Talk:Michel Foucault/Archive 6

Lead section
The final sentence of the first paragraph--which states that Foucault's "philosophical theories addressed what power is and how it works, the manner in which it controls knowledge and vice versa, and how it is used as a form of social control."--is not wrong, per se, but is highly misleading. His work certainly addresses power, what it is, how it works, etc, but that is decisively not the primary point. Given this statement's privileged location--i.e. the first treatment of Foucault's ideas in the article--it makes it seem as if power was absolutely the central concept for Foucault.

That is, quite uncontroversially, wrong. See, for example, Foucault's "The Subject and Power" in Dreyfus and Rabinow's "Michel Foucault." On page 208, Foucault writes: "I would like to say, first of all, what has been the goal of my work during the last twenty years. It has not been to analyze the phenomena of power, nor to elaborate the foundations of such an analysis.

"My objective, instead, has been to create a history of the different modes by which, in our culture, human beings are made subjects. My work has dealt with three modes of objectification which transforms human beings into subjects."

This is unambiguous. Introducing Foucault's project in terms of power is not correct.

---

I think that the lead section of this article should be expanded to form a better summary of the article. See Lead section for more information. – Ilse@ 15:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to have, in just a few sentences, what people are likely to mean when they describe something as Foucauldian. The article seems overly distracted with discussion of whether the philosophy attributed to him is the same as which he genuinely held. I think there should be more emphasis, at least in the intro, on explaining what he is notable for (regardless of whether the notoriety is justified or not). 150.203.48.23 (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

---

A brief note: Structuralism is not "a theoretical movement in social anthropology." Structuralism was/is a theoretical tendency involving authors from most disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. Given this, as well as Foucault's wide influence in many disciplines, it is extremely misleading to suggest a limitation to social anthropology. It is an especially glaring error in light of the fact that the "structuralism" page this word links to begins by defining the term in connection to three disciplines (though in my opinion that list is also too limiting). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.114.213 (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ideas on education & schools?
Apparently he had some really important ideas on schools. Does anybody know what they were? There's not a word in this article about them. 86.44.43.208 (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wasn't he once consulted by French government to consider child education and social policy? (79.190.69.142 (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

Work in Warsaw
I recall reading that MF was advised to leave Warsaw following a sexual affair with a police informer. Does anyone have any idea iof thios is ttrue? (79.190.69.142 (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC))


 * even if it is true, it sounds tabloid and trivial. Unfortunately there are a lot of these rumors floating around about Foucault some used by his opponents directly to discredit him, others as a "so did you hear..." type story used for publicity "I used to sleep with Foucault, and let me tell you...."  neither variety should be given any real credence due to the trivial nature in light of Foucaults contributions to other things.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate this view, however i believe I read it in 'beginner's guide' and initially thought it might be an example of how MF had to change his career and why he had to leave Poland. (79.190.69.142 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC).


 * The problem isn't that it's trivial...it's not. Being kicked out of a country for having sex is not trivial.  Even if it's collaboration horizontal.  The problem is that the quote doesn't elaborate.  Police informers in communist countries were common...coercion by the authorities for petty crimes like moonlights, shoplifting, or disorderly conduct was the usual way to make a stool pigeon.  But a police informer might be anyone who reports a crime.  What was Foucault accused of?  If it was a rape charge, we'd all know about it.  Most likely the informant told them "He hates communism, he must be a reactionary, and a fascist, because he likes to be tied up."  And the handler would think, "Bingo...we can threaten this undesirable, make his friends suspect him, and if he comes up again, we can release some really tawdry stuff to the press."  Poland was a very depressing place at the time anyway, and the anti-Communists would've found little use for his egghead way of expressing himself...he never abandoned the cumbersome "apparatus" he inherited from his mentor, and would've seemed uncomfortably close to the communist style of theorizing.  He would've been a liability had he stayed, so he probably left out of concern for them, rather than threats from the police (Foucault was one of those rare people who might've enjoyed a spell in prison.)  Sounds like an interesting story...I wonder if it's lurking in some old police file.  76.115.63.153 (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, on what grounds does the article claim his time in warsaw made him 'more disillusioned with communist ideology'. In my view we would need a statement from foucault himself rather than just the claims of an extremist sectarian detractor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.32.70 (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Sexual life
Does not this article put too much emphasis on the sexual life of one who is concidered a major thinker of the 20th century? --Animus00 (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably Moagim (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Elaborate on Foucault and the Iranian Revolution
Foucault's work on the Iranian revolution is important to shed some light on. His concept of "political spirituality" and the power of religious subjectivity in the shaping of human life explored the importance of political Islam in the protests of 1978 (Carette 2000, 140; 1999). Also becausa not many authors have written on or translated his work on the Iranian revolution therefore not many people who are interested in Foucault know about it. Also, and this is ideologically motivated, many authors have not written on the subject matter because they feel that the calculations and predictions that Foucault made concerning the Islamic revolution were paired, flawed, or oversimplified. Even though the end result of the revolution was that of the ayatollahs becoming a brutal theocracy, it is still important to share this information with the general public. The following is a good summation of the argument presented before you.

The more common attempts to bracket out Foucault's writings on Iran as "miscalculations," reminds some authors of what Foucault himself had criticized in his well known 1969 essay, "What Is An Author?" Foucault believed that when we include certain words in an author's career and exclude others that were written in a "different style," or were "inferior" (Foucault 2969, 111), we create a stylistic unity and a theoretical coherence. This is done by privileging certain writings as authentic and excluding others that do not fit our view of what the author ought to be: "The author is therefore the ideological figure by which one marks the manner in which we fear the proliferation of meaning" (Foucault 1969, 110). This controversy is frequently discussed in the Foucault literature. [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.93.170 (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. Let's have 150 words on it! The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted someone who deleted a bunch of material on the Foucault-Iran issue. I'm interested in knowing why the information does not belong? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Atheist
Was Foucault atheist or agnostic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizanthrop (talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He wasn't an atheist and hated labels. ExistentialBliss (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure that he explicitly identified as an atheist. But he did not invest in that part of his personal views to the same extent as someone like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. He was like Nietzsche, an atheist without a capital A, with no desire to make it into another source of "Truth". Afghan Historian (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm pretty sure that you are wrong. Where is Foucault quoted as saying that he is an atheist? ExistentialBliss (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got three sources that confirm he was an atheist (1, 2, 3). Any objection to the addition of Foucault in atheistic categories (French atheists, Atheist philosophers etc.) ? Clausgroi (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Read David Macey's Foucault biography where he says "if I wasn't such an atheist, I would..." regarding his admiration for a certain Franciscan order (or at least I think it was Franciscan). Afghan Historian (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Foucault as monk: Now that's an amusing image. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Foucault declared in 1984: "There are times in life when the question of knowing if one can think differently than one thinks, and perceive differently than one sees, is absolutely necessary if one is to go on looking and reflecting at all. People will say, perhaps, that these games with oneself would better be left backstage; or, at best, that they might properly form part of those preliminary exercise that are forgotten once they have served their purpose. But, then, what is philosophy today - philosophical activity, I mean - if it is not the critical work that thought brings to bear on itself? In what does it consists, if not in the endeavour to know how and to what extent it might be possible to think differently, instead of legitimating what is already known? ExistentialBliss (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)"

"Knowledge is not for knowing: knowledge is for cutting." - Michel Foucault "I don't feel that it is necessary to know exactly what I am. The main interest in life and work is to become someone else that you were not in the beginning." - Michel Foucault "Do not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same." - Michel Foucault ~ ExistentialBliss (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"By spirituality I mean [...] the subject's attainment of a certain mode of being and the transformations that the subject must carry out on itself to attain this mode of being. I believe that spirituality and philosophy were identical or nearly identical in ancient spirituality. - Michel Foucault (1984 interview) ExistentialBliss (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)"


 * Interesting quotes. Shows a different side to the man. Should not these make an appearance in the article? If you furnish me the precise sources I can paraphrase them and pack them in. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "There are times in life ...." - The Passion of Michel Foucault (2000) by James Miller, p.36
 * "Knowledge is not for knowing..." - The Foucault Reader (1984) editor Paul Rabinow
 * "I don't feel that it is necessary..." - Truth, Power, Self : An Interview with Michel Foucault (25 October 1982)
 * "Do not ask who I am and do not ask....." - The Archaeology of Knowledge (1972) by Michel Foucault, p. 17
 * "By spirituality I mean..." - Foucault Live (1996) edited by Sylvere Lotringer, p. 443
 * ExistentialBliss (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. On the to do list. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ExistentialBliss (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

missing paper
dear guys, ive got a question: in dits et ecrits 3 (german) there is a lecture mentioned foucault gave in montreal, 15. march 1976, about "alternatives" (haha!) to prison and he gave this lecture in front of a horde of criminologists. he gave critique on them as well as on social workers. but dits et ecrits doesnt say anything about where it is published or even if it has been publishd. anyway, i found this http://foucault.info/Foucault-L/archive/msg08802.shtml but not much more. i am very interested in this so i would be very thankful if anyone would have some piece of information about it. thanks! --88.69.206.30 (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Questionable source
Part of the article says that Foucault was in favor of "the legalization of incest, child molestation, and rape." A reference is provided....to an article on Entertainment Weekly's website. If you check out that article (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,305487,00.html) you will find that the article itself does not list a source (or argument) for its angle that Foucault was in favor of these things. It pretty much just says it...with no qualification whatsoever.

