![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
This is the first online article I've read through on Foucault that didn't mention that he was gay or some sort of HIV spreading lunatic. I am quite proud at the standards put forth in this article. 208.2.205.162 ( talk) 18:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any problem mentioning he was gay. But I see a huge problem that he is in the "Anti-Psychiatry" article. He is being considered as "anti-psychiatrist". I've already said he was not and even left a note where he is claiming he is not anti-psychiatrist. But his name is still on the article.-- Justana ( talk) 20:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Can Georges Bataille be added to the list of Foucault's influences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.107.144 ( talk) 15:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This section is unclear. Did Foucault support lowering the age of consent from 15 or was he campaigning to have it raised from 15?
Surely if he was trying to have it lowered this would be a very serious and damning act. 'Foucault loved along with discourse, structuralism... a nice plump child's arse.'
This needs clarification.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.72.74 ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 January 2007(UTC)
During the '60s/'70s there was a great deal of debate about such things. This was a time when the voting age was higher than it is now, when consensual sodomy was largely illegal, and so on and so forth. At a time when gay marriage was too radical to even imagine in the US, reconsidering the age of consent was on the table. But that is neither here nor there... Foucault was EXTREMELY involved in all sorts of left-wing political movements. Many of them had to do with the reform of prisons and asylums, and with rolling back the criminalization and institutionalization of social deviance. I'm not sure why this letter (which apparently was signed by a large number of academics, like anti-Israel letters today) gets two paragraphs, but not GIP or Vincennes or the student riots or Iran, all mentioned in passing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.163.163 ( talk • contribs) 08:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This seems to have good citations for research and it probalby should be linked from both of the participants pages. Is there a justification for removing the see also from Foucault in your mind? because I don't think that given the amount of coverage this had in main media and in scholarly journals, that it wasn't worthy of mention, much like the Foucault-Chomsky debate.-- Buridan 01:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear that I'm not exactly a babe-in-the-woods here. I'm not a Habermasian or Habermas scholar: i.e. I haven't read Theory of Communicative Action. But I have read The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, which seems to be what the entire "debate" amounts to. I.e. After Foucault died, Habermas published a well-read book that was partially about Foucault. From what I know, it's really not so much a "debate" as the normal process of critical writing: Given that it is Habermas' book, it makes sense to discuss in Habermas' article. But any debate consists of later theorist trying to imagine what Foucault "might have said" had he lived long enough to read Habermas' book.
It's not necessarily unreasonable to read an important thinker through their later reception. A philosopher's death doesn't necessarily end their notability, or its reasons. I haven't looked, but it would be reasonable for the Hegel article to mention both Kierkegaard and Marx, for example, who shaped "Hegel, as we know him". But without being willing to give even a sentence explaining why this example is like that, I just don't see its place in this particular biography (thousands of people have written about Foucault, after all, both before and after Foucault's death). LotLE× talk 14:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
"Some believe that a fourth volume, dealing with the Christian era, was almost complete at the time of Foucault's death. Foucault scholar and friend, Arnold Davidson, has denied that an intended fourth and fifth volume in the series had ever been written."
I didn't want to edit this before discussing it. In Religion and culture: Michel Foucault selected and edited by Jeremy R. Carrette. The author states on page two that, "In his lecture series form 1979 to 1980 Foucault extended his analysis of government to its 'wider sense of techniques and procedures designed to direct the behaviour of men', which involved a new consideration of the 'examination of conscience' and confession in early Christian literature. These themes of early Christian literature seemed to dominate Foucault's work, alongside his study of Greek and Roman literature, until the end of his life. However, Foucault's death from AIDS left the work incomplete, and the planned fourth volume of his History of Sexuality on Christianity was never published". The author goes on to say in the footnotes that "The fourth volume was to be entitled Les aveux de la chair (Confessions of the Flesh). The volume was almost complete before Foucault's death and a copy of it is privately held in the Foucault archive. It cannot be published under the restrictions of the Foucault's estate." The author goes on to include material from Foucault's work in his book in Part III and the following are the title heads.
Part III Christianity, sexuality, and the self: fragments of an unpublished volume
TWELVE On the government of the living (1980)
THIRTEEN About the beginning of the hermeneutics of the self (1980)
FOURTEEN Sexuality and solitude (1980)
FIFTEEN The Battle for chastity (1982)
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Culture-M-Foucault/dp/041592362X/sr=8-2/qid=1158193047/ref=sr_1_2/103-3716621-7326227?ie=UTF8&s=books —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfumoo ( talk • contribs)
So fix it! Please go ahead and make an edit that clarifies the facts of the matter. We'd need a better citation to substantiate the "Arnold Davidson" claim, and it's not very important to retain the claim in the face of the published drafts. -- Rbellin| Talk 00:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
We've been through this debate before and it was decided that it was not notable. How many times must we cover the same territory? The unsourced comment that Richard hamilton made some homophobic remarks is really not encyclopedic. It adds nothing to a study of Foucault. I have been reading Foucault and works about Foucault for over 15 years and have never once seen a serious scholar make this claim or address this claim in any serious way. It is simply not a part of the scholarly discussion of Foucault's work or its reception. As far as I can tell, all we have is unsourced speculation from a "Richard Hamilton" -- presumably the "Social Misconstruction of Reality" guy -- portrayed as if it were the opinion of Foucault's critics in general. The speculation itself is completely bogus as even the supporters of hamilton are forced to acknowledge, including the information that the claim lacks evidence and is "implausible" (I would say, impossible) given that Foucault died in 1984, before much was known about AIDS at all. Why is it necessary to include speculation from one guy (without a freakin' citation!) that we acknowledge is without evidence or plausibility? And then attribute that speculation to "conservative detractors" in general? I haven't read Hamilton's book; it is possible that he makes this bizarre claim in there - from the reviews all I can tell is that he does not seem to have understood Foucault's Discipline and Punish. But Hamilton's a scholar, from what I can tell; sociology professor at Ohio State - it seems "implausible" that he would make such an incendiary and homophobic claim in an academic work that he expects people to take seriously. If he does make the claim, quote the passage here in the discussion page and let's talk about it. If there is evidence this claim is serious and that it is taken seriously, then perhaps we can include something here; otherwise, I don't see the point of a passage on a page about foucault dedicated to exposing the fact that a relatively unknown scholar said something stupid, implausible, and lacking in evidence in a book that nobody has really read.
