Talk:Michel Foucault/Archive 2

message: Hi,
This is regarding the date of demise as mentioned in the article. The first line of the first paragraph says that Foucalut lived between October 15, 1926 to June 26, 1984. So, the date of demise is June 26, 1984. 
But under the title BIOGRAPHY, and subtitle THE LATE FOUCAULT, the last line of the paragraph says, "Foucault died of an AIDS-related illness in Paris July 20th, 1984".
Which of the two versions is correct??
202.68.145.230 14:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Demise 

message: The article of the date 26th June says that Foucault died on that day. You don't find such a mention on July 20th page. So, I've corrected July 20th to June 26th. Kindly check up again.
202.68.145.230 14:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've changed the date 

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

message: Is he actually an alum, or did he just teach there? Someone just added him to the uni buffalo alumni category. Babajobu 15:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He just taught there as a visiting professor. --Panopticon 06:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: U Buffalo

message: I think that is a good idead to add an infobox to Foucault's page, so a made a very incomplete sketch of it. Here it is:
201.2.201.222 19:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Where has Zizek criticized Foucault for relying on enlightenment ideals while criticizing them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.28.21 (talk • contribs) 
:Probably in The Ticklish Subject – I'll try and have a look later. mgekelly 00:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zizek? 

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

message: I'm in the middle of watching the finale episode of the NBC White House drama series, The West Wing, in which the fictional United States President Josiah Bartlet is handing over power to his successor. As the White House staff are moving Bartlets' belongings out of the White House, a book with the cover with the title or author name "Michel Foucault" is prominently displayed being taken off the President's bookshelves. President Bartlet, in addition to being an American patriot of the Democrat variety, is a Nobel Prize winning economist and devout Catholic who originally wanted to be a priest. He seems unlikely to be a Foucault fan or even one to own books on Foucault - and The West Wing is not an exercise in radical irony or anti-historical problematization. Cultural critics and TV scholars - what are to make of this insertion of a Foucault shout-out in the final episode then? Bwithh 00:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why Bartlet would need to be a "Foucault fan" to own a book by Foucault. In the episodes I have seen Bartlet is portrayed as open minded and well read. Perhaps that "explains" what might not need explination if one isn't biased against Foucault. Hyacinth 03:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its more accurate to describe Bartlet as well-read and highly opinionated, sometimes to the point of close-minded stubborness. Foucault has a reputation as being scorned by "mainstream" academics (with the exception of cultural studies perhaps) as being "anti-progress", and Nobel-winning religious economist heavily involved in official US politics would certainly fall into that category. Even setting the question of whether Bartlet would believably own such a book, there's still the question of why the writers chose to reference Foucault in the final episode. Bwithh 05:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Thanks. Hyacinth 20:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I understand, but correct me if I'm wrong, that the book was "Society Must be Defended". Perhaps the script writers or prop dressers were more interested in the title than who the book was by. In response to Bwithh above - how does being an economist and a Catholic preclude one from being interested in Foucault? This is very slippery ground. One might draw attention to the fact, for example, James Bernauer, a Jesuit priest, is one of Foucault's most well-known sympathetic commentators. There are lots of economists out there who read Foucault's work as well. Panopticon 22:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the book shown, then I agree.  Using Foucault's name makes little sense, as it's not particularly tied with a single idea.  The English volume's title, however, invokes a sense of statesmanship, responsibility, civic action, etc. - regardless of what Foucault was talking about. Typical Hollywood. --Vector4F 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foucault and The West Wing