As such, I think that the active authors of this page should strongly reconsider this part of the entry for Foucault. Specifically, I think that a reputable source should be used, and this source should cite its sources. If that's not possible, this part on Foucault deserves to be removed until it's clearly warranted. Right now, it's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.84.51 (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I know he wanted to do away with age-of-consent laws (though it was a reasonable 15 in France). The only 20th century intellectual I know of who ever endorsed rape is Eldridge Cleaver, and his reputation never recovered. Using the concept of "statutory rape", his critics can claim he endorsed rape, and claim that removing a legal barrier would cause an epidemic of incest (cheery view of humanity, huh.) All those things happen even with the harshest punishments. Age-of-consent laws are actually rarely enforced in cases of incest or pedophilia; the usually scenerio is a teenager's parents not liking their kid's bf/gf ("from the wrong side of the tracks") and the age difference is typically a few years. A kid might graduate high school, stay with his slightly younger bf/gf, and end up with 20 years in prison, labeled as a sex offender, being violently raped by psychopaths, and society will claim he deserved it. I can't speak for everyone in that movement (some are NAMBLA types, true, but none advocate decriminalizing actual rape - it tends to diminish one's credibility.) But the Foucault - despite his tendency to romanticize the insane and the anti-social - thought a huge injustice was being committed over an arbitrary number in an arbitrary law. 76.115.63.153 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources? That he wished to discard age of consent laws seems worth noting. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Foucault in Uppsala
I don't think it is correct that Foucault actually submitted his thesis in Uppsala. I mean to have read somewhere that he consulted a professor at the University and was advised not to submit.

Also, I doubt that the french cultural attaché was actually associated with the university, as the article claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.167.166 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The archeology of knowledge
This section is very unreliable since it builds on secondary sources, only. There is no reference to the primary source (not to mention the French version), and there is several statements that Foucault does not say anywhere in the archeology. For instance, that he brackets meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjerke (talk • contribs) 13:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten much of the text about the archeology referring to the Frech version. The problem is that the English translation is problematic on the subject of the "statement" (l'enonce). Thus, in cases of doubt, the original text must be the point of reference. (Bjerke (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

Care of the Self
Pierre Hadot makes some criticisms of Foucaults use of spiritual exercises which he took from Hadot. I think this is worth a mention. Any comments from editors of this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.91.148 (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Critical theory
I have removed:

Foucault argues in The Archaeology of Knowledge that a given discourse is a reflection of power structures and that what one deems to be truth or valid knowledge is based upon the discourse of that time.

It is simply not true ... and there is no references to where he says so. Actually, I don't think he say so anywhere. Rather he says that there is an equivocal relationship between power and knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjerke (talk • contribs) 12:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a more nuanced discussion of the use of Foucault by critical theorists is warranted. The article states that, "The critical theorist seeks to uncover power structures in order to strive for equality." The use of the word "equality" could be seen as referring to a type of identity politics, or politics of inclusion (seeking to simply include additional identity-based groups in formal legal structures, etc.), which Foucault would argue against and which critical theorists using Foucault tend to oppose as well. A discussion of politics of equality vs. politics of difference, and their relationships to Foucault's writings would be useful, and relatedly, Foucault's influence on queer theory and politics would be relevant. (It seems striking that there is no mention of queer theory or politics since Foucault has been a major influence on this field). Katelynnc (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC

from other pilospher i read dont he just end up make difrent schooles becuse his books are tools as he call them not a set of dogmas  that what he write can be used totaly difrent places just like niitxhen can be used as a natzi a exsistensalist and postmodernism and antrosphpic (sombody that think ppl and sociyty for some  reasson suckes and stay for himself in a cottage) so is that the trhuet for other ppl that use him that they are somthing complete difrent  write somthing like that  i guss culture studys some anarchist like thoerys and some redneck post modernists and some kind of stotics that use modern tools

82.147.33.187 (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)murakaims

Later life
It looks like a wrong word in the paragraph. Shouldn't it be "works”, instead of "words” in ...when we include certain words in an author's career and exclude others ... During his two trips to Iran, Foucault was commissioned as a special correspondent of a leading Italian newspaper and his articles appeared on the front page of that paper. His many essays on Iran, published in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, only appeared in French in 1994 and then in English in 2005. These essays caused some controversy, with some commentators arguing that Foucault was insufficiently critical of the new regime. The more common attempts to bracket out Foucault's writings on Iran as "miscalculations," reminds some authors of what Foucault himself had criticized in his well known 1969 essay, "What is an Author?" Foucault believed that when we include certain words in an author's career and exclude others that were written in a "different style," or were "inferior" (Foucault 1969, 111), we create a stylistic unity and a theoretical coherence. This is done by privileging certain writings as authentic and excluding others that do not fit our view of what the author ought to be: "The author is therefore the ideological figure by which one marks the manner in which we fear the proliferation of meaning" (Foucault 1969, 110). This controversy is frequently discussed in the Foucault literature.[16] 99.252.240.166 (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Louis Bertrand May 13 2011 19:04EDT

Expand Section on College of France Lectures
Foucault's lectures at the College are bursting with ideas - some of which he barely expanded upon elsewhere. Given there are now eight in english publication, I think it would be useful to develop a separate entry for these texts. I'm going to try to begin with the trio of Society Must Be Defended, STP, and Birth of Biopolitics.Matthewmatcoz (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Later Life Section and Iranian Revolution
I suggest splitting the 'Later Life' section of the Biography into 2 subheadings. I also want to add citations for some of the quotes in the part on his trips to Iran during the Revolution from the book 'Foucault and the Iranian Revoultion' by Janet Afary and Kevin B. Anderson.

The first subheading would be 'Iranian Revolution' and start with this paragraph:

'In 1979 Foucault made two tours of Iran, undertaking extensive interviews with political protagonists in support of the new interim government established soon after the Iranian Revolution. In the tradition of Nietzsche and Georges Bataille, Foucault had embraced the artist who pushed the limits of rationality, and he wrote with great passion in defense of irrationalities that broke boundaries. In 1978, Foucault found such transgressive powers in the revolutionary figures Ayatollah Khomeini and Ali Shariati whom he referred to as the "idealogue and architect of the Islamic revolution" and also the millions who risked death as they followed them in the course of the revolution. Later on when Foucault went to Iran “to be there at the birth of a new form of ideas”, he wrote that the new “Muslim” style of politics could signal the beginning of a new form of “political spirituality,” not just for the Middle East, but also for Europe, which had adopted a secular politics ever since the French Revolution. Foucault recognized the enormous power of the new discourse of militant Islam, not just for Iran, but for the world.'

The second subheading would be 'Final Years and Death' and start with this paragraph:

In the philosopher's later years, interpreters of Foucault's work attempted to engage with the problems presented by the fact that the late Foucault seemed in tension with the philosopher's earlier work. When this issue was raised in a 1982 interview, Foucault remarked "When people say, 'Well, you thought this a few years ago and now you say something else,' my answer is… [laughs] 'Well, do you think I have worked hard all those years to say the same thing and not to be changed?'"[17] He refused to identify himself as a philosopher, historian, structuralist, or Marxist, maintaining that "The main interest in life and work is to become someone else that you were not in the beginning."[17] In a similar vein, he preferred not to claim that he was presenting a coherent and timeless block of knowledge; he rather desired his books "to be a kind of tool-box others can rummage through to find a tool they can use however they wish in their own area… I don't write for an audience, I write for users, not readers."

I will also go ahead and change 'words' to 'works,' as suggested earlier, in this sentence: 'Foucault believed that when we include certain words in an author's career and exclude others that were written in a "different style," or were "inferior" (Foucault 1969, 111), we create a stylistic unity and a theoretical coherence.'

Blpb (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section issues
There a few issues here:
 * 1) There is a bit of a problem with calling the criticism section just that - Habermas's argument's with Foucault are the normal philosophical back and forth and are very different from the Midelfort argument or even Rorty's point of view. It becomes a bit of a coatrack when one couches these philosophical debates about whether Focuacult was a crypto-normativist, an anarchist, or 'fundamentally negative' with criticisms about 'factuial inaccuracy'. The former are not criticisms "on several grounds", these are debates about what kind of philosopher Foucault was and where his writing sits.
 * 2) Then, the one actual criticism per se - Midelfort's argument - may IMHO not be accurately re-presented here. First of all, can somebody point me to the page numbers from where the line "factually wrong statements" is taken please? In 'Madness and the Problems of Psychological History in the Sixteenth Century' Midelfort argues that Foucault has misinterpretted the concept of ships of fools (p. 6); and as I understand it Midelfort's argument in A History of Madness in Sixteenth-Century Germany is with Foucault's conception of history ("the route by which we have arrived where we are"). There is a big difference between these positions and what we have in the article (that there are multiple and direct accusations of factual inaccuaracy). Furthermore Midelfort's perspective has itself been criticised by Dominick LaCapra and Colin Gordon.
 * 3) As above the current structure of this section, conflating what appear as criticisms (the presentation of Midelfort's argument) with philopsophical debates (Derrida, Habermas, Sartre) is creating a coatrack section.
 * 4) Furthermore it is a bit of a quote farm (this was pointed out before and the quotes are still too long)-- Cailil  talk 13:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaving the Midelfort issue aside for the moment, could 'the normal philosophical back and forth' be addressed at a section called 'Key dialogues', as at the Habermas article? Agree that the quotes are a bit overwhelming and should be pruned. Midelfort's criticism is not well presented in the one liner, but the second ref. categorises it as 'a two decade siege', which, allowing for hyperbole, is surely worthy of mention under some heading. RashersTierney (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Key dialogues" seems like a good idea to me and if/when presented properly (ie accurately and duely) I wouldn't see Midelfort as misplaced in such a section-- Cailil  talk 21:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Am a bit surprised that none of the other 443 'watchers' have got a view on this. RashersTierney (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of changing it to key dialogues, it solves some problems. That being said, I don't think Midelfort should be included in a "key dialogue" section.  His criticism lacks the scope of the other authors and simply pokes holes in specific works while the others were philosophical arguments which covered the project as a whole.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Death and the Labrynth
I noticed that this entire paragraph describing Faucault's work on "Death and the Labryth" is identical to Google Books' description of the work. Doubting that Google plagarized, I wonder if there's a way to cite the whole passage? Google Books, identical passage

