Talk:Biopolitics

message: "See also" are a list, lists are worse then text. Wiki is not paper, we should have room to discuss all related issues, and See also, which rarely discuss the linked items, give little indication why they are relevant. Therefore, 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in See also and therefore 3) good articles have no (or should not have) See also sections. --Loremaster (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: About ''See also''

message: Regarding this reversion, which changed this:
Both Kuttner and Mullins were inspired by Morley Roberts and Arthur Keith and either co-wrote together(or with the Institute of Biopolitics) Biopolitics of Organic Materialism and reprinted some of Roberts works
back to this:
Kuttner and Mullins were inspired by Morley Roberts and reprinted some of his works.
The source says quite clearly that Mullins and Kuttner were inspired by Morley and that Keith and Morley inspired one another.  It says absolutely zilch about a connection between Mullins and Kuttner on the one hand and Keith on the other.  It seems entirely plausible that inspiration is transitive to some extent, but the source doesn't say it.  Probably material on Keith should be added to the paragraph on Morley, where it would be supported by this source, rather than the one on Kuttner and Mullins, at least until a new source is found.  Anyway, that's what I'm thinking here.
OK, now here we get this:
Kuttner and Mullins were inspired by Morley Roberts who was in turn inspired by Arthur Keith or both were inspired by each other and either co-wrote together(or with the Institute of Biopolitics) Biopolitics of Organic Materialism dedicated to Roberts and reprinted some of his works.
This is supported by the source but it seems to me to contain a lot of material that's tangential to the subject of this particular item.  Why start out talking about Kuttner and Mullins only to end up with Keith's relationship with Morley?  There's a bullet point right above this one that's trying to talk about Morley and biopolitics.  It strikes me that it would be better to explain Morley's relationship with Keith and biopolitics in that section instead of in this one, since there's only a putative connection between Mullins and Kuttner on the one hand and Keith on the other.  Keith and Morley are related, Morley, Kuttner, and Mullins are related, but there's no known relationship so far between Mullins, Kuttner, and Keith.  Either way, I think the sentence is too long and rambling and ought to be rewritten.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthur Keith in the paragraph on Kuttner and Mullins 

message: This article is a mess. Half is about Foucault and biopolitics and the rest is a rambling disambig about various meanings. Maybe the article should be split in two. Bhny (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just two?  You're more ambitious than I am.  I have no clue what should be done about it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it either has to be expanded or split. To address Foucault at that much length and not address scholarship after him (such as the work of Giorgio Agamben, Roberto Esposito (whom is cited), Rosi Braidotti, and Achille Mbembe seems skewed.--Biopoliticalaccount (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm hearing more and more about Agamben in particular, although I'm not an expert. I think adding anything about Agamben would be useful - and coincidentally support the drive to a useful split ;) 89.167.143.229 (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  not an article or a disambig 

message: This page currently has no clear direction. The topic is already niche enough as it is, so if a focus cannot be found then perhaps it would be better off integrated into a more general page on science or policy. It could also use more references and/or links. My understanding is that Biopolitics arose from early political governments' efforts to solidify rule via implementation of new findings in the sciences. Perhaps adding a section on Biopolitics in a modern sense can be a possible direction?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanzyu suplolol (talk • contribs) 08:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Improvements 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Biopolitics. 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/20160223014231/http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/snowden_biopolitics to http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/snowden_biopolitics
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) 11:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The opening of this article is long, unfocused, and contains a bunch of incomplete sentences. There's no verb in "In the work of Foucault, the style of government that regulates populations through "biopower" (the application and impact of political power on all aspects of human life)." The next sentence has a weird tense and seems like it was meant to contain a comma-wrapped aside but there's no second comma: "Morley Roberts, in his 1938 book Bio-politics used to argue that a correct model for world politics is "a loose association of cell and protozoa colonies"." The Hardt & Negri section's first sentence lacks a subject "In the works of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, anti-capitalist insurrection using life and the body as weapons; examples include flight from power and, 'in its most tragic and revolting form', suicide terrorism." and in the second it's not clear what is the opposite of biopower "Conceptualised as the opposite of biopower, which is seen as the practice of sovereignty in biopolitical conditions."
What is going on here? I want to help grammatically but I honestly don't know the intention of some of these sentences, they appear to have words removed from them at random. For what it's worth I find the references very informative and I think the article should exist, there are plenty of books written about biopower/biopolitics. Perhaps the starting point is to move some of the list-like information from the beginning into the "Other Definitions" section. Phette23 (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening is a mess 

message: Hello all, I note that this article has been flagged with issues for quite some time- it definitely seems to have improved since early complaints, but can still be better.
I ended up here from "Articles for Cleanup," and just so happen to be a Foucauldian scholar with all of his publications and a number of secondary sources in the room with me 😅 I'm planning later this week to tighten things up, roll back from some changes that IMO significantly obscured the core meaning of this term, and see if I can get some of these maintenance tags dealt with!
I'll update in thread here after the work is underway to summarize my changes at a high level. Ping me with any questions! Chiselinccc (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planning a solid cleanup this week