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

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

message: Some questions about your use of The perversions of Michel Foucault by Roger Kimball as a source for the article on Focault:
* Is Mr. Kimball a notable authority on Foucault?
* Is "The New Criterion" website a reliable source as per WP:RS ?
* Has this speculation by Daniel Defert, been reported on any reliable sources?
* Why don't you use The Passion of Michel Foucault, by James Miller instead?
≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:43, 12 August
:This discussion should really be here, rather than where Kmaguir1 is carrying it on at the Judith Butler page.  Jossi was following a thread there, I understand; but while there is likely overlap, Foucault experts are not necessarily Butler experts, and vice-versa.
:In any case, summarizing what everyone here other than one-or-two young Lutherans in Memphis agrees on:
:* Kimball is by no means any sort of authority on Foucault; Kimball's knowledge seems to have started and ended with reading one biography, and not very carefully.
:* New Criterion in some general sense can often meet WP:RS.  It's a real and longstanding publication; but while it is by no means an "extremist" source in the way WP:RS defines, it is definitely a highly partisan one.
:* Apparently the allegation about a "faculty inquiry" has no source other than Kmaguir1's misreading of Kimball.  Kimball tries to insinuate something negative by saying that Foucault's colleagues "queried" him, Kmaguir1 transforms that into a formal inquiry.  As someone above points out, if it happened at all, it was likely in the nature of an informal question in the hallway, and possibly a raised eyebrow.
:* Given than Kimball (as discussed above) doesn't actually write about Foucault at all, but simply reviews Miller's bio, the bio itself is unquestionably more relevant (but less laziness would be needed to read it).
:I confess that I have not ever much cared about Foucault's biography, so have not read Miller's bio.  I've read all (or almost all) of Foucault's actual works, but his personal life is of no particular interest to me (likewise of all the other philosophers I read for their works). LotLE×talk 21:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also want to say that it isn't really anything unusual for professors to negotiate jobs for their spouses/partners when they are hired at a university.  It happens all the time and isn't in any way notable.--Agnaramasi 22:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read my comments, Lulu, you would see I never wrote nor thought "formal inquiry". I wrote "inquiry" in line with the Kimball article saying 'query'--the same root, as in to inquire, in that they did inquire. The formal inquiry stuff is a TOTAL intentional red herring. Some can inquire of me what the temperature is outside, but for them to formally inquire as to that, that's different--it implies more of a provable misdeed. That's not what the Kimball article states--merely that he was queried about it, in other words, that he was asked about it. You can think that's irrelevant, but that has not been the prevading argument. -Kmaguir1 03:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Agna, you're rationalizing--the faculty inquired. That is fact. You saying it isn't anything unusual constitutes your own judgment, and not theirs, the judgment they made to query Foucault. Take it up with them. -Kmaguir1 03:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone inquires what the weather is, it doesn't belong in wikipedia.  This is not notable at all if it is just a "query," and you know it.  If you don't believe there was a formal inquiry, then why do you insist on putting it in wikipedia?  You are clearly trolling.--csloat 03:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought you Christians were supposed to avoid lying.  Isn't there some stricture about that?  Jesuits have a rather elaborate system of lying-without-lying, but Lutherans surely not.  Anyway, Commodore Sloat is onto the right point here, of course; something can be verifiable (which this "query" isn't, in any case) without being notable.  If we have strong evidence that Foucault said it was raining to his colleague or that he liked his green sweater, it's not our job to "leave it to readers" to decide whether that's important... it ain't.  And likewise, the possibility that a colleague asked Foucault about Defert's appointment just plain isn't notable by the wildest stretch of imagination (of course if what Kmaguir1 tries to pretend were true were true, there might be a better argument: but there just plain wasn't any "faculty inquiry" into the matter). LotLE×talk 03:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. Religious bigotry, eh? Go you. I hope you don't make your edits on that basis. DanB DanD 07:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a Calvinist, not a Lutheran. Get your religion at least somewhat straight. -Kmaguir1 03:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If somebody queries me about whether or not I hired someone because I was having sex with someone, I think that would make it into my bio whether or not it was resolved positively for Foucault. For help with this, see every political sexual harassment scandal in history which was dealt with on allegation-level only. -Kmaguir1 03:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Resolved positively"?  So, then you are claiming there was a formal inquiry now?  Where's the evidence?  If we're just talking about a query in the hallways, no, it does not belong in a bio.  If there is a formal inquiry, there may be more to talk about (but even then, yes, the resolution of such an inquiry would be extremely relevant).  As it stands, you can't even demonstrate that Foucault was asked in the halls about this, much less that there was a case brought against him.--csloat 03:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no. No claim of formal inquiry because it's not in the Kimball. Again, ,we have a suspension of edits on that which I have agreed to, in order for me to gain access to the materials (the Miller book). I have no idea of how long that will take, the book is not in my area. I can demonstrate from the Kimball article that Foucault was queried about something by the faculuty... if he were queried about what he wanted for lunch, that's not Wikipedia. If he were queried about whether or not he allegedly murdered someone, that is Wikipedia. Him giving a position to his lover, and that generating controversy, it lies somewhere in between, which is why, along with jossi's request, I am searching for yet more evidence. -Kmaguir1 03:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree with you more. The material may take weeks to get here through interlibrary loan. Unless the noble, unpolitical Wikipedians want to assist me in how I might find the darn book. -Kmaguir1 04:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until then, I won't edit the Foucault page to include the disputed material. I'm having too much fun on the Reformed University Fellowship page.-Kmaguir1 04:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To find the book in a Library near you,  click here:  and use the find this book' feature. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 04:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the closest one is Nashville, 3-4 hours away, and my car can't make it that far, so I'll have to wait for Interlibrary material. -Kmaguir1 04:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, while you're ordering books, it might help to order one or two actually written by Foucault and Butler before insisting on further edits to these pages.--csloat 04:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the following: Undoing Gender, Precarious Life, Discipline and Punish, parts of Order of Things. -Kmaguir1 04:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrific.  Perhaps you could use your no doubt thorough understanding of these texts to illuminate this discussion rather than relying on your equally thorough skimming of Kimball's execrable hatchet-job?--csloat 06:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kmaguir1's edit at [[Michel Foucault]]. Questions

message: I want to reiterate for the record: I reject all of Sonhealfdane's comments, I reject them categorically and without exception, and I support moving to block him for wikipedia, but of course not for sock-puppetry, which is a ludicrous and incredulous charge, but instead for the offensive remarks he made about HIV. That just cannot be permitted, even in jest. Please let me know, again, how I can assist in starting the process of getting him whatever block we can tag him with. -Kmaguir1 07:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Sonofhealfdane and Truthseekers are blocked indefinitely, KMaguir1 for ten days. --Anthony Krupp 17:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reiteration