Ashley Bodiguel (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The quote is scattered all around the web, including verbatim introductory comment, and all unref'd from what I've seen. Translation may be an issue, but I can't locate the original source. RashersTierney (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly scraped from this article. Ashley is right, its copyvio and needs to go. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a short, and now corrected and referenced quote. Don't really think there is an insurmountable copyvio issue. RashersTierney (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, copyvio is copyvio and it needs to go. That the directly reproduced paragraphs are short is of no relevance. This stuff degrades what we are tying to do here. Kill the paragraph and start again. I know you, and I think you are well capable of fixing this, Tierney. Ceoil (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This review by T. O'Leary seems to be a good starting point for section re-write. Still a little dizzy after reading through. I'll revisit, but if anyone cares to make a start, fire ahead. RashersTierney (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really a Foucault fan, dissintersted to an extent that I dont have enough of a grasp of the sources to be ablbe to make any any kind of a judgement. I'd say your on your own here Rashers. I dont think its a big job though. A few sentences and job done. Ceoil (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't it strange that this was standing for so long? I just rewrote some of the joining words and I think it's OK now. There are really only so many ways one can describe stuff like this. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Fraud?
"His writings on power, knowledge, and discourse have been widely influential in academic circles, while in 2005 the philosopher Roger Scruton described Foucault as an example of a "fraud" who exploited the known difficulties of philosophy in order to "disguise unexamined premises as hard-won conclusions".[1]"

this either needs to be broken up into 2 sentences or reworked somehow! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.183.134 (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It was material that was unacceptable for the lead - "fraud" is not the kind of language that belongs in the lead of an article about an influential thinker (not even if it happens to be true...which I have no opinion about) This kind of material belongs in the section on Criticisms, definitely not in the lead. Hebradaeum (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Length
This article is interesting, but it's far too long for an encyclopedia article. It could be published as a small book. There is too much detail.77Mike77 (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

MIsc/Trivia
Just a very short suggestion: Foucault and Nietzsche shared the same birthday — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iso9660 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place for trivia; in fact we have pretty strict regulations against it, but nevertheless, thank you for your suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Elias
Richardlord50 is trying to add the following material:

'However,one should be guarded on this kind of criticism with the discovery of recently seen letters sent to Foucault by Elias regarding an invite to a conference at Bielefeld organized by Elias.It appears that Foucault had to cancel his scheduled appearance because of his failing health,much to the regret of Elias these letters were discovered at Deutsches Literaturarchiv Marbach archives which contain Elias's work and some letters;interestingly one these works was a copy of Foucault's Archaeology of Knowledge with a whole series of footnotes and annotations by Elias.It appears then,that both;Foucault and Elias,were familiar with each others work.'