By the way, it is poor form to switch from a named account to an anonymous ip just for the purpose of revert warring or evading the 3RR. It is even poorer form to charge people with "vandalism" for making substantive edits (even deletions) that are well explained. So, Mr. 208.100.228.2, if you are Timeloss, log in as Timeloss; if you are someone else, please get a login, and please stop edit warring. Discuss your proposed change here, as I have. I will not revert again as I am at my limit, but we need to resolve this.-- csloat 07:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I still don't think its notable enough to include in the article, but I think I've stumbled upon the source for all the rumours about Foucault spreading HIV. The person who is well documented making these claims, and internationally known, is Camille Paglia.
Presumably she wrote or spoke about this somewhere else as well because the interviewer seemed to be already aware of her comments.-- Agnaramasi 16:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This search yields more info in the form of an article by Page DuBois that mentions it. Apparently this started with Miller's biography rather than with Camille, but the latter was all too willing to help spread the ludicrous rumor. This would have been 1983, when the disease was barely understood. On Foucault's deathbed, according to Defert, his doctors were still saying "if it's AIDS..." Eribon writes that Foucault suspected but did not know that he had AIDS -- "He never knew the nature of this suffocating illness. Even in the hospital he was making enthusiastic plans for a trip to Andalusia." I haven't read Miller's bio, but according to O'Farrell's (also found through google books), "Even Miller has to admit that he believes the rumor about Foucault's alleged behavior to be 'essentially false' (Miller, 1993: 375)." O'Farrell cites Michael Bartos: "The rumour that Foucault had gone to American bath-houses to deliberately spread HIV should be seen for what it is: a commonplace of the demonisation of people with HIV and an iteration of the standard myths of the malevolent importation of HIV/AIDS." (1997:687-8). OFarrells book is Michel Foucault, SAGE 2005. Sara Mills writes "These stories do seem to be simply part of a fictional backlash response to homosexuality and bear little resemblance to reality." (Michel Foucault, Routledge, 2003, p. 19). There is more for the enterprising researcher to follow up on -- there is more written about this than I had imagined, but looking through google books, almost every mention of the rumor discounts it. Truly, it does not make a lot of sense. And the most likely first source for the rumor does not believe it himself -- according to Jonathan Dollmore (Textual Practice, 9:1 p. 42): "The rumour that Foucault deliberately tried to infect others is discounted; although circulating for almost a decade, Miller finds no evidence for it." Apparently Miller wrote that the rumor was circulating in 1983; this too does not make sense. Among whom was this rumor spreading, one must ask? But of course by stringing together out of context quotes from Foucault about sex and death ("Sex is worth dying for") and placing them in a context where a lot more is known about AIDS than 1983, Foucault is imagined as this predatory killer. It's a vicious way to discredit a scholar. And it's a fascinating example of the academic telephone game. Miller states the rumor and immediately states that it is false, but others reproduce the rumor, citing Miller without noting that he also found no evidence for it. As for Paglia, I find her utterly delusional, and this is far from the only example of that.-- csloat 19:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Most of us know his theory of Power/Knowledge. However, shouldn't there be something more about the book, than just the title? At least a link to an external site that explains it a bit?
If a link is need, here's a good one: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory54.htm
I just wanted to ask before doing it myself and being considered a vandalist for doing so. 65.23.211.62 23:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hullo -- In the introductory paragraphs MF's relationship to postmodernism (he is not "postmodern" in any well-articulated sense of the word, but it often considered as such) is presently correctly but in an order likely to confuse a reader who is new to Foucault. Suggestion (if no one objects after a while I'll change it):
Sounds good? 140.247.163.163 08:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Foucault was both a philosopher and an historian. He spent half his life buried in historical archives, was utterly concerned with historical method, and had at least as much impact on historians as he did on philosophy. His archival research was concerned with many other research areas than philosophy, and his interest in these areas was not merely philosophical. It is diminishing Foucault's contribution as an historian not to name him as such in the first line of the entry. The first line should read: "Michel Foucault was a French philosopher and historian." FNMF 15:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A number of points can easily be made in relation to the above queries:
If that is not enough, here is a quotation from Edward Said that sums up the issue eloquently:
For one, he was the most wide-ranging in his learning: at once the most concrete and historical, he was as well the most radical in theoretical investigation. [...] He was neither simply a historian, nor a philosopher, nor a literary critic, but all of those things together, and then more still. [...] In short, Foucault was a hybrid writer, dependent on—but in his writing going beyond—the genres of fiction, history, sociology, political science, and philosophy. [...] This is by no means to say that Foucault's histories, for example, have no historical validity or accuracy, but it is to say that—like the other works I have mentioned—the form and concern of these histories as artifacts require principal attention as self-aware, mixed-genre performances in the present, full of learning, quotation, and invention. (Edward W. Said, "Michel Foucault, 1926–1984," in Jonathan Arac (ed.), After Foucault: Humanistic Knowledge, Postmodern Challenges [New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988], pp. 2–3).
Note that Said's implication here is that Foucault can be classed as, at least, a philosopher, an historian, and a literary critic. Note that the quotation says that Foucault was all these things and more. Note that it refers to his "histories," arguing that while they have historical validity and accuracy, they also require other kinds of attention to be properly understood. If Foucault wished to qualify his status as historian, I do not believe this qualification applies in any way that means an encyclopaedia should not categorise him as an historian. Just as, for example, even though Nietzsche or Derrida (or Foucault) might not quite describe themselves as philosophers, this obviously does not mean an encyclopaedia should not describe them as such. To not be limited to a category, to exceed a category, is not at all the same thing as a decision by an encyclopaedia to exclude someone from that category. FNMF 04:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
To the above can be added citations from Foucault himself. A typical pronouncement of Foucault's position on his work as an historian is the following:
I would like to write the history of this prison, with all the political investments of the body that it gathers together in its closed architecture. Why? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that writing a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means writing the history of the present. (Foucault, Discipline and Punish, pp. 30–31).
