed.  If you have revised that decision I recommend you open an RfC here becuase the position that the rumour should be included but the majority of the sources which discredit it (and call it a homosexual stereotype etc) be ignored is untenable.  If the sources are not ignored then the rumour is so discredited that it cannot be included.  If the sources are ignored the post would come under the heading of POV by omission as instead of reflecting sources it ignores them.  If you will not open an RfC here I recommend that this off topic and circuitous conversation stop now-- Cailil   talk 10:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I suggested placing a request for comment some time ago. I hestitated to do it myself because it might look like pressing my own case too much. I can see that there is little point in continuing this discussion, however, I will remark that the issue of stereotypes is irrelevant, unless one assumes that no member of a minority can ever behave according to a stereotype about that minority. Skoojal (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not irrelevant if that's what the sources say about the rumour Skoojal - and it is as I outlined at the top of this discussion. If you can see that "there is little point in continuing this discussion" I'm going to close it-- Cailil   talk 12:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

criticism-section
I've added criticism-section to the ... Criticism section. This info needs to be placed where relevant in the article. The critiques of Discipline and Punish should go in that section. The criticisms of his use of history should go in their appropriate sections etc-- Cailil  talk 21:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

-

I think it is the best to keep the criticism-section. There is so much criticism of Foucault. Usually, the critique cannot be confined to a single work. Examples: Dreyfus & Rabinow's critique of the Archeology has close affinity to their of Discipline and Punish. It is not only concerning Madness that Foucault is accused of selective treatment of data - the same is the case concerning sexuality. It would be akward to say the same both sections - and probably even more sections. Moreover, a neutral way of treat Foucault is to refer his methods and works as neutral and clear as possible so that the reader has a fair chance of understanding it. Particularly concerning 1. and 2., it would generally be more difficult to understand the sections on F's works, if such critique and counter-critique is mixed in. Only in case a criticism concerns something that is explicitly mentioned a works-section, and it is not important for other sections, it should be mentioned in the relevant section. But, that is an exception. Having a good criticism-section would be a wonderful way of boosting and neutralising the article - it is allready not too bad. I have removed criticism-section. Bjerke (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Much can be dismissed due to misunderstandings. If such misunderstandings are widespread, it is relevant to dismiss them.
 * 2) Much of the criticism can be contested, e.g. Dreyfus & Rabinow. Here, it is important that both critique and defence should be mentioned.
 * 3) Some of it seems pretty solid, e.g. his too selective treatment of empirical data.

Request for comment
Should the article on Michel Foucault mention the rumour that Foucault deliberately spread HIV? See discussions above
 * No. It is not a notable aspect of Foucault's bio. One indicator of that is that the standard biography by Didier Eribon (in French) does not mention it, although Eribon discusses in detail Foucault's homosexuality in the context of the attitudes of the time.Itsmejudith (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Itsmejudith. This rumor does not belong here, no matter how many times Camille Paglia pretends to believe it. csloat (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to disagree. Since "Clare O'Farrell's book Michel Foucault deals with this in a few short pages" that's sufficient mention in the academic literature, along with all the rest. people will come to Wikipedia & expect to find out about this, and is has to be mentioned. Very briefly, in a sentence perhaps, with the references. Outrageous slander though I think it is, it's part of the bio & the legend. There will need to be strict attention to avoid making too much of it. Since Paglia's boasted sourcing  accusation is of such a nature as to show her in a very bad light, whether to include it would be questionable under BLP with respect to her--except that she (characteristically) published it.  DGG (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No. WIkipedia should not be in the business of spreading rumors. Perhaps it belongs in the Paglia article, but not here.  The consequences are clear: I can make up anything about someone, get some attention and cause a "controversy", and because the "controversy" is notable get it on Wikipedia.  That is (to choose an old figure) if Paglia wrote "Plato ate live kittens" and this caused a stir, we would not change the Plato page.Editor437 (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As stated ad nauseum to Skoojal and the IP adding this rumour would be undue and frankly an exercise in coat-racking. Biographies are not the place for discredited rumours-- Cailil   talk 19:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)