This material is problematic for a number of reasons. I doubt that it meets the test of due weight: see WP:UNDUE. Much has been written about Foucault and Foucault's ideas. I'm not sure at all that this material merits inclusion, and the "criticism" section obviously cannot include every view that has been expressed about Foucault, or every piece of evidence that might be relevant to evaluating Foucault. In addition, the material is not written in a way appropriate to an encyclopedia: it's not our place to tell people what is "interesting", for example. Readers can be assumed to be able to work out for themselves what is "interesting" and what is not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I, for one, agree with . I doubt the material would pass WP due weight scrutiny too. And, as FKC has pointed out the material is not written in good enough Encyclopedic style. If it was, it could maybe be worth of putting in a note to the text someplace in the page, not sure where. I mean, if this character Elias is at all mentioned already somewhere else in the existing version... warshy¥¥ 20:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's also not actually responding to the paragraph of criticism to which it was added, but to one detail that was part of one allegation. That the two were in touch with each other -- and even if they were experts on each other's work -- doesn't actually respond to Wehler's accusation of Francocentrism. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  21:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I for one must be suffering from Dyslexia I am not saying(nor am I trying to add weight to a particular criticism that all material must be included)everything must be include and every bit of criticism added.What ever you think of Foucault the charge of fraud is downright disrespectful (comparable to 'queer'bashing and other insults) personal insults aren't the remit of any quality reading device it must be 'just the facts' what ever they maybe.You say "This material is problematic for a number of reasons".Where then is this problem?I would rather you say I(or if you proffer we)simply don't agree with Foucault I for one would be adult enough to accept that explanation.Rather than the cock and bull story "I doubt the material would pass WP due weight scrutiny too".Which is Stretching credulity a little bit(and your name "FreeKnowledgeCreator") say no more and if you could prove to me beyond any reasonable doubt (you know the one where you can scientifically prove within a laboratory setting) then I for one would bow down respectfullyRichardlord50 (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You are certainly correct about one thing: it is indeed disrespectful of Foucault to call him a fraud. However, there's no rule dictating that only respectful views of Foucault should be mentioned in the article. If reliable sources express disrespectful views of Foucault, we can legitimately mention them. Whether I, or you, personally think that Foucault is a fraud is not relevant: Wikipedia doesn't work that way. I've nothing to say to the rest of your rude and confused comments, except to remind you to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If you find my comments rude and confusing please accept my apologies but what I am trying to get across is this:You and I (at least I hope so) are reasonable men and we (yes you and me) should put aside any prejudice we may or may not have and concern ourselves with 'just the facts' that are put across to both of us.Here is one point I whish to make.How can one man(yes one man) fool an entire discipline?This is the whole point that I cannot get any answer too silence is all I get and is reduced to insults(which by your own admittance insults can be mentioned just as long you have reliable sources) I have quoted a reliable source that proves beyond reasonable doubt Foucault and Elias new one another and were well acquainted with each others work.This 'fact' has been suppressed which to my mind is downright untruthful which is desperately sad.Richardlord50 (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Without a WP:RS stating this criticism, it is WP:OR or at least WP:SYNTH. What is the WP:RS that makes this claim?Coffeepusher (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Richardlord50 seems to have misunderstood how Wikipedia operates. The principle here is verifiability, not truth. Article content is acceptable if it meets certain requirements, which include whether it can be verified and whether it meets the test of due weight. "Truth" is not one of the requirements, precisely because it is so often disputed. This means that the question of whether Foucault was a fraud or not, and the related question of how, if he was a fraud, he managed to fool people, thankfully don't need to be discussed. Nor is it appropriate to discuss them, as this is not a forum or a debating site. As for the material about Elias, again, Richardlord50 would need consensus to add it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Richardlord50. In addition to the due weight and venerability concerns raised above, please attend seriously to the issues around writing quality and writing style. This is also important and is one of the reasons that I have removed your other contribution over on the Power (social and political) page. Kind regards Andrew (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Why I'd quickfail this as a GA
I see this has been nominated as a GA. It has certainly been improved, and I've updated the ranting from C to B. However, compared to other sociology GA-level bios such as on Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Karl Marx or Erving Goffman (disclaimer: I've been a major contributor to those), I find the thought/influence lacking. This article is a good biography of Foucault, but it needs to expand, several-fold, its discussion of his thought, impact, influence, and recognition. I recognize that this article covers some of those topics under biography; my recommendation is to move discussion of his work to thoughts. Biography section should discuss things such as his life, career, and acknowledge publication of major texts. Those texts, and his ideas, should be discussed in thought or such sections. Bottom line: an article on Foucault that attempts to summarize his thought in a section that by itself would be a stub cannot be a Good Article, failing, IMHO, Good article criteria 3a "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". Ping User:JJARichardson (if you reply here please ping me back). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that it has great biographical information, but explains little about his own thinking. Despite that, it has a lengthy 'criticism' section, which doesn't quite "give equal validity" for the sake of NPOV (see Good article criteria and Neutral point of view). Links following the bibliography page do summarize each of his works well, but a general overview here would be an improvement. I think it does meet other criteria for being a Good Article, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.192.163 (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I personally think that the article provides a good elementary overview of Foucault's work and legacy. Obviously definite expansion would be needed for it to reach featured quality, but I think it meets the basic criteria for GA for now. JJARichardson (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Piotrus, I wouldnt pass this as GA without dedicated subsections to his main works and the main ideas. The chronological approach that mixes his biography with his works doesn't work well in my view. There is no relation between the Iranian revolution and the history of sexuality for example. Many of the sections dont even mention major works written in the period they cover (e.g. Archaeology of knowledge is not mentioned in the section 1966-70). Each of his works that have an article about them should be have a section here where the standalone article is summarized. Also the criticism/legacy section doesnt really give a coherent picture of either his importance or the aspects of his thought that has been considered problematic by other philosophers. Its just some prominent namecalling, that doesnt really lead to an appreciation of the issues of controversy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Piotrus and Maunus. Criterion 3a ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic") is not as stringent as for featured articles, but too much is missing from the current article for it to pass GA. The informative and well written biography cannot replace a more detailed discussion of Foucault's works, the main concepts for which he is known, and his broad influence across a wide range of disciplines. There is an absolutely enormous literature on Foucault, only a tiny portion of which is biographical. Yet the article relies almost entirely on **three** biographical sources! I also find the "Influence" section too short to balance the "Criticism" section, which (as Maunus rightly says) doesn't properly explain the root of the controversies surrounding Foucault. Foucault also had defenders in each of these debates, so a "Controversies" section might be more appropriate than a "Criticism" section. Madalibi (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Link with Libération?
The article suggests that Foucault was part of the left journalist group APL, which founded the newspaper Libération. However, he's not mentioned at all in the Libération article - either the English or French WP version - and he's not in the French WP article on APL either. I'm tempted to drop a verification rqst in here, as I wonder if we should clarify the connection, which might be more tenuous than it appears. jxm (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Critiques
Plenty of scholars have been critical of Foucault, but we can just add them willy nilly using primary sources. The article should represent the most important critiques. Finding out which ones are most important comes from reading secondary and tertiary sources about Foucault and find out which ones they refer to. We should not just randomly pick primary sources and quote statements from random academics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking through google scholar I find quite a few references to Scruton's critique of Foucault - suggesting that it is notable. These should be used for summarizing his critique, and assessing its relevance. The description should be substantial - noone is the wiser for knowing that Scruton considers Foucault to be "a fraud" - the question is why he disagrees. It seems that basically he disagrees with Foucaults politics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Censorship of criticism of Foucault
This edit by Maunus amounts to censorship of criticism of Foucault. The edit summary given was, "none of these scholars' critiques are particularly notable." Maunus should know perfectly well that notability on Wikipedia governs which topics may have articles created about them, and does not otherwise limit the content of articles. If Maunus does not want to risk accusations of hypocrisy, he should explain how everything he left in the article is "particularly notable." ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I really expected you to know more about our policies. Notability does much more than that. For example it decides how much weight a given topic should have in relation to another topic. Notability determines the amount of weight a critique should have in relation to the topic critiqued. This is necessary in order to determine which critiques to include. Is Roger Scruton's critique of Foucault notable? That is determined by how often it is mentioned in works about Foucault. That can only be ascertained from reading secondary sources and find out which critiques are given weight and which aren't. This is standard procedure when editors are actually improving the wiki instead of just using it as a political tool for culture warring.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To quote WP:NOTE, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." So what I said was accurate. Perhaps you are confusing notability with due weight. I think the relevant issue is whether mentioning the criticisms of Foucault by Scruton and others is helpful or informative to readers. The fact that a prominent living philosopher called Foucault a fraud is definitely worth mentioning, in my view, since it shows that, to say the least, Foucault's views are not universally accepted in the philosophical profession, and nor is his work always highly regarded. I can't see what valid encyclopedic grounds there would be for concealing those facts. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Namecalling is not notable and requires no weight unless it has been widely commented on. And there are no philosophers whose views are universally accepted in the philosophical profession. That would be anathema to how philosophy works - philosophers work by disagreeing with eachother. The fact that Scruton has called him a fraud is utterly irrelevant, what may be notable is why he did it. And for that we need to read secondary sources summarizing Scruton's critique.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ur, you're ignoring the fact that what is "notable" is not the issue. No one was proposing creating a whole article about Scruton calling Foucault a fraud. You've provided not a shred of evidence that anything you left in the article has been widely commented on, so demanding sources showing that Scruton's comments have been so commented upon is hardly reasonable, is it? Scruton calling Foucault a fraud is as relevant as any other philosopher's views on Foucault, perhaps more so, as Scruton has a dedicated article. They meet due weight as one example of a negative reaction to Foucault. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it is reasonable. That is how weight is assigned to different claims and views in an article. If claims and views are sufficiently significant or notable to be included then they have received coverage in secondary sources. If it is notable enough to require weight in the article then it will have been described in secondary sources about Foucault. Please provide some sources that suggest that Scrutons calling Foucault "a fraud" has received any attention in the literature on Foucault. Untill you do the argument cannot proceed. Scrutons claim alone does not show that it merits weight in this article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is not reasonable, because it involves a double standard. You demanded evidence that Scruton's comments about Foucault have been discussed in order for them to be mentioned in the article, but you evidently see no such need for evidence that anything else in the article has been discussed. Your statement, "That is how weight is assigned to different claims and views in an article" is an illogical non sequitur, because it has nothing to do with my point about the double standard (a very polite term). Debating the issue is hard, because you don't quote or refer to the policies you believe bear on this issue. What are statements such as, "If it is notable enough to require weight in the article then it will have been described in secondary sources about Foucault" based upon? It is not even clear what you are trying to say there. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you have difficulties with comprehension of English and basic wikipedia practice. Luckily it is clear that everyone else involved in this issue understands it perfectly well, so we do not need you to understand in order to progress. The problem you have here is the same as in Christina Hoff Sommers where you also fail to understand that it is the job of an article to summarize and represent the literature about the topic. Not to Cherrypick quotes in favor or against the subject. Only that at the Sommers article you are working very hard to exclude any criticism in spite of being repeated in dozens of sources, here you are working very hard to include it although it only exists in a single primary source. Could this seeming discrepancy in judgment about whether to be careful or adventurous with criticism have something to do with the fact that both Sommers and Scruton are conservative thinkers in residence at the Enterprise Institute?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@: I believe what Maunus is saying is more or less this: Is there any one else in Philosophy today other than Scruton calling Foucault openly just "a fraud?" I thing the term is rather strong and diminishing of the intellectual stature of Foucault, even though I think the criticisms that were removed have valid points to them. But overall Maunus is also right in saying that a criticism section should look at what secondary sources describing the work of Foucault are saying about the criticism of it. warshy (¥¥) 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The big problem I see here is weight. I have checked out both articles, the Scruton criticism hasn't generated any traction whatsoever.  I can not find a single source that repeats Scruton's criticism of Foucault.  I can find some sources for the second criticism (15 sources) which by weight doesn't justify a 7 sentance paragraph, especially if Habermas's criticism was only given two sentences.  Habermas's criticism has been translated into at least 4 languages, and a google scholar search of "Habermas Foucault" brings almost 100,000 results, and even has it's own wikipedia page.  So the first criticism has no place in this article alongside the other major criticisms, and I don't believe the second criticism should be included either.  If it is included, it needs to be lengthened down to represent it's impact on the scholarly community in comparison to the other two criticisms. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The representation of Habermas' critique is problematic also since it does not offer any of the substance of the critique reducing it agin to namecalling. This needs to be better represented. The Cambridge introduction to Foucault dedicates the last chapter to "critical reception", but mentions neither Habermas nor Scruton or Wehler. It focuses on critiques from feminist and queer theoreticians and gives enough information to write a full paragraph on each of those groups of critique. We also ought to have a section about the Chomsky-Foucault debate, as well as one on the HAbermas-Foucault debate.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that because Habermas's criticism isn't mentioned the cambridge introductory text, that the substantial body of work around the Foucault-Habermas debate should not be included in this section? Coffeepusher (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * sorry about that, I wrote that before you updated your edit and clarified that we needed to include Chomsky in addition to Habermas.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont think Habermas critique should be in the section. I think it should have its own section where the article on the Habermas-Foucault debate is summarized - that way we can represent the actual substance instead of summarizing it in the word "cryptonormativist". And then I think the criticism section should have the queer/feminist stuff, and perhaps we can fit Scruton in there since apparently his engagements with Foucault has mostly been in the areas of Sexual politics (Scruton believes it is morally correct to repress homosexuality in society for example). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added additional subheaders for critiques or other engagements with Foucault's thinking from specific fields. They are all quite skeletal and should be expanded. I have maintained scruton's critique although it is nowhere as significant as any of the others. Maybe critiques from other conservative thinkers can be found, some google scholar searches didnt find any.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What Maunus was saying about me was patronizing drivel, which I do not need to respond to. I have no comment, of course, on unrelated articles.