Again: Foucault is concerned here with the way he is not a conventional historian, but is quite explicit that he is a writer of history. Given Foucault's range of interests and methods, and the discipline and commitment with which he explored the depths of historical archives, it is clear that there is no way of claiming that he is somehow not an historian, nor does it make any sense to argue that his work fits better simply within philosophy. He cites obscure historical references far more often than he cites renowned philosophers (which is not at all to deny his philosophical significance). As I stated originally, Foucault was both a philosopher and historian (and more than this). The opening line of an encyclopaedia is not the place to contest this designation, nor the place to argue for one over the other. FNMF 11:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
In this phrase "Foucault became fascinated with psychology. He earned a licence (degree) in psychology, along with one in philosophy; a very new qualification in France, at the time. He was involved in the clinical arm of the discipline, which exposed him to thinkers such as Ludwig Binswanger," I'm curious about the ambiguity of the "new qualification". Surely philosophy was not a new qualification in France athe the time, but psychology was. Right?-- AdamFJohnson 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
What difference does it make if some band has mentioned his name in a song? This is one thing I will never understand about Wikipedia: someone's name is mentioned in some obscure song and that mention is then immediately decreed valuable enough to be embedded in an article about said person. ("Decreed" = Just try erasing it and you will be branded a vandal.) If I made a song and called it Foucault, should I enter this worthless piece of information on an encyclopedia? It would have next to nothing to do with Foucault; it would only be a mention of a name in a song, in other words it has no encyclopedic value whatsoever in context of Michel Foucault's life and works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.233.169 ( talk • contribs)
The table only lists the published courses, but appears to list all the courses. Should All be listed, with publication dates left blank for the not yet published? Agent Cooper 13:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to get a picture of Michel up there real fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.211.232 ( talk) 01:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
What is the source/reference for "A review by Jean-Paul Sartre attacked Foucault as 'the last rampart of the bourgeoisie'." I would like to know where to find this review, or at list another source that explains the polemics. Is it possible to add this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.21.113.141 ( talk) 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided specifically refers to external links to discussion groups as needing special justification to be included in WP. Accordingly, I will be deleting the link to the outside Foucault group, pending such justification. DCDuring 19:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
There is an encyclopedia entry that Foucault wrote about himself before he died. I think that this needs to be explained and featured in the article and not just hidden in the external links section with no explaination. http://foucault.info/foucault/biography.html ( 82.216.252.246 ( talk) 21:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
Foucault's tenure at Vincennes was short-lived, as in 1970 he was elected to France's most prestigious academic body, the Collège de France, as Professor of the History of Systems of Thought.
I'm not sure you can speak of College de France as "the most prestigious academic body". The Academie is also regarded as very important and prestigious. Rares 11:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Just saying. More citations, a bit of cleanup. It is good though.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the article should mention the rumour that Foucault spread AIDS. The rumour is not part of scholarly criticism of Foucault, but that is beside the point. It is a famous/infamous accusation against Foucault, and is therefore notable. Naturally, I think it should be mentioned only as a rumour; the article certainly does not have to suggest that it is true.
Skoojal ( talk) 20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent)First of all Skoojal, Miller actually admits that the rumour was false (page 375 of the 1997 version of his bio of Foucault) he just publicized these remarks - like Paglia did - Miller did not verify them. Commodore Sloat already pointed this out to you above. Raymond Tallis aired the same rumour again in the TLS but his comments were quickly shown to be rubbish. Clare O'Farrell's book Michel Foucault deals with this in a few short pages and shows the rumour to part of a pattern of demonization of HIV infected people, as outlined by Michael Bartos. The only way this rumour can be treated is if it is acknowledged that third party reliable sources regard it as false, anachronistic, unprovable and wrapped up with stereotypes of homosexuality-- Cailil talk 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Skoojal the problem I would have with you adding what you suggest above [1] is this: it doesn't record what the sources say. The sources say that the rumour was: "false" and "unlikely' (Miller); and that is anachronistic, unprovable, part of a discourse of demonization of HIV infected people, and a negative stereotype of homosexuality (O'Farrell). The issue is this if one only records part a the source (ie "there's a rumour") and not the other - one is doing original research through novel interpretation and that would cause it to be removed because that would violate site policy. If you want to include this you have to record "all significant views (at least O'Farrell as well and any other significant sources) - you couldn't just use Miller. Your sentence would have to read "There was a rumour which is unprovable and discredited by scholars and those who knew Foucault that while in America [...] There is no evidence to support this rumour.". Now bear in mind that this is a featured article written to WP's highest standards. It would very hard to justify why a line like that (about a totally discredited rumour) could be kept in an encyclopedia article-- Cailil talk 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent) This has become tendentious and is veering off-topic. I recommend you both disengage from each other and I would ask Skoojal to consider refactoring that last comment in light of WP:EQ and WP:CIVIL please. If discussion can't stay on topic it will be removed. Wikipedia is not a battleground-- Cailil talk 00:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Skoojal is absolutely correct. A rumour that has published sources mentioning it, regardless of its veracity, is certainly noteworthy in wikipedia. The claim "it is not encyclopedic" is a subjective personal opinion that cannot be proven. The claim "wikipedia is not a tabloid" is applying a personal opinion to a proposed edit (i.e. the rumour). You may say it is tabloid like, I may say that a rumor of this behavior is very important when judging the scholarship of Foucault and hence extremely important in an encyclopedia. I believe the argument against the inclusion of the rumour has a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a "scholarly" tool that only presents information that is correct http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Michel_Foucault&action=edit§ion=18 Editing Talk:Michel Foucault (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaor true. Rather, wikipedi presents all sourced available information, regardless of veracity, to the reader and leaves the judgemnet of veracity completely to the reader. 38.117.213.19 ( talk) 05:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually no that is not what is sourced. What is sourced is that the rumour is "dismissed by the people who knew Foucault", that it is considered part of stereotypes of HIV infected people and homosexuals" that it is "unlikely" and "false". Once again, where does a false and discredited rumour fit in an encyclopedic biography article? This open-ended tendentious conversation is disruptive. No source has or can prove the rumour. Paglia's remarks are not to WP's standard. Even if you or anyone else can show a third party source that does not describe the rumour as untrue it would be undue to record fringe theories - especially discreditted ones-- Cailil talk 23:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Your comment's personal speculation concerning other editor's motives is innapropriate and an unfortunate degeneration of what should be a serious discussion about the issues. It is important to learn how to assume good faith and refrain from any personal attack. The discussion has continued below where many sources were provided. Good luck. 38.117.213.19 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the point of my comment seems to have been misunderstood. Here is your comment of above: "to distort their arguments in order to try to win your point." Clearly a direct personal comment concerning another editor's motives. Again, please refrain from personal attacks that merely degrade the level of discourse. Please know that it is the goal of other editors, as I am sure it is yours, to create the best possible article that carefully presents all important information in an unbiased way. Learning to have this assumption of good faith is extremely important in order to reach any concensus, and most certainly on a topic of a controversial nature. Please note that the discussion has continued below where sources are being discussed. Good luck, 38.117.213.19 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here is the quote from Miller in a postscript to the biography:
