Talk:Michel Foucault

Pronunciation of name Comment

How is Foucault's name pronounced? Normal French pronunciation would be /miˈʃɛl fuˈko/ but I have seen web sites that say it's /ˈfuko/. Did he alter the proonunciation when he lived in Scandinavia and Germany, or are those sites simply wrong?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ABehrens (talk • contribs) 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Genealogy as historical method

The section headed "Genealogy as historical method" makes no reference to genealogy as historical method.

Child abuse by foucault

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-philosopher-michel-foucault-abused-boys-in-tunisia-6t5sj7jvw Christopher Tate (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the article under "Allegations of child sex abuse". freshacconci (✉) 22:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks I missed that. Should it be more prominent in the text considering the seriousness of it? Christopher Tate (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that section could be expanded, since it's very short at the moment. I'm not sure where it could go since we're dealing with allegations and he was never charged with any crime. I'm certain some of the traffic to this article is to find out about the allegations, but I'm uncertain how to proceed. I haven't edited much of this article and I wonder if some of the regular editors could weigh in. freshacconci (✉) 00:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Did anyone get a chance to read the article in the link and associated articles in other publications? Seems like quite a bit of information out there if this issue is investigated. Thanks for the replys. Christopher Tate (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME says A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. Of course, Foucault is no longer alive and not covered by BLP, but we should proceed with caution, we should follow WP:BALANCE requirements. It's not the seriousness of the accusations that should dictate how much space to give to them, it's whether there is sufficient support among reliable sources as to the accusations' veracity. Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Uncivil and unconsructive remarks collapsed Dronebogus (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course the reports of his paedophile abuses should be more significant in the article, given that he was a loud supporter of paedophile "rights" and abolition of the age of consent. The intersection of his critical theories with his amoral behaviours (and those of his comrades) is of clear significance for consideration of the likely impact of widespread adoption of those same theories. But...good luck achieving any of this, because many of the critical-theory adjacent pages on Wikipedia are these days defended by a critical mass of sympathetic editors who will constantly remove such references and white-wash articles... Fig (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC) How is this comment productive in any way? You may want to read WP:ASSUME before commenting on talk pages. freshacconci (✉) 20:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Foucault is often cited as one of the authors of post modernism which is part of the ideology that supports woke politics. He tends to solicit strong reactions from people which I suspect may be part of the reason for the comment above and it's tone. It's also the part of the reason that the accusations of child abuse may be relevant to the article. I'm sure whoever is in charge of editing will make the right editorial decision either way. Thanks for working on this. 2605:59C8:13CF:2000:8822:7DF1:9CE6:9933 (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Foucault was neither a supporter of pedophile "rights", nor of abolition of the age of consent; that represents a misreading or distortion of his work. If you wish to add anything like that to the article, please be sure that you base it on WP:SECONDARY sources only (i.e., not your interpretation of Foucault, but a summary of books written by other people about Foucault). Also, per WP:Verifiability, the source you use must "directly support" your assertions. Mathglot (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC) You may want to read French petitions against age of consent laws and reassess, given Foucault's involvement in it and his publicly stated positions. Fig (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Why don't you start reading some introductions or actual books by Foucault instead of defame him? You literally have no idea of what you are talking about. 95.235.217.174 (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Truthfully, I think we already devote too much text to it - a section devoted to it is WP:UNDUE. It's essentially one person's speculation (and they later, when confronted with inaccuracies in their initial comments, outright admitted that it was speculation), with no actual evidence backing it; currently, they don't even claim to have witnessed any evidence themselves. More importantly, in keeping with this analysis, the resulting coverage was brief and is low-quality; several of the sources are opinion pieces and one looks like a blog. In particular I'm not seeing much coverage after Sorman's retraction. This is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim and the sources we have right now aren't really sufficient for it. I think that at the very least (given that it's essentially one person's opinion and further opinions covering it) we should move it to the reception section; and I'd personally say we should probably cut it entirely unless people can find sources dating to after Sorman updated his statements (and if they do, it should be rewritten to rely entirely on those sources and not the initial breathless opinions; the fact that Sorman later admitted that he hadn't actually witnessed what he said he did is an example of the dangers of WP:RECENTISM.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. I'm fine with including something about this in some form, somewhere in the article, but only if there is some WP:INDEPENDENT coverage, which currently, there is not. Afaic, in its current form, it is unverified, and undue; consequently, I've blanked the section until there are some serious supporting sources for it. Mathglot (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

Change pronouns of Judith Butler from 'she' to they' in section 'The body and sexuality' Smcd123 (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

Justified by the main article on Butler, but for simplicity I just edited it to avoid pronoun use there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2024

CHANGE: In April 1966, Gallimard published Foucault's Les Mots et les Choses [fr] (Words and Thing)

TO: In April 1966, Gallimard published Foucault's Les Mots et les Choses [fr] (Words and Things) Malte Egon G (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

inaccuracies and failure to mention homophobia as a primary reason in "views on underage sex" topic

The petition mentioned in the section on his views on age of consent shouldnt be there and is blatantly misrepresented. That petition was to make the age of consent for homosexual sex acts in line with the general age of consent and not far above them and the section makes no sense whatsoever with this fact removed as without this context it says he wanted to lower the age of consent to the age of consent. Its a ridiculous misdirection to claim this as evidence of his opinions on underage sex when its clearly about the homophobic double standard at play. Additionally by definition it makes no sense to claim support for the general age of consent becoming applicable to homosexuals isnt an opinion on underage sex because its about people that are above the age of consent and thus not underage 103.250.118.144 (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source explaining this? At least at a glance, one problem with the section is that it relies extremely heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources, pulling quotes out of a single interview; for something WP:EXCEPTIONAL like this that isn't really appropriate, especially not when we're devoting an entire section to it. So if we had more secondary sources putting this in proper context we could rewrite it to focus on those instead. --Aquillion (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

On examination, every citation in the section except one is a WP:PRIMARY cite to a single interview (it was cited under different names and publications three times); and the one remaining source is a Guardian article where Foucault is only mentioned briefly in passing as part of a list of names. I'm not sure this is enough for even a paragraph, but it certainly isn't enough for an entire section - we should try and find secondary sources if we're going to retain this at all. --Aquillion (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)