 * The problem here is essentially that Maunus is inventing policy as he goes along as an excuse for getting rid of criticism of Foucault. warshy commented that, 'I believe what Maunus is saying is more or less this: Is there any one else in Philosophy today other than Scruton calling Foucault openly just "a fraud?" I thing the term is rather strong and diminishing of the intellectual stature of Foucault.' I am afraid that such comments simply look like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. All it seems to mean is, "I like Foucault, and I do not want Foucault to be criticized." Editors should rise above any inclination to protect their favourite thinkers from criticism. Coffeepusher is correct in identifying due weight as the relevant issue. The relevant policy states that, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I think a brief mention of Scruton's view is appropriate and does meet due weight. It would be inappropriate to devote, let's say, a whole paragraph to Scruton's views, but one sentence or so is acceptable. ImprovingWiki (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You really are both a hypocrite and a moron for saying that. I have an interest in substantial and weighty critiques being included which I have demonstarted by doubling the size of the criticism section yesterday. Scruton does not critique Focault, he mentions him en passant in making an argument about social constructionism. Meanwhile at Cristina Hoff Sommers you are the one arguing that the 12 sources that critique her work as antifeminist devoting chapters to rebutting her claims should be excluded in the interest of BLP. That shows clearly that you are not here to improve the wiki but to push a culture wars agenda by whatever hypocritical means necessary and that you either have no understanding of wikipedia policy or no interest in following it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * One more thing. Although Scruton has in the past argued that homosexuality should be illegal, that was a long time ago (about 1990 or so), and Scruton has indicated that he has changed his views since then. So what Maunus was saying about him is outdated. ImprovingWiki (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the other editors here disagree that Scruton's view needs mention because it doesn't qualify as a significant view in that it has yet to generate any sustained discourse in the field. we aren't dismissing it as WP:IDONTLIKEIT we are questioning it's WP:WEIGHT, and as of now it isn't a significant viewpoint in the field.  Just because it was said doesn't make it significant.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * you keep telling us that Scruton's criticism is significant, but you don't tell us why. so effectively what you need to demonstrate is why exactly Scruton's view is significant, in comparison to the thousands of published scholars who have written about Foucault.  How is his criticism significant enough to deserve mention next to scholars who have books dedicated to their criticism of Foucault written by third parties?Coffeepusher (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I got my hands on Scrutons book yesterday and his critique is insubstantial in the extreme. Across the book he uses less than 5 sentences to describe and dismiss Foucault, simply taking him to be a stand-in for the idea of social construction of meaning which he dislikes. He does not advance any coherent or substantial critique of Foucault in the book. Even within Scrutons work his critique of Foucault seems to not merit weight, much less so in relation to Foucaults work.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed Scruton's piece from the article as notability hasn't been established. Coffeepusher (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Maunus, whatever do you think you're accomplishing by calling me a hypocrite and a moron? Making that kind of comment just makes you look out of control. It's fairly desperate behaviour, for all I know calculated to make me respond in kind. I'll do no such thing. As an adult, with a lot of life experience, I'm happy to say that your insults mean nothing to me. I'll also not respond to irrelevant blather about other articles. Saying that Scruton does not "critique" Foucault is a totally subjective grounds for removing the mention of his views, and simply goes to show what I've said all along, which is that you are making up arguments for getting rid of content you dislike. The relevant issue is due weight. A single brief mention of Scruton's views is not undue, as far as I'm concerned. They should be mentioned as an example of hostile criticism of Foucault, which helps to make it clear to readers that there are philosophers who consider Foucault's work rubbish, not something to be politely "critiqued." ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * how do you plan on demonstrating that Scruton's critique is notable. The issue here is weight, so how is his view significant if there is literally no peer reviewed article that mentions his criticism of Foucault?Coffeepusher (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not plan to demonstrate that Scruton's views are notable, because notability is not a relevant policy; that's been a red herring. Notability concerns which topics may have articles created about them, and no one was proposing to create an entire article about Scruton's view of Foucault. I don't know whether it's true, as you say, that Scruton's views are not mentioned in peer reviewed articles. I do not think that this is an issue under the relevant policy. WP:DUE talks about what is due in very broad terms: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." A brief mention of Scruton's views seems entirely proportionate to its prominence. The demand that other sources discuss Scruton's views does not seem anywhere supported by the policy. The more relevant question to ask would be whether other sources take views similar to Scruton's, and some do, thus Camille Paglia certainly seems to share Scruton's view that Foucault is a fraud. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * well the consensus of this page, based on this discussion and the prior discussion found in the archives, requires that criticisms be evaluated based on how they represent salient arguments which are occurring using reliable sources. I'm simply not convinced that calling Sruton's view significant and prominent while disregarding that the criticism itself takes up less than a paragraph in his own book (spread out) and has not been referenced by anyone of note is proof that the view is significant or prominent.  Without other evidence I think we have a consensus that Scruton doesn't qualify.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue of weight is that there are literally thousands of works about Foucault. It wouldn't be appropriate to include every criticism (or every application of one of his methods, for that matter), so it's extremely important for weight purposes that whatever critique we do include is an important one (a sense of importance that may cause some to use the off-wiki sense of "notable" even if WP:N doesn't apply) as determined by reliable secondary sources and what due weight would be. It may ultimately be that Scruton merits mention but for now I think I agree with . --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As a side-note directed at no one person in particular, the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith in this thread are getting a little out of hand. If there's a problem with another editor, please take it to the appropriate noticeboard; otherwise let's try to keep the discussion about the article rather than about editors. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Where personal attacks are concerned, let it be noted that it was Maunus who chose to direct florid insults at me ("hypocrite" and "moron") and that I said nothing equivalent about him. Needlessly antagonizing people this way is inadvisable at any time, and perhaps especially so when one is dealing with a regular editor interested in similar topic areas. As far as content issues are concerned, Coffeepusher's comment about "the consensus of this page" is a distraction from the real issues. It is revealing that he should appeal to "the consensus of this page" and not to what WP:DUE actually says, which does not support him in the least. Let me quote it again: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Coffeepusher thinks that Scruton's views should not be mentioned because they have not "been referenced by anyone of note", but WP:DUE does not require anything of the kind. The viewpoint that Foucault is a fraud is significant because it has been expressed by Scruton and other prominent writers, and deserves mention for that reason. Nothing that anyone opposed to mentioning Scruton has said addresses this point; all they have done is to give rationalizations for removing content they personally dislike. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * again, simply making claims of it's significance without any evidence whatsoever doesn't make it significant. Now if you feel we are simply ignoring wikipedia standards you are welcome to take it to the WP:DRN, but if you do so I would suggest that in my experience with these boards you may need more than simply stating that "The viewpoint that Foucault is a fraud is significant because it has been expressed by Scruton and other prominent writers, and deserves mention for that reason" without any further evidence. Coffeepusher (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the point about whether it's due isn't necessarily about a source being cited by others (it helps, but it's not an absolute requirement, as you point out); the bigger issue is that you're talking about including one claim published in one source when there are literally tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of papers that talk about Foucault (Google Scholar returns 512k). Now, it's not practical to actually measure proportion and plenty of those sources are unreliable, etc. but for a big claim like "fraud" we need more than one. Put it this way: would you expect a single scholar's allegation of "fraud" to fly on the pages for Plato, Pope Francis, or Barack Obama? Of course not because it would be an even more exaggerated disproportionality. Foucault doesn't have as much written about him as those three, but there's a lot. A single source presenting an opinion may be enough for a little-known subject, but not here. If you feel there are other points made in the article that are not given proper weight I would encourage you to raise them here in a separate thread. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Coffeepusher and Rhododendrites above, and I had asked you directly in my first edit on this discussion, above, on 12/1"Is there any one else in Philosophy today other than Scruton calling Foucault openly just 'a fraud?'"This was a simple and open question, and now you come back saying that "it has been expressed by Scruton and other prominent writers." If you have any reliable sources that document this, as you put it here, then it could be put in the article, it looks to me. Do you have any reliable secondary or tertiary sources that say that other than Scruton? warshy (¥¥) 15:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Coffeepusher, I do not suggest that you are simply ignoring Wikipedia "standards", by which I suppose you mean policy. I suggest rather that you are blatantly misinterpreting and misunderstanding them. Editors often do this, especially when arguing over content that they dislike for whatever reason, and it is a tedious thing to have to discuss. There is nothing in your comments that suggests to me that you actually want to consider the proper interpretation of WP:DUE, which does not surprise me. If you don't care to understand what the policy says, then of course there is nothing to discuss. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I agreed with Coffeepusher I have to assume the above applies to me, too (or maybe it's a more specific criticism?). Aside from some people mistakenly using the term "notable"/"notability" I'm not seeing any "blatant misinterpretation and misunderstanding". So far it is your arguments that have suggested POV, making this about the editors and making accusations about WP:DONTLIKEIT and "blatant misinterpretation" while insisting we include a single source "to make it clear to readers that there are philosophers who consider Foucault's work rubbish" etc. But you haven't responded to any of the arguments here except to say it's not WP:UNDUE and any interpretation to the contrary is a misunderstanding of that policy. If you truly feel NPOV via UNDUE is being misinterpreted/applied/understood here, you have every reason to go to DR or even ANI. But really, I think the only thing anybody wants is more than one reliable source making the same criticism in order to include it in an article for which there are so many thousands of sources. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * are there any WP:RS which back up your claims that this argument is significant and representative of a viewpoint held by both Scruton "and other prominent writers" any sources whatsoever?Coffeepusher (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi ImprovingWiki. This may be a moot point depending on the outcome of this, but I thought I might add my voice to the call for you to provide some sources that support the notability of the content you wish to see included. I do not see evidence of either policy misinterpretation or misrepresentation on the part of Coffeepusher or Rhododendrites, nor do I see evidence of point-of-view pushing. Instead, I see on your end some fairly left field defenses of the material, as well as a reluctance to engage meaningfully with what I think are well articulated and practical concerns (e.g. here and here). Cheers Andrew (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it may well be moot. You will note that I made a point of stating that I do not greatly care about the outcome of the SPI. I admitted using multiple accounts, and the results will be whatever they will be. I am tired of discussing the Foucault article anyway. For the record, however, my "left field" comments were in reaction to a person who for whatever reason was more interested in grandstanding, posturing, and making pompous insults than actually discussing the relevant content policies. They should be seen in that light. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: ImprovingWiki has been blocked as an inappropriate use of multiple accounts by FreeKnowledgeCreator, however User:FreeKnowledgeCreator has not been banned and is still welcomed to edit wikipedia under a single account. As such they may continue this discussion if they feel so inclined.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Answering the 'who?' in the first paragraph
I previously gave an example of the sorts of activists influenced by Foucalt by mentioning, which was justifiably reverted for being too vague I now realize. Would reference more specifically to post-anarchist thought be better? Or would we need specific names?--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, a more general reference to anarchism or post-anarchism would be better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Goffman
To the IP who recently removed Erving Goffman as an influence on Foucault, I would suggest reviewing The Social Thought of Erving Goffman, by Michael Hviid Jacobsen. It identifies Goffman as an "influence on a host of international social thinkers, including Anthony Giddens, Michel Foucault, Nicklas Luhmann, Zygmunt Bauman, Pierre Bourdieu, the ethnomethodologists, the sociology of the emotions, and the work of Randall Collins and Jonathan H. Turner." It is available on Google Books. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Cratology?
Cratology is an ancient orphaned page; should anything be merged into this page, and/or that page deleted? -14:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydronium Hydroxide (talk • contribs)