Here is Paglia in her article "Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders: Academe in the Hour of the Wolf" (Arion, Spring 1991):
And Paglia again on the University of Bergen's website:Source: http://privat.ub.uib.no/bubsy/PagliaAIDS.htm:
Here is a quote from Roddey Reid in "Cultural Critique" No. 35 (1996-1997) in his article "Foucault in America: Biography, 'Cutural War' and the new Concensus" [Source: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0882-4371(199624%2F199724)35%3C179%3AFIAB%22W%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0]:
Thus, the rumour is not only well sourced, but is also sourced as saying that it is "reliable" (Paglia), and is significant and part of accepted opinion (Reid). 38.117.213.19 ( talk)
I decline to engage in personal speculation as to whether the rumour is true, and I would advise you to do the same. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however Wikipedia relies on sourced material. Now, to the sources- It does not matter whether Reid is saying that the rumours are not true. He indeed disagrees, however he remains a source for the idea that the rumour is part of significant accepted opinion about Foucault. James Miller also disagrees with the rumour, however he remains a source that such a rumour is extent. Paglia is certainly a well known scholarly source, which we seem to both agree on, and she is quite clearly quoted in the article- beside the university website- as saying the rumour is reliable. Again, you may personally disagree with her, however Wikipedia relies on sourced material. 38.117.213.19 ( talk)
Please control the urge to engage in personal speculation concerning other editor's motives. It is extremely important to assume good faith. To the issue: Please read my comment carefully. I provided TWO sources for Paglia, one from a journal (Arion, spring 1991. Reid also quotes her in his article as saying the rumour is reliable). Thus, she is a scholarly published source that the rumour is reliable. Secondly, it seems we both agree that Miller is a source that the rumour is extant (thank you for your sagacious correction). It does not matter whether Miller goes on to say the rumour is false, he remains a source. Thirdly, concerning Reid, I believe your comment fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia policy. It does not matter in the slightest whether Reid personally believes the rumour false; he still remains a clear source, without any interpretation, for the idea that the rumour is part of accepted opinion about Foucault's significance. To sum up, Miller is definitely a source that the rumour is extant. Paglia is definitely a source that the rumour is reliable (again see the article- not the university website). Reid is definitely a source that the rumour is part of accepted opinion about Foucault's significance. 38.117.213.19 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read my comment carefully. Reid indeed does not say the rumour is reliable, and I never made that claim. However, he does say that the rumour is part of accepted opinion about Foucault's significance. Do you dispute he says that? Paglia herself says the rumour is reliable. Do you dispute she says that? 38.117.213.19 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest you re-read my comment carefully. Paglia is quite clearly quoted in the Reid article as saying that she believes the rumour is reliable, and this is how Reid understands her. You are entitled to your own personal (and quite interesting) interpretation, however it remains just that- yours and unsourced. Additionally, you have failed to respond to the main points of my comment- Miller is a clear source that a rumour is extant. Do you deny he is? Reid quite clearly says that the rumour is part of accepted opinion about Foucault's significance.Do you deny he says that? Paglia is understood by Reid to be saying that the rumour is reliable. Do you deny he says that? 38.117.213.19 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I suggest you re-read my comment. Reid quotes Paglia in his article and understands her to be saying the rumour is reliable. You are entitled to your own interpretation but it is just that - yours and unsourced. Additionally, you make the claim that the rumour is fringe. However, again that is your personal opinion until it is sourced. I have brought a reliable source (Reid) that says that the rumour is "part of accepted opinion about Foucault's significance."Reid states this even though he personally believes it to be untrue. Thus, I have brought a source that the rumour is extremely important, regardless of its veracity, and you have (until now) brought nothing more than your personal opinion about the importance of the rumour. 38.117.213.19 ( talk)
You are entitled to your personal opinion as to the veracity of the rumour, however Wikipedia relies on sourced material. You are also entitled to believe it is fringe, however again, that is your unsourced opinion. I have provided sources that you have not responded to. Again: Reid quotes Paglia and understands her to be saying the rumour is reliable, he goes on to disagree believing it is a conspiracy. Reid also says the rumour is part of "accepted opinion about Foucault's significance." This last source is perhaps the strongest reason to include the rumour in the article, regardless of any one scholar's personal belief/disbelief. Ignoring these sources won't make them go away. Cheers, 38.117.213.19 ( talk) 05:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, 38.117.213.19, if you want to be taken seriously around here, you should probably get a login rather than editing anonymously -- you're very aggressive about this point and it would help people take you seriously if you had at least a pseudonym to stand behind your edits. As it is I have a hard time believing you are for real. You have yet to show any evidence whatsoever that you have ever read a single word Foucault ever wrote, yet you have been on this page for months now demanding that we publish abusive and patently false, homophobic, and vicious rumors just because you think Camille Paglia believes them. The rumor is obviously false as has been discussed to death above -- it is simply not possible for Foucault to have known in '82 or '83 more about AIDS than medical scientists claimed to know. Everyone except Paglia who has mentioned the rumor -- even the sensationalist scandal-mongerer Miller -- agrees that it is false and vicious. Now, if you want to quote the above interview - and I read the entire thing, not just the one sentence you quote - on the Paglia article as evidence of her vicious sensationalism (or even of her complete lack of ability to engage complex thoughts coherently), please go for it. But I don't see how it is relevant here. csloat ( talk) 23:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added {{ criticism-section}} to the ... Criticism section. This info needs to be placed where relevant in the article. The critiques of Discipline and Punish should go in that section. The criticisms of his use of history should go in their appropriate sections etc-- Cailil talk 21:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is the best to keep the criticism-section. There is so much criticism of Foucault.
Usually, the critique cannot be confined to a single work. Examples: Dreyfus & Rabinow's critique of the Archeology has close affinity to their of Discipline and Punish. It is not only concerning Madness that Foucault is accused of selective treatment of data - the same is the case concerning sexuality. It would be akward to say the same both sections - and probably even more sections. Moreover, a neutral way of treat Foucault is to refer his methods and works as neutral and clear as possible so that the reader has a fair chance of understanding it. Particularly concerning 1. and 2., it would generally be more difficult to understand the sections on F's works, if such critique and counter-critique is mixed in. Only in case a criticism concerns something that is explicitly mentioned a works-section, and it is not important for other sections, it should be mentioned in the relevant section. But, that is an exception. Having a good criticism-section would be a wonderful way of boosting and neutralising the article - it is allready not too bad. I have removed {{ criticism-section}}. Bjerke ( talk) 11:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Should the article on Michel Foucault mention the rumour that Foucault deliberately spread HIV? See discussions above
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
This is the first online article I've read through on Foucault that didn't mention that he was gay or some sort of HIV spreading lunatic. I am quite proud at the standards put forth in this article. 208.2.205.162 ( talk) 18:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any problem mentioning he was gay. But I see a huge problem that he is in the "Anti-Psychiatry" article. He is being considered as "anti-psychiatrist". I've already said he was not and even left a note where he is claiming he is not anti-psychiatrist. But his name is still on the article.-- Justana ( talk) 20:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Can Georges Bataille be added to the list of Foucault's influences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.107.144 ( talk) 15:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This section is unclear. Did Foucault support lowering the age of consent from 15 or was he campaigning to have it raised from 15?
Surely if he was trying to have it lowered this would be a very serious and damning act. 'Foucault loved along with discourse, structuralism... a nice plump child's arse.'
This needs clarification.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.72.74 ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 January 2007(UTC)
During the '60s/'70s there was a great deal of debate about such things. This was a time when the voting age was higher than it is now, when consensual sodomy was largely illegal, and so on and so forth. At a time when gay marriage was too radical to even imagine in the US, reconsidering the age of consent was on the table. But that is neither here nor there... Foucault was EXTREMELY involved in all sorts of left-wing political movements. Many of them had to do with the reform of prisons and asylums, and with rolling back the criminalization and institutionalization of social deviance. I'm not sure why this letter (which apparently was signed by a large number of academics, like anti-Israel letters today) gets two paragraphs, but not GIP or Vincennes or the student riots or Iran, all mentioned in passing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.163.163 ( talk • contribs) 08:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This seems to have good citations for research and it probalby should be linked from both of the participants pages. Is there a justification for removing the see also from Foucault in your mind? because I don't think that given the amount of coverage this had in main media and in scholarly journals, that it wasn't worthy of mention, much like the Foucault-Chomsky debate.-- Buridan 01:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear that I'm not exactly a babe-in-the-woods here. I'm not a Habermasian or Habermas scholar: i.e. I haven't read Theory of Communicative Action. But I have read The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, which seems to be what the entire "debate" amounts to. I.e. After Foucault died, Habermas published a well-read book that was partially about Foucault. From what I know, it's really not so much a "debate" as the normal process of critical writing: Given that it is Habermas' book, it makes sense to discuss in Habermas' article. But any debate consists of later theorist trying to imagine what Foucault "might have said" had he lived long enough to read Habermas' book.
It's not necessarily unreasonable to read an important thinker through their later reception. A philosopher's death doesn't necessarily end their notability, or its reasons. I haven't looked, but it would be reasonable for the Hegel article to mention both Kierkegaard and Marx, for example, who shaped "Hegel, as we know him". But without being willing to give even a sentence explaining why this example is like that, I just don't see its place in this particular biography (thousands of people have written about Foucault, after all, both before and after Foucault's death). LotLE× talk 14:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
"Some believe that a fourth volume, dealing with the Christian era, was almost complete at the time of Foucault's death. Foucault scholar and friend, Arnold Davidson, has denied that an intended fourth and fifth volume in the series had ever been written."
I didn't want to edit this before discussing it. In Religion and culture: Michel Foucault selected and edited by Jeremy R. Carrette. The author states on page two that, "In his lecture series form 1979 to 1980 Foucault extended his analysis of government to its 'wider sense of techniques and procedures designed to direct the behaviour of men', which involved a new consideration of the 'examination of conscience' and confession in early Christian literature. These themes of early Christian literature seemed to dominate Foucault's work, alongside his study of Greek and Roman literature, until the end of his life. However, Foucault's death from AIDS left the work incomplete, and the planned fourth volume of his History of Sexuality on Christianity was never published". The author goes on to say in the footnotes that "The fourth volume was to be entitled Les aveux de la chair (Confessions of the Flesh). The volume was almost complete before Foucault's death and a copy of it is privately held in the Foucault archive. It cannot be published under the restrictions of the Foucault's estate." The author goes on to include material from Foucault's work in his book in Part III and the following are the title heads.
Part III Christianity, sexuality, and the self: fragments of an unpublished volume
TWELVE On the government of the living (1980)
THIRTEEN About the beginning of the hermeneutics of the self (1980)
FOURTEEN Sexuality and solitude (1980)
FIFTEEN The Battle for chastity (1982)
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Culture-M-Foucault/dp/041592362X/sr=8-2/qid=1158193047/ref=sr_1_2/103-3716621-7326227?ie=UTF8&s=books —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfumoo ( talk • contribs)
So fix it! Please go ahead and make an edit that clarifies the facts of the matter. We'd need a better citation to substantiate the "Arnold Davidson" claim, and it's not very important to retain the claim in the face of the published drafts. -- Rbellin| Talk 00:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
We've been through this debate before and it was decided that it was not notable. How many times must we cover the same territory? The unsourced comment that Richard hamilton made some homophobic remarks is really not encyclopedic. It adds nothing to a study of Foucault. I have been reading Foucault and works about Foucault for over 15 years and have never once seen a serious scholar make this claim or address this claim in any serious way. It is simply not a part of the scholarly discussion of Foucault's work or its reception. As far as I can tell, all we have is unsourced speculation from a "Richard Hamilton" -- presumably the "Social Misconstruction of Reality" guy -- portrayed as if it were the opinion of Foucault's critics in general. The speculation itself is completely bogus as even the supporters of hamilton are forced to acknowledge, including the information that the claim lacks evidence and is "implausible" (I would say, impossible) given that Foucault died in 1984, before much was known about AIDS at all. Why is it necessary to include speculation from one guy (without a freakin' citation!) that we acknowledge is without evidence or plausibility? And then attribute that speculation to "conservative detractors" in general? I haven't read Hamilton's book; it is possible that he makes this bizarre claim in there - from the reviews all I can tell is that he does not seem to have understood Foucault's Discipline and Punish. But Hamilton's a scholar, from what I can tell; sociology professor at Ohio State - it seems "implausible" that he would make such an incendiary and homophobic claim in an academic work that he expects people to take seriously. If he does make the claim, quote the passage here in the discussion page and let's talk about it. If there is evidence this claim is serious and that it is taken seriously, then perhaps we can include something here; otherwise, I don't see the point of a passage on a page about foucault dedicated to exposing the fact that a relatively unknown scholar said something stupid, implausible, and lacking in evidence in a book that nobody has really read.