Mario Vargas Llosa comment
Mario Vargas Llosa says that while he acknowledges that Foucault contributed to give a right of citizenship in cultural life to certain marginal and eccentric experiences (of sexuality, of social repression [and "not cultural" repression, as the article says], of madness), he thinks that Foucault radical critique of authority was detrimental to education. (Vargas Llosa, Mario (2010). Breve discurso sobre la cultura [Short Discourse on Culture]. Letras libres 139: 48–55, (text), (video).)

But I think that even the usage of the expression "social repression" by Mario was possibly an error in the reading of the original discourse (maybe an unpublished version, different of the text at Letras libres), as indicated by a hesitation of Llosa at 43:20 in the video of the discourse. I think he wanted to say instead something like that Foucault contributed in the study of social repression, and to give a right of citizenship in cultural life to certain marginal and eccentric experiences (of sexuality, of madness). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.161.171.209 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories

 * You are wrong and I will revert you and remove the categories again. But first I will explain why you are wrong. The relevant Wikipedia policy is Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality which tells us that "Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person are subject to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Categories, lists and navigation templates: such categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. For example, a living person who is caught in a gay prostitution scandal, but continues to assert their heterosexuality, may not be categorized as gay. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate." Since there are no sources suggesting that Foucault ever identified as "LGBT", but plenty of sources that support his aversion to sexual identity categories, he cannot be tagged with these categories. I leave the "LGBT activist", because he did indeed participate in activism for queer people. Since his philosophy is of the highest relevance for the academic study and philosophy of LGBTQ people, the article should of course be included in the LGBT wikiproject, which is also not covered by the rules for categorization.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I hadnt noticed that someone else had already reverted you. The article does not and cannot state that he "was gay", because he was not. He was a man who often enjoyed having sex with other men and who participated in the gay scene. You cannot posthumously tag him with the identity that he spent half of his work demonstrating was a problematic social construction. So bring the sources that state unequivocally that Foucault "was gay", not that he had sex with men or that he participated in the gay scene in various places in the world, and make them reliable please. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No, based on Foucault's beliefs of what it means, based on what he wrote in hundreds of pages. So present some sources for the "consensus in scholarly sources". A single source stating something does not make a consensus. Meanwhile I will start an RfC.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC:Should Foucault be tagged with LGBT and Gay categories?
This RfC asks if this article should be tagged with the categories: "Gay writers", "LGBT historians","LGBT writers from France"". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes


 * Yes. Reliable sources identify Foucault as gay (to take the example I happened to read yesterday, Lin Foxhall in Studying Gender in Classical Antiquity writes "Foucault himself was gay").  The categories [LGBT|Gay|Bisexual] foo are not limited to people who self-identified as a member of those groups: Sappho is in Category:Bisexual writers, for instance.  Indeed, we have a whole Category:Ancient LGBT people, despite the fact that not a single one of them would have self-identified as LGBT, as the concept did not exist. WP:CATGRS specifically says that a "consensus of reliable sources" is sufficient to categorise a dead person under one of the sexuality subcategories, even in the absence of self-identification by the subject. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Caeciliusinhorto articulates it well. We cannot rely on self-identification for historical subjects simply because they would not recognize the terms. BLP is in place for self-identification. Two examples: Lou Reed and Andy Warhol did not explicitly self-identify as bisexual and gay respectively. In the former, he denied or downplayed his bisexuality. Now that he is dead, he is being identified by category as a bisexual musician, etc. based on reliable sources. Warhol's death predates Wikipedia and although he did not identify by contemporary standards as gay, reliable sources show that he was. We go by sources, and the sources identify Foucault as gay. Academic arguments can be made and will be continued to be made, but Wikipedia is not the academy. As a tertiary source that does not permit original research, Wikipedia goes by sources. freshacconci talk to me  12:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. There are reasons we defer to self-identification in WP:CATEGRS matters for BLPs, and equally good reasons why those standards do not apply once a person has been dead for some time.  The category conveys useful information about the subject to the reader; whether Foucault would have approved or not isn't relevant.  The standard set out at WP:CATGRS is easily met here.--Trystan (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. For reasons already stated above by FreeKnowledgeCreator & Trystan. I also agree with FKC's opinion of this RfC as a waste of time. (in response to RfC)--John, AF4JM (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The bot sent me. I've got to think about this more as I haven't really read Foucault. I've read a lot of Proust. He's got a few LGBT categories. But I don't think one has to "self-identify" as anything to be in a category. Foucault was gay so that should be enough. I don't think Louise Erdrich has to stand up and say "I'm a woman" before we put her in "Women Writers." I do think we've got too many variegated categories that seem over the top after a while. Why not just have a single category LGBT Community? Wouldn't that be easier for readers? SW3 5DL (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Tending toward yes The RfC called me. Self-identification is bordering on the absurd when not BLP. Oscar Wilde never self-identified publicly AFAIK, (his 'love that dare not …' at his trial is ambiguous as to whether the love is sexual or platonic). If the majority of RS characterise him as gay, or principally gay, that is enough. Pincrete (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've decided it's yes. Per Pincrete et al, I don't think self-identification is required. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No
 * No, it should not. Foucault explicitly did not identify as such, and he cannot be posthumously so identified.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The category "Gay writers" does not apply as Foucault never called himself a gay writer nor would the categories "LGBT historians" and "LGBT writers from France" as he wrote a history of sexuality, not a history of queer sexuality or a history of the LGBT. -Mohanbhan (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I don't think Foucault ever openly identified himself as gay, and he did argue vehemently in his writings precisely against identifying people socially by their sexual behavior and preferences. But also, the article as is right now suggests that he did have relationships with other men, but I don't think that the article as is makes it clear beyond doubt with reliable sources that Foucault was gay. So, unless a section about his own sexuality was added to the article with reliable sources, as it is now, the categories should not be applied. warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 13:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * In response to Mohanban it seems to me that the LGBT historian and LGBT writers categories are in fact used for writers and historians who are themselves LGBT regardless of the topics they write about, not writers who write about LGBT topics. If the latter is the case, then I think he might be included.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * ?. No, because the category is in fact labeling historians by their own sexual identities, not by their topics of investigation. If the categories were "Historians of LGBT history" or "Authors writing about LGBT topics" (as Mohanbhan seems to think) then he might have been included, but they are not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That Foucault was never eager to "publicly identify" himself as a gay writer is the point FreeKnowledgeCreator. He sought to escape all identities and said that he wrote so as to "not have a face." Why do you want to force this identity upon him which he was not comfortable with? And yes, I agree with Maunus, these categories are about writers who are LGBT, not about those who write about the LGBT. -Mohanbhan (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Question: is this conflict entirely about the use of the word "gay"? Was Foucault unnambiguously and admittedly sexually attracted only to other men and just the label is at issue, or are his sexual preferences and behaviors themselves at issue? --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * His preferences would rest on speculation, his behaviors on hearsay, but we do know that he wrote strongly against the idea of making sexual preferences the object of identity categories, and that he wrote that sexual preferences ought to be consider fluid, rather than fixed. "Do not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order. At least spare us their morality when we write."·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Freeknowledgecreator is correct in so far as it is possible to find a great many reliable sources that state unequivocally that "Foucault was gay". In that sense it may be valid to apply the part of WP:CATEGRS that states that for non-living persons the consensus of sources may be enough to add the categorization. However, in this case we know that Foucault explicitly did not identify as "gay" or "LGBT" and we know that he was opposed to this kind of identity labeling on principle. Hence it is not a case of someone who was not able to come out, or who lacked the verbal categories to describe themselves, or someone that we simply dont know how they identified. It is a case of someone who made a conscious decision not to identify themselves as fitting into any sexuality based category, and whom we know made such a decision. Hence it is a question of whether we can use this language in WP:EGRS to use posthumous sources to override explicit self-identifications of non-living people. I think that we cannot and that we should not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That is not necessarily the case, and it is a little disingenuous to say so as if it were a simple fact. Your reading of policy for example suggests that Foucault could not have been described as gay while he was a live but that he could be so the day after he died. I think that we have a responsibility to respect the wishes of biographical subjects when we know what those wishes are, also after they are dead.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that wikipedia pays more attention to the self-identification of living people than dead people is hardly a controversial reading of policy. WP:BLP literally begins "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons" [emphasis original]. Though the day after he had died Foucault may still have been covered by WP:BLP, which specifically states that in some cases "for people who have recently died, [...] the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside", as Foucault died in the 80s, there is no possible reading of policy by which he is still covered by BLP restrictions. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've restored the status quo version, as there was clearly no consensus in support of removing the categories.--Trystan (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Alternate title for Surveiller et punir
At Talk:Discipline_and_Punish, I have sought opinions regarding possible alternate translations for the title of Surveiller et punir. I encountered someone who felt it was known as Crime and Punishment rather than Discipline and Punish. Should we have a redirect at Crime and Punishment? Please comment there if you have an opinion on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Influences in lead
I deleted the specific reference to post-anarchism as an example of his influence in the lead and replaced it with broader, more mainstream disciplines that he has shaped. It seemed to me to put undue weight on that particular sub-field, especially given that it linked to an article which itself has multiple issues. If an author wants to write a section under "Influences" that explains Foucault's role in post-anarchism, have at it. I just don't think it belongs in the lead. Jazzcowboy (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Intro
Please see my 21:46, 14 April 2017 edits:

1. Foucault was not a philologist. I mean, really? 2. His educational history and time abroad do not belong in the introduction. 3. I added "structuralist" to what "he was considered" 4. Power-knowledge "used as a form of social control through societal institutions." Might be accurate with a very broad definition of what constitutes a societal institution. I changed to "social control in history" but there may be preferable alternatives and the emphasis on "social control" is questionable. Power & knowledge should be sufficient and inserting an externalized ultimate purpose is not accurate. Their own proliferation could be a better ends. 5. I consolidated his major publication history and emphasized his penal reform agitation, which was the main form of his political activism. 6. Put his death in a separate paragraph. Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * From WP:LEAD. "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." His educational history and time abroad do not establish context, explain notability, or summarize the most important points. If it's best that his life is broken into the second and third paragraphs, then ok. Also, I'm wondering what degree in Psychology he received... Concerning "social control" : a cursory read of the linked page, social control, should be enough to determine that this phrase should be changed. Relationship(s) between power and knowledge I think is fine. But social control through societal institutions is overly problematic and arguably inaccurate. Something like the following would be better: networks of power and knowledge in systemic discourse and social practices throughout history. Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * From WP:LEAD. "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." His educational history and time abroad do not establish context, explain notability, or summarize the most important points. If it's best that his life is broken into the second and third paragraphs, then ok. Also, I'm wondering what degree in Psychology he received... Concerning "social control" : a cursory read of the linked page, social control, should be enough to determine that this phrase should be changed. Relationship(s) between power and knowledge I think is fine. But social control through societal institutions is overly problematic and arguably inaccurate. Something like the following would be better: networks of power and knowledge in systemic discourse and social practices throughout history. Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator says that changes are better when discussed, but hasn't discussed my proposed edits. Merely, a factual inaccuracy has been removed. This article is Vital Level-4 and B-Class. WP:BOLD. I am interested in improving it and suggest that others join this discussion and consider my edits. Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Foucault's political stance
As it stands, I see in fact no other choice than to remove the link to the 'Encyclopedia of Libertarianism' which is currently used in the section on 'politics'. The article referred to (a preview is available on Google Books — https://books.google.ie/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=foucault&f=false) is very short and refers to no sources in Foucault's work. I consider the article in the 'Encyclopedia of Libertarianism' to be too uninformative and too politically biased to be used on Wikipedia.

I have replaced it with one of Foucault's own statements about his political stance.