By the way, it is poor form to switch from a named account to an anonymous ip just for the purpose of revert warring or evading the 3RR. It is even poorer form to charge people with "vandalism" for making substantive edits (even deletions) that are well explained. So, Mr. 208.100.228.2, if you are Timeloss, log in as Timeloss; if you are someone else, please get a login, and please stop edit warring. Discuss your proposed change here, as I have. I will not revert again as I am at my limit, but we need to resolve this.-- csloat 07:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I still don't think its notable enough to include in the article, but I think I've stumbled upon the source for all the rumours about Foucault spreading HIV. The person who is well documented making these claims, and internationally known, is Camille Paglia.
Presumably she wrote or spoke about this somewhere else as well because the interviewer seemed to be already aware of her comments.-- Agnaramasi 16:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This search yields more info in the form of an article by Page DuBois that mentions it. Apparently this started with Miller's biography rather than with Camille, but the latter was all too willing to help spread the ludicrous rumor. This would have been 1983, when the disease was barely understood. On Foucault's deathbed, according to Defert, his doctors were still saying "if it's AIDS..." Eribon writes that Foucault suspected but did not know that he had AIDS -- "He never knew the nature of this suffocating illness. Even in the hospital he was making enthusiastic plans for a trip to Andalusia." I haven't read Miller's bio, but according to O'Farrell's (also found through google books), "Even Miller has to admit that he believes the rumor about Foucault's alleged behavior to be 'essentially false' (Miller, 1993: 375)." O'Farrell cites Michael Bartos: "The rumour that Foucault had gone to American bath-houses to deliberately spread HIV should be seen for what it is: a commonplace of the demonisation of people with HIV and an iteration of the standard myths of the malevolent importation of HIV/AIDS." (1997:687-8). OFarrells book is Michel Foucault, SAGE 2005. Sara Mills writes "These stories do seem to be simply part of a fictional backlash response to homosexuality and bear little resemblance to reality." (Michel Foucault, Routledge, 2003, p. 19). There is more for the enterprising researcher to follow up on -- there is more written about this than I had imagined, but looking through google books, almost every mention of the rumor discounts it. Truly, it does not make a lot of sense. And the most likely first source for the rumor does not believe it himself -- according to Jonathan Dollmore (Textual Practice, 9:1 p. 42): "The rumour that Foucault deliberately tried to infect others is discounted; although circulating for almost a decade, Miller finds no evidence for it." Apparently Miller wrote that the rumor was circulating in 1983; this too does not make sense. Among whom was this rumor spreading, one must ask? But of course by stringing together out of context quotes from Foucault about sex and death ("Sex is worth dying for") and placing them in a context where a lot more is known about AIDS than 1983, Foucault is imagined as this predatory killer. It's a vicious way to discredit a scholar. And it's a fascinating example of the academic telephone game. Miller states the rumor and immediately states that it is false, but others reproduce the rumor, citing Miller without noting that he also found no evidence for it. As for Paglia, I find her utterly delusional, and this is far from the only example of that.-- csloat 19:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Most of us know his theory of Power/Knowledge. However, shouldn't there be something more about the book, than just the title? At least a link to an external site that explains it a bit?
If a link is need, here's a good one: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory54.htm
I just wanted to ask before doing it myself and being considered a vandalist for doing so. 65.23.211.62 23:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hullo -- In the introductory paragraphs MF's relationship to postmodernism (he is not "postmodern" in any well-articulated sense of the word, but it often considered as such) is presently correctly but in an order likely to confuse a reader who is new to Foucault. Suggestion (if no one objects after a while I'll change it):
Sounds good? 140.247.163.163 08:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Foucault was both a philosopher and an historian. He spent half his life buried in historical archives, was utterly concerned with historical method, and had at least as much impact on historians as he did on philosophy. His archival research was concerned with many other research areas than philosophy, and his interest in these areas was not merely philosophical. It is diminishing Foucault's contribution as an historian not to name him as such in the first line of the entry. The first line should read: "Michel Foucault was a French philosopher and historian." FNMF 15:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A number of points can easily be made in relation to the above queries:
If that is not enough, here is a quotation from Edward Said that sums up the issue eloquently:
For one, he was the most wide-ranging in his learning: at once the most concrete and historical, he was as well the most radical in theoretical investigation. [...] He was neither simply a historian, nor a philosopher, nor a literary critic, but all of those things together, and then more still. [...] In short, Foucault was a hybrid writer, dependent on—but in his writing going beyond—the genres of fiction, history, sociology, political science, and philosophy. [...] This is by no means to say that Foucault's histories, for example, have no historical validity or accuracy, but it is to say that—like the other works I have mentioned—the form and concern of these histories as artifacts require principal attention as self-aware, mixed-genre performances in the present, full of learning, quotation, and invention. (Edward W. Said, "Michel Foucault, 1926–1984," in Jonathan Arac (ed.), After Foucault: Humanistic Knowledge, Postmodern Challenges [New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988], pp. 2–3).
Note that Said's implication here is that Foucault can be classed as, at least, a philosopher, an historian, and a literary critic. Note that the quotation says that Foucault was all these things and more. Note that it refers to his "histories," arguing that while they have historical validity and accuracy, they also require other kinds of attention to be properly understood. If Foucault wished to qualify his status as historian, I do not believe this qualification applies in any way that means an encyclopaedia should not categorise him as an historian. Just as, for example, even though Nietzsche or Derrida (or Foucault) might not quite describe themselves as philosophers, this obviously does not mean an encyclopaedia should not describe them as such. To not be limited to a category, to exceed a category, is not at all the same thing as a decision by an encyclopaedia to exclude someone from that category. FNMF 04:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
To the above can be added citations from Foucault himself. A typical pronouncement of Foucault's position on his work as an historian is the following:
I would like to write the history of this prison, with all the political investments of the body that it gathers together in its closed architecture. Why? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that writing a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means writing the history of the present. (Foucault, Discipline and Punish, pp. 30–31).
Again: Foucault is concerned here with the way he is not a conventional historian, but is quite explicit that he is a writer of history. Given Foucault's range of interests and methods, and the discipline and commitment with which he explored the depths of historical archives, it is clear that there is no way of claiming that he is somehow not an historian, nor does it make any sense to argue that his work fits better simply within philosophy. He cites obscure historical references far more often than he cites renowned philosophers (which is not at all to deny his philosophical significance). As I stated originally, Foucault was both a philosopher and historian (and more than this). The opening line of an encyclopaedia is not the place to contest this designation, nor the place to argue for one over the other. FNMF 11:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
In this phrase "Foucault became fascinated with psychology. He earned a licence (degree) in psychology, along with one in philosophy; a very new qualification in France, at the time. He was involved in the clinical arm of the discipline, which exposed him to thinkers such as Ludwig Binswanger," I'm curious about the ambiguity of the "new qualification". Surely philosophy was not a new qualification in France athe the time, but psychology was. Right?-- AdamFJohnson 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
What difference does it make if some band has mentioned his name in a song? This is one thing I will never understand about Wikipedia: someone's name is mentioned in some obscure song and that mention is then immediately decreed valuable enough to be embedded in an article about said person. ("Decreed" = Just try erasing it and you will be branded a vandal.) If I made a song and called it Foucault, should I enter this worthless piece of information on an encyclopedia? It would have next to nothing to do with Foucault; it would only be a mention of a name in a song, in other words it has no encyclopedic value whatsoever in context of Michel Foucault's life and works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.233.169 ( talk • contribs)
The table only lists the published courses, but appears to list all the courses. Should All be listed, with publication dates left blank for the not yet published? Agent Cooper 13:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to get a picture of Michel up there real fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.211.232 ( talk) 01:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
What is the source/reference for "A review by Jean-Paul Sartre attacked Foucault as 'the last rampart of the bourgeoisie'." I would like to know where to find this review, or at list another source that explains the polemics. Is it possible to add this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.21.113.141 ( talk) 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided specifically refers to external links to discussion groups as needing special justification to be included in WP. Accordingly, I will be deleting the link to the outside Foucault group, pending such justification. DCDuring 19:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
There is an encyclopedia entry that Foucault wrote about himself before he died. I think that this needs to be explained and featured in the article and not just hidden in the external links section with no explaination. http://foucault.info/foucault/biography.html ( 82.216.252.246 ( talk) 21:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
Foucault's tenure at Vincennes was short-lived, as in 1970 he was elected to France's most prestigious academic body, the Collège de France, as Professor of the History of Systems of Thought.
I'm not sure you can speak of College de France as "the most prestigious academic body". The Academie is also regarded as very important and prestigious. Rares 11:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Just saying. More citations, a bit of cleanup. It is good though.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the article should mention the rumour that Foucault spread AIDS. The rumour is not part of scholarly criticism of Foucault, but that is beside the point. It is a famous/infamous accusation against Foucault, and is therefore notable. Naturally, I think it should be mentioned only as a rumour; the article certainly does not have to suggest that it is true.
Skoojal ( talk) 20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent)First of all Skoojal, Miller actually admits that the rumour was false (page 375 of the 1997 version of his bio of Foucault) he just publicized these remarks - like Paglia did - Miller did not verify them. Commodore Sloat already pointed this out to you above. Raymond Tallis aired the same rumour again in the TLS but his comments were quickly shown to be rubbish. Clare O'Farrell's book Michel Foucault deals with this in a few short pages and shows the rumour to part of a pattern of demonization of HIV infected people, as outlined by Michael Bartos. The only way this rumour can be treated is if it is acknowledged that third party reliable sources regard it as false, anachronistic, unprovable and wrapped up with stereotypes of homosexuality-- Cailil talk 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Skoojal the problem I would have with you adding what you suggest above [1] is this: it doesn't record what the sources say. The sources say that the rumour was: "false" and "unlikely' (Miller); and that is anachronistic, unprovable, part of a discourse of demonization of HIV infected people, and a negative stereotype of homosexuality (O'Farrell). The issue is this if one only records part a the source (ie "there's a rumour") and not the other - one is doing original research through novel interpretation and that would cause it to be removed because that would violate site policy. If you want to include this you have to record "all significant views (at least O'Farrell as well and any other significant sources) - you couldn't just use Miller. Your sentence would have to read "There was a rumour which is unprovable and discredited by scholars and those who knew Foucault that while in America [...] There is no evidence to support this rumour.". Now bear in mind that this is a featured article written to WP's highest standards. It would very hard to justify why a line like that (about a totally discredited rumour) could be kept in an encyclopedia article-- Cailil talk 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent) This has become tendentious and is veering off-topic. I recommend you both disengage from each other and I would ask Skoojal to consider refactoring that last comment in light of WP:EQ and WP:CIVIL please. If discussion can't stay on topic it will be removed. Wikipedia is not a battleground-- Cailil talk 00:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Skoojal is absolutely correct. A rumour that has published sources mentioning it, regardless of its veracity, is certainly noteworthy in wikipedia. The claim "it is not encyclopedic" is a subjective personal opinion that cannot be proven. The claim "wikipedia is not a tabloid" is applying a personal opinion to a proposed edit (i.e. the rumour). You may say it is tabloid like, I may say that a rumor of this behavior is very important when judging the scholarship of Foucault and hence extremely important in an encyclopedia. I believe the argument against the inclusion of the rumour has a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a "scholarly" tool that only presents information that is correct http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Michel_Foucault&action=edit§ion=18 Editing Talk:Michel Foucault (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaor true. Rather, wikipedi presents all sourced available information, regardless of veracity, to the reader and leaves the judgemnet of veracity completely to the reader. 38.117.213.19 ( talk) 05:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually no that is not what is sourced. What is sourced is that the rumour is "dismissed by the people who knew Foucault", that it is considered part of stereotypes of HIV infected people and homosexuals" that it is "unlikely" and "false". Once again, where does a false and discredited rumour fit in an encyclopedic biography article? This open-ended tendentious conversation is disruptive. No source has or can prove the rumour. Paglia's remarks are not to WP's standard. Even if you or anyone else can show a third party source that does not describe the rumour as untrue it would be undue to record fringe theories - especially discreditted ones-- Cailil talk 23:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Your comment's personal speculation concerning other editor's motives is innapropriate and an unfortunate degeneration of what should be a serious discussion about the issues. It is important to learn how to assume good faith and refrain from any personal attack. The discussion has continued below where many sources were provided. Good luck. 38.117.213.19 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the point of my comment seems to have been misunderstood. Here is your comment of above: "to distort their arguments in order to try to win your point." Clearly a direct personal comment concerning another editor's motives. Again, please refrain from personal attacks that merely degrade the level of discourse. Please know that it is the goal of other editors, as I am sure it is yours, to create the best possible article that carefully presents all important information in an unbiased way. Learning to have this assumption of good faith is extremely important in order to reach any concensus, and most certainly on a topic of a controversial nature. Please note that the discussion has continued below where sources are being discussed. Good luck, 38.117.213.19 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here is the quote from Miller in a postscript to the biography:
Here is Paglia in her article "Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders: Academe in the Hour of the Wolf" (Arion, Spring 1991):
And Paglia again on the University of Bergen's website:Source: http://privat.ub.uib.no/bubsy/PagliaAIDS.htm:
Here is a quote from Roddey Reid in "Cultural Critique" No. 35 (1996-1997) in his article "Foucault in America: Biography, 'Cutural War' and the new Concensus" [Source: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0882-4371(199624%2F199724)35%3C179%3AFIAB%22W%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0]:
Thus, the rumour is not only well sourced, but is also sourced as saying that it is "reliable" (Paglia), and is significant and part of accepted opinion (Reid). 38.117.213.19 ( talk)
I decline to engage in personal speculation as to whether the rumour is true, and I would advise you to do the same. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however Wikipedia relies on sourced material. Now, to the sources- It does not matter whether Reid is saying that the rumours are not true. He indeed disagrees, however he remains a source for the idea that the rumour is part of significant accepted opinion about Foucault. James Miller also disagrees with the rumour, however he remains a source that such a rumour is extent. Paglia is certainly a well known scholarly source, which we seem to both agree on, and she is quite clearly quoted in the article- beside the university website- as saying the rumour is reliable. Again, you may personally disagree with her, however Wikipedia relies on sourced material. 38.117.213.19 ( talk)
Please control the urge to engage in personal speculation concerning other editor's motives. It is extremely important to assume good faith. To the issue: Please read my comment carefully. I provided TWO sources for Paglia, one from a journal (Arion, spring 1991. Reid also quotes her in his article as saying the rumour is reliable). Thus, she is a scholarly published source that the rumour is reliable. Secondly, it seems we both agree that Miller is a source that the rumour is extant (thank you for your sagacious correction). It does not matter whether Miller goes on to say the rumour is false, he remains a source. Thirdly, concerning Reid, I believe your comment fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia policy. It does not matter in the slightest whether Reid personally believes the rumour false; he still remains a clear source, without any interpretation, for the idea that the rumour is part of accepted opinion about Foucault's significance. To sum up, Miller is definitely a source that the rumour is extant. Paglia is definitely a source that the rumour is reliable (again see the article- not the university website). Reid is definitely a source that the rumour is part of accepted opinion about Foucault's significance. 38.117.213.19 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read my comment carefully. Reid indeed does not say the rumour is reliable, and I never made that claim. However, he does say that the rumour is part of accepted opinion about Foucault's significance. Do you dispute he says that? Paglia herself says the rumour is reliable. Do you dispute she says that? 38.117.213.19 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest you re-read my comment carefully. Paglia is quite clearly quoted in the Reid article as saying that she believes the rumour is reliable, and this is how Reid understands her. You are entitled to your own personal (and quite interesting) interpretation, however it remains just that- yours and unsourced. Additionally, you have failed to respond to the main points of my comment- Miller is a clear source that a rumour is extant. Do you deny he is? Reid quite clearly says that the rumour is part of accepted opinion about Foucault's significance.Do you deny he says that? Paglia is understood by Reid to be saying that the rumour is reliable. Do you deny he says that? 38.117.213.19 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I suggest you re-read my comment. Reid quotes Paglia in his article and understands her to be saying the rumour is reliable. You are entitled to your own interpretation but it is just that - yours and unsourced. Additionally, you make the claim that the rumour is fringe. However, again that is your personal opinion until it is sourced. I have brought a reliable source (Reid) that says that the rumour is "part of accepted opinion about Foucault's significance."Reid states this even though he personally believes it to be untrue. Thus, I have brought a source that the rumour is extremely important, regardless of its veracity, and you have (until now) brought nothing more than your personal opinion about the importance of the rumour. 38.117.213.19 ( talk)
You are entitled to your personal opinion as to the veracity of the rumour, however Wikipedia relies on sourced material. You are also entitled to believe it is fringe, however again, that is your unsourced opinion. I have provided sources that you have not responded to. Again: Reid quotes Paglia and understands her to be saying the rumour is reliable, he goes on to disagree believing it is a conspiracy. Reid also says the rumour is part of "accepted opinion about Foucault's significance." This last source is perhaps the strongest reason to include the rumour in the article, regardless of any one scholar's personal belief/disbelief. Ignoring these sources won't make them go away. Cheers, 38.117.213.19 ( talk) 05:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, 38.117.213.19, if you want to be taken seriously around here, you should probably get a login rather than editing anonymously -- you're very aggressive about this point and it would help people take you seriously if you had at least a pseudonym to stand behind your edits. As it is I have a hard time believing you are for real. You have yet to show any evidence whatsoever that you have ever read a single word Foucault ever wrote, yet you have been on this page for months now demanding that we publish abusive and patently false, homophobic, and vicious rumors just because you think Camille Paglia believes them. The rumor is obviously false as has been discussed to death above -- it is simply not possible for Foucault to have known in '82 or '83 more about AIDS than medical scientists claimed to know. Everyone except Paglia who has mentioned the rumor -- even the sensationalist scandal-mongerer Miller -- agrees that it is false and vicious. Now, if you want to quote the above interview - and I read the entire thing, not just the one sentence you quote - on the Paglia article as evidence of her vicious sensationalism (or even of her complete lack of ability to engage complex thoughts coherently), please go for it. But I don't see how it is relevant here. csloat ( talk) 23:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added {{ criticism-section}} to the ... Criticism section. This info needs to be placed where relevant in the article. The critiques of Discipline and Punish should go in that section. The criticisms of his use of history should go in their appropriate sections etc-- Cailil talk 21:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is the best to keep the criticism-section. There is so much criticism of Foucault.
Usually, the critique cannot be confined to a single work. Examples: Dreyfus & Rabinow's critique of the Archeology has close affinity to their of Discipline and Punish. It is not only concerning Madness that Foucault is accused of selective treatment of data - the same is the case concerning sexuality. It would be akward to say the same both sections - and probably even more sections. Moreover, a neutral way of treat Foucault is to refer his methods and works as neutral and clear as possible so that the reader has a fair chance of understanding it. Particularly concerning 1. and 2., it would generally be more difficult to understand the sections on F's works, if such critique and counter-critique is mixed in. Only in case a criticism concerns something that is explicitly mentioned a works-section, and it is not important for other sections, it should be mentioned in the relevant section. But, that is an exception. Having a good criticism-section would be a wonderful way of boosting and neutralising the article - it is allready not too bad. I have removed {{ criticism-section}}. Bjerke ( talk) 11:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Should the article on Michel Foucault mention the rumour that Foucault deliberately spread HIV? See discussions above