Merger proposal
I propose that Power-knowledge be merged into Michel Foucault. Seeing as the power-knowledge article only talks about Foucault's work, it might not deserve its own article, but should isntead be expanded upon in here. Hawks Discussedits 17:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea, unless the new article can be expanded to include other thinkers. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Passes GNG. There is lots of scholarly content on this subject. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 06:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Mr.Guye above. Thank you. warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) — Preceding undated comment added 2017-11-22

No controversy in intro?
I thought it was standard practice to list any major controversies in the intro. Some of Foucault's ideas are highly controversial, but there is no mention. Nikolaneberemed (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's not. The lead is an overview of the article and a "summary of its most important contents"; if there's a major controversial issue (such as Bill Cosby) it's mentioned. But we don't have "controversy" sections. Critical reactions, yes but not controversy or trivia, particularly those that fall under undue weight.  freshacconci  (✉) 18:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Where is his Bibliography?
Where is Foucault's bibliography? I don't have time now or in the foreseeable future, but maybe if someone has some they could start or enable it... It is probably a necessary quick reference need. Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Cato Institute reference and classical liberalism belief
I'm removing the sentence that said Foucault turned to classical liberalism and Stoic philosophy later in life since the reference is from the Cato Institute (a think tank) and is neither a primary source nor substantiates the claim very well. The important paragraph in the book referenced is: "His mature works show a critical, antinomian libertarianism, rather than a rigid, class-based analysis of social phenom- ena. Particularly in his final years, as he grew ill from AIDS and contemplated his approaching end, his politics approached classical liberalism, tempered with a deep interest in Stoic philosophy. From attacking state coercion, Foucault had come to wonder what might replace it. Much of Foucault’s work from these final years remains unpub- lished, and still more of it was destroyed, rendering much of Foucault an enigma in death as he was in life". I can't find any reference (i.e. in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault_bibliography) to destroyed work by him, and I was not aware of his life being "an enigma." Furthermore, I think it's also basically incorrect to say that Nietszche was his most important ancestor, which the text claims. According to WP:NOTRS, questionable sources include those "that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion". So I will restructure the paragraph and remove that reference. Baldersmash (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising this discussion section, because I would have reverted your edit if you hadn't. On what basis do you consider this reference unreliable?  Is this based on your own reading of what the Cato Institute has to say, or based on what other reliable sources have to say about the Cato Institute?  Or is it your own reading of Foucault?  Who says that they don't substantiate the claim very well, is that your own assessment?  In particular, you can't make any decisions about reliability based on the Wikipedia has to say, because of WP:WINARS. I think you should consider finding a source that substantiates the claims you have made here, because normally, remove content that is sourced by a reliable source requires some justification, and I don't see that you have given it. If you consider the Cato Institute unreliable, you could raise a discussion at WP:RSN; but in the meantime, I think you should consider undoing your recent edit. Finally, why did you make the comment about a primary source?  You are aware that Wikipedia prefers secondary, and *not* primary sources, right?  Mathglot (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Cato Institute is an libertarian advocacy organization and part of the climate change denial machine - they spread silly claims denying the consensus by listing contrarians . When they say that some person has a similar ideological stance as they have, I would demand independent corroboration. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Since when a research institute publication named for the institution in general and not for the specific author of the piece should be a reliable source in categorizing the thought of such a difficult, multi-faceted and original philosopher and historian as Michel Foucault? If there are specific articles published in reliable and recognized journals that use this type of categorization for Foucault, then they can be used as sources. But if the only source for such a broad and generic categorization of Foucault's philosopjy and worldview is an anonymous institution publication or website, then that would not be a reliable source for it in my view. warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 15:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation
is standard for British English and other Commonwealth varieties such as Australian English, it is not “incorrect”. See for example here and here. We either list the two main English possibilities or maybe it is better to just leave the French IPA, to avoid actual confusion. イヴァン スクルージ 九十八 （会話） 09:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)




 * if you put it that way, as I said let’s just leave French, so people will approximate that how they feel like in English. [[File:Italy.png]] イヴァン スクルージ 九十八 （会話）[[File:Italy.png]] 09:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * If there's an established English pronunciation of his name we should include it. is only slightly closer to French  than . In the case of English, those transcriptions are diaphonemic which means that they're very abstract. American  is actually, with an aspirated velar plosive and a closing diphthong. The  is also different in English than in French (it's more advanced in the former).
 * Also, let's not forget that stress isn't phonemic in French. is only how that name would be pronounced in isolation. In connected speech you'll probably also hear, with initial stress, and , without any stress. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * please explain yourself instead of edit warring. Why do you call these “mispronunciations”, since we have proved they are not, but established possibilities in English? As I have said already, just remove the other too if you don’t want English IPA there. It’d make much more sense. [[File:Italy.png]] イヴァン スクルージ 九十八 （会話）[[File:Italy.png]] 07:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * no, I have proved they are standard in British usage, per the sources above. You clearly have not even opened the links, duh. [[File:Italy.png]] イヴァン スクルージ 九十八 （会話）[[File:Italy.png]] 07:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * seriously? First of all, the name is the exact same; secondly, what you just said practically means Wikipedia is a trashbin where all kinds of well-sourced information “might be wrong”, while the only thing we have to be able to provide it is actually the sources. The websites above are powered by the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries, which are certainly not made up garbage. But still, I left the French IPA. (Watch out! It is not even sourced, it might as well be wrong!) [[File:Italy.png]] イヴァン スクルージ 九十八 （会話）[[File:Italy.png]] 07:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * …and you didn’t address the sourcing anyway, telling me any reason why we should not consider the Oxford dictionary reliable. Whatever, I guess I’ll just give up. Without pinging you. [[File:Italy.png]] イヴァン スクルージ 九十八 （会話）[[File:Italy.png]] 07:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by "incorrect"? Do you expect people to change languages mid-sentence? Because is just a bit closer to French .  actually stands for  or  in General American. Only the first consonant and the stress is the same. If Brits also say, then their  is actually (in RP)  or , which is even further away from French than the American pronunciation (and, again, only the first consonant is the same as in French).
 * Plus, as I've already said, stress isn't phonemic in French, in which "Foucault" can be, and , depending on various factors.
 * I've reinstated English IPA with a source. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that I had to do it proves that it's not. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * More like source-indulgent. [[File:Italy.png]] イヴァン スクルージ 九十八 （会話）[[File:Italy.png]] 08:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And this is coming from someone who hasn't addressed anything I've said in this discussion. The irony. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that I had to do it proves that it's not. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * More like source-indulgent. [[File:Italy.png]] イヴァン スクルージ 九十八 （会話）[[File:Italy.png]] 08:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And this is coming from someone who hasn't addressed anything I've said in this discussion. The irony. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * More like source-indulgent. [[File:Italy.png]] イヴァン スクルージ 九十八 （会話）[[File:Italy.png]] 08:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And this is coming from someone who hasn't addressed anything I've said in this discussion. The irony. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michel Foucault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203005039/http://www.sunypress.edu/p-4087-madness-and-death-in-philosophy.aspx to http://www.sunypress.edu/p-4087-madness-and-death-in-philosophy.aspx
 * Added tag to http://foucault.info/foucault/biography.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

For some reason, somebody deleted the external links section. I have reinstated it. Moonmobile (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

 * Insofar as there is an objection to the NYT citation, which I quote in full:

lax attitude toward sex with minors. It has also shone a particularly harsh light on a period during which some of France’s leading literary figures and newspapers — names as big as Foucault, Sartre, Libération and Le Monde — aggressively promoted the practice as a form of human liberation, or at least defended it


 * I have removed it and added back the other content to which there is no objection. Thanks, XavierItzm (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)




 * OK, fair enough, will qualify as per your request. We are here to please.  XavierItzm (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed we need to be careful. I'll come back and double-check what can be done about the NYT citation, which seems relevant, while meeting your criteria. XavierItzm (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed we need to be careful. I'll come back and double-check what can be done about the NYT citation, which seems relevant, while meeting your criteria. XavierItzm (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - The issue under scrutiny here is child sexuality, which is kind of a very strong taboo in White Puritan Anglo-Saxon culture, much more so than in White Latin Christian culture. The profound disagreements in outlook start with the very definition of the childhood age boundaries itself. In the US, for example, as far as sexual matters are concerned, a person is a minor until the age of 18 years. In France, that age was moved down to 15 in the decade of the seventies of twentieth century, when these declarations were made. Foucault himself wrote a long trilogy on the history of human sexuality during that period, which I haven't had the opportunity to study in detail yet.


 * But where the taboo is stronger, the line between child sexuality and 'pedophilia' is also blurred to the point of becoming practically inexistent. Outside of the US, for example, the alleged issue of widespread child 'abuse' by the male Catholic clergy is not nearly as important or as earth-shattering a political and cultural issue as inside the US. It is not as important an issue in Catholic Europe (France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal) or in the Vatican itself. In the US, in contrast, it is a very important political issue, and it is also used to curb the political power of the Catholic clergy and of the Catholic church.warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 20:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Issue under "Personal Life"
Under the "Politics" subsection of the "Personal Life" section, this article claims that Michel Foucault signed this 1977 petition. I am not sure if I've mistranslated the source, but his name is definitely not in the list of signers, and he is only mentioned in a later paragraph which seems to list him among some of the people that refused to sign. Sarah Benner (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You're right: (paraphrasing): only a few people refused to sign, among them Michel Foucault. alacarte (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Michel_Foucault#Early_career_(1951–1960)
Sub-Headline for the first section missing. Kind regards,--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding James Miller as a Source
The bulk of a new section entitled "HIV" under "Personal Life" has sprung up mostly backed by articles which all lead back to James Miller's biographical work on Foucault. Miller provides an unscholarly "narrativizing" account of Foucault's life and indeed what has been cited in this section is not statements of fact, but Miller's own personal opinion. Jeremy R. Carrette discusses rewriting and fictionalizing of Foucault's life in his "Prologue to a Confession of the Flesh." He writes that, "[Miller] admits to using 'interpretative techniques' but the strands of imaginative interplay are never clearly articulated and oscillate around the text without any rigorous substantiation. There is some doubt in Miller's mind as to whether he 'was reading something into him [Foucault],'" "Miller in this process indexed a whole series of 'recurrent images and motifs' in, he admits, his 'own crude way'. In his postscript there is a clear admission of a presentation of Foucault based on a magnification of certain images. We discover at the end of the work how Miller had intuitively taken the notion of the 'vaguely mystical' and slowly built a whole religious iconography into the life and work of Foucault." He goes on, "there is a whole series of ideas built into Miller's text which support and reinforce this mystical iconography. We find alongside the central ideas of the Nietzschean quest and the 'limit-experience', religious and occult terminology such as 'hermetic'. 'esoteric', 'visionary', 'erotic ecstasy', 'ascetic' and even 'gnomic'; terms which would more freely be associated with Crowley, Gurdjieff and Jung than with Foucault. These ideas are not just passing metaphors, rather key imaginative reconstructions of Foucault's life and work in terms of a misreading and distorted emphasis of Foucault's religious texts and secondary influences." "Miller reads the texts of Foucault that examine religion and the religious influences of the avant-garde as confirming a notion of the 'mystical' - but no detailed qualification is provided and Miller shows no sign of reading the texts of Christian 'mysticism' or any other 'mystical' tradition. The seeds of distortion are sown and obscure religious ideas are planted in a landscape of sensation and effect; no doubt Foucault would again, to use his own dismissal of identity, be over there laughing." Foucault, Michel. Religion and Culture. Edited by Jeremy R. Carrette, Routledge, 2009. pp 17-19.

Citations 193-195 along with the sentence they are meant to support are imaginative mischaracterizations based on a fringe source which is the scholarly consensus has rejected. Citation 192 at best expresses dark humor in the face of tragic circumstances and not does not "express denial of HIV." Beyond these discrepancies, this subsection hardly deserves to exist when his experience with HIV is described in other sections of the article. Insouciance7 (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The Windsor Star
Hello and ! I can see consensus is not by my side regarding the quote. However, I wanted to point out that I was favoring addition based on the following: Assem Khidhr (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you like, I have no strong opinions. I had no understanding this would be heated or controversial. It seems like maybe we could do better though than a quote from a newspaper though, publications that often have a financial interest in spectacularizing any such accusations around this issue. SP00KY  talk  05:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Lack of Controversy
I dunno -- the man believed it was okay to have sex with a six-year-old; furthermore, that the six-year-old has the capacity to consent to a sexual encounter with an adult. He was a smart guy, but he's a postmodernist joyboy darling and no way in hell are you besmirching him! Foucault said the following: "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."

Man, this guy has friends in hiiiigh places. Most people's legacy would be ruined -- especially if they were of the wrong political persuasion. Why are we always reminded of T.S Elliot's racism but not Foucault's support of pedophilia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.93.231 (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, the controversy belongs in the lede. See: MOS:LEDE.

"...The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article..."


 * The lede also needs to explain notability, now it could be about any unnotable overachiever. <BR> --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F0AD:6D5A:2B1E:3552 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Just Asking


 * You are correct about the guidelines for editing the article, of course. However, the OP above wrote that "Foucault said the following," and went ahead and allegedly quoted Foucault himself in a sentence between quotation marks, as if directly quoting Foucault. Now, I believe this alleged quotation is false, does not exist, it is a sham! It is just another smear on Foucault's name, among the many that are written every day, and that is the reason I deleted it. I still believe this entire section, based on false smears and on pure garbage should be just scrapped alltogether. Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 17:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone of pedophilia without any hint of any sources whatsoever, just out of someone's evil desire to besmirch and denigrate, is not just some "comments you personally disagree with." As I said already, this is just pure garbage and should have no place in any Wikipedia page, not even a talk page, in my view. But I will leave it at that for now. Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 01:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone of pedophilia without any hint of any sources whatsoever, just out of someone's evil desire to besmirch and denigrate, is not just some "comments you personally disagree with." As I said already, this is just pure garbage and should have no place in any Wikipedia page, not even a talk page, in my view. But I will leave it at that for now. Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 01:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone of pedophilia without any hint of any sources whatsoever, just out of someone's evil desire to besmirch and denigrate, is not just some "comments you personally disagree with." As I said already, this is just pure garbage and should have no place in any Wikipedia page, not even a talk page, in my view. But I will leave it at that for now. Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 01:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Fits pretty well with the rest of the French intellectual scene. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-philosopher-michel-foucault-abused-boys-in-tunisia-6t5sj7jvw
 * I am sorry my simple friend, I am sure you know all of these things already but; 'if the shoe fits' is not a good argument. Sorman is not a good source and Wikipedia is not a place for your moralizing and hit-pieces. SP00KY  talk  17:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Is the accusations of pedophilia against Foucault credible?
I'm referring to the accusation made by Guy Sorman in his article in the france-amerique. He seems to assert that Foucault has sex with boys in Tunisia and while that may be true he doesn't mention how he knows this. What more information is known on this topic? If he is not reliable should we change the wording to "alleged pedophilia"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supreme0verlord (talk • contribs) 09:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I had commented on this issue on this page, two sections above, you can read it up there. But since those comments, I'd have now more to add. The issue of age of consent for sex is an old issue of quite heated debate between French culture, the mother culture of the great French Revolution, and the much more conservative, almost even religious, Puritan America. If you want a more recent clue how much Puritan America is completely off on this matter, just look at the QAnon "conspiracy theories" raging in America these days, where anybody slight left of center is automatically presumed to the a "pedophile." It is just the latest proof that the Puritan American culture has been obsessed with the issue of "pedophilia" since pretty much the day it acquired its independence from the original British Puritan culture. warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 22:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The accusation by Sorman is not credible. I could find no sources to this outside of Sorman himself, and Sorman is an avid critic of the French Left and "postmodernism". There are no documents or testimonies or interviews with any reference to this - again, it is all Sorman, known bias source. I have removed this, until further evidence emerges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.82.57 (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

As a previously uninvolved editor, I must say the previous wording regarding claims of pedophilia were written in stark violation of WP:contentious labels and WP:NPOV. The NYT's, from an established WP:RS, calling him a pedophilic or an advocate of pedophilia clearly shows it's worth mentioning, not mere deletion. I'll do a quick literature review and try to re-write the sections. Assem Khidhr (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC) ✅undefined Assem Khidhr (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi! I don't have much experience on writing about sexual abuse allegations on wikipedia, so I probably shouldn't edit this myself.
 * Jeune Afrique published this today: https://www.jeuneafrique.com/1147268/politique/tunisie-michel-foucault-netait-pas-pedophile-mais-il-etait-seduit-par-les-jeunes-ephebes/
 * It contests Sorman's allegations but one of the interviewee (not anonymous) states that Foucault had sex with men of 17-18 years old. The article provides further context on why foucault left tunisia. I proposed this to be added to the fr biography as well. This seems like a more trustable source on the matter. E mln e (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy Sorman's claims remain uncredible. Articles reporting his unverifiable claims hardly constitute reason for them to be included on this page. At best this constitutes an unsubstantiated rumor, i.e. not noteworthy and not worthy of being published on the page. Moreover, the section's perspective is deeply biased and should be reoriented since his actions clearly align more broadly with his lifelong judicial reform activism of which the petition and open letter constitute a particular case. This is a case of a prison abolitionist advocating against retributivist policies and should be characterized as such instead of promoting speculative and rumor-laden sources. Insouciance7 (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, there are two mistakes on this page. Firslty, Michel Foucault signed an "open letter" wich is a call to change some laws about minority and sex (and some revendications were accepted), but he didn't sign the text about what is called "l'affaire de Versailles", calling for the release of some men who had sex with somme minors of 12 and 13 years old. The things are explained here : https://lundi.am/Les-messes-noires-de-Michel-Foucault-le-bullshit-de-Guy-Sorman Also, the inhabitants and some witnesses of Foucault's life in the tunisian village said Sorman's allegation are not true, and Foucault sex partners had around 17-18, and not 8 years old like Sorman said ... Juste after, Guy Sorman finally retracted in a french news paper about his accusation against Foucault, and  admitted he didn't see anything, and said he don't know if the kids had 18 or 14 years old (even if he wrote in his book that they were 8 ...). The article is here : https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/idees-et-debats/michel-foucault-et-la-pedophilie-enquete-sur-un-emballement-mediatique_2148517.html I think this should be taken in consideration by wikipedia ... --Jean Baudry (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorman's statements have been retracted. Reported here in English: https://illwill.com/the-black-masses-of-michel-foucault, which links to this French [paywalled] article: https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/idees-et-debats/michel-foucault-et-la-pedophilie-enquete-sur-un-emballement-mediatique_2148517.html. The Foucault page should be updated emphatically. It is dishonest, inappropriate, and wholly unjustified to keep this information up. Adamherp (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the above discussions, can somebody with access please edit the page to reflect the updates? I personally think the Jeune Afrique article reporting that the locals in Tunisia rejected Sorman's accusations is convincing enough to support the posting of these additions -- more convincing, frankly, than Sorman's own retraction, because he's not coming off as particularly trustworthy... :D If for some reason any justification is needed beyond the mere existence of the news articles, I'd hope the fact that they already all made it to the French version of this page should suffice.Benevolent Robot Overlord Hivemind (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The section stating "he said that children can consent" is really dubious: the source tracks to a radio interview (transcript) where the passage seems much more nuanced (in fact it's hard to pin down exactly what he does mean - there's a huge amount of preceding context in the interview). Simplifying it so massively looks like an intentional attempt to be sensational/inflammatory 80.2.19.108 (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

For what its worth the robotext (the text that shows up underneath this article's title when you google him) calls him a serial rapist, when that is not mentioned in the article. I would change it if I knew how to, and was wondering if someone else knew 200.68.140.27 (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)