Talk:Michel Foucault/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Taylorism Original Research

It appears that the Taylorism section isn't about Foucault, but rather work upstream from his work. It's probably fine to reference the work, but an article-length section really doesn't belong in Foucaoult's biography. I've tagged as OR, but there may be a better tag. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Since I was the one who wrote that, I'll reply. If "original research" means "research undertaken by the Wikipedia-editor", it is not. Hoffman, in the cited work, is the one who does this analysis. I simply summarized his writings on this - it is entirely Hoffmans analysis (or "opinion") that Taylorism can be seen as an example of disciplinary power. It may be argued that it is not relevant to the article, but it is not "original research" in the way that I understand WP:OR. Given that Hoffmans analysis was published in a work that aims to summarize Foucault's thought (anthology by several scholars + editors), I wouldn't say that its necessarily an entirely fringe theory, albeit it still may be too unrelated to warrant a longer exposition. On that I have no strong opinions, others may decide. Best wishes, Sigvid (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It is original research to include it here. It's not about Foucault, it's about something else entirely. Is there a more relevant article to move that content to? 99.152.115.208 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

How is it "original research"? WP:Original Research defines OR as "material — such as facts, allegations, and ideas — for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". By this definition the section is not original research, because there is a source to the information, and the text does not go beyond what is stated in the source. The reference is Michel Foucault - Key Concepts, chapter 2 ("Disciplinary power" by Marcelo Hoffman) On pages 35-39, under the title "Taylor's Principles as a disciplinary programme", Hoffman discusses Taylorism as an example of disciplinary power. Unfortunately there is no preview in Google Books available, so I cannot link it. But this is not original research by the definition described in WP:OR. I made no own synthesis/analysis whatsoever - I only summarized what Hoffman wrote. Again, you may argue that this is irrelevant to the article, but it is not original research. Hoffman may have conducted an analysis that extends beyond Foucaults own writings, but that does not make this section "original research", since, again, it is Hoffman who does this analysis - not I. Sigvid (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It would appear I do not yet have extended-confirmed status here (I do on svwp/Swedish WP...), so I cannot change the template. I believe the correct template for what the above ip-adress is addressing would be Template:Importance section. It should be changed, if others agree with the ip address that the section is of questionable relevance. Sigvid (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sigvid:, you can edit Template talk:Importance section, or even Template:Importance section/doc, but I'd recommend using the Talk page first. If you know exactly what (template) change you want, and you believe it's an obviously beneficial change or would be a clear improvement, consider using {{edit template-protected}} on the Talk page, otherwise discuss first to gain consensus for the change. Feel free to {{ping}} me there, if you do. Otherwise, if it's just a documentation change, you can just do it. Mathglot (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I think I was being unclear? I did not suggest an edit to the template itself. I suggested to substitute the Template:Original research section with Template:Importance section, in this article, because (as I argued for above), it is not original research. Sigvid (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sigvid:, oh, sorry, probably just me not reading carefully; apologies! Mathglot (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of the section. Does Foucault at all talk about Taylor? 185.224.57.161 (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

List of works?

Shouldn't we have a list of his works? I was shocked that it's so hard to find in this voluminous article?. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be a good improvement to the article, to have a chronological list of his publications? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elynch47.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article misquotes Foucault on AIDS

Currently says:

> Foucault initially referred to AIDS as a "dreamed-up disease".

The citation given (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/qa-edmund-white/) says only this:

> I'd told him about it in 1981 when I was visiting, and he laughed at me and said, 'This is some new piece of American Puritanism. You've dreamed up a disease that punishes only gays and blacks?' 

So, 1. he literally did not say the quoted text 2. the sentence potentially misrepresents what he said. As quoted, he is sarcastically asking whether it is dreamed up. It was in a casual conversation, not a public statement, so you can't expect him to have expressed himself perfectly literally.

If this is the only statement anyone can find on it, then I don't think it's enough to determine what his initial reaction to AIDS was. Perhaps the best thing, if not to remove it altogether, would be to say something vague, like "Foucault initially expressed skepticism regarding AIDS", and leave the citation for people to form their own interpretation about what he might have thought. 88.108.49.117 (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

88. Legally, I think it is hearsay. But, if what was said was said, which is likely, it is fair to at least preface the hearsay with your suggestion. The hearsay is consistent with everything else reported on him in this article. Thanks. I really like this article. Always perplexed when people quoted him before and suspect it is a badge of honor to be in the know on this very complex dude. Guy was a wild man with towering intellect. Great Article. Gracias. Psw808 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC) PSW

Unclear sentence

In the first paragraph of "4.1 Collège de France and Discipline and Punish: 1970–1975", the sentence "He was obliged to give 12 weekly lectures a year—and did so for the rest of his life—covering the topics that he was researching at the time;" is unclear. In what way are they weekly? Are they week-long? I believe the intention would be more simply stated by dropping the word "weekly". Venusasaguy (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Good suggestion. PSW Psw808 (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

New Category

I propose that he be categorized under the French sex abusers and French rapists categories, along with Child sexual abuse in France. Any other categories which pertain to pedophilia and child abuse should be added as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krelll24 (talk • contribs) 8 April 2021 (UTC)
How 'bout we don't. Foucault sexuality was not unusual then nor is it now. Consensual sex is not what you allege. Age is relative especially to the era. For centuries it was not unusual for 12 year olds to bear children and even encourage it as their right to marriage. Sure: OK: there are always excesses. Regards, PSW Psw808 (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)<br/)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2022

Section 6.2 includes a line full of unsupported claims. Since those claims are not properly sourced, the line hosting them should be deleted. The line in question follows: "Foucault was a proponent of adult-child underage sex and of pedophilia, considering them a form of liberation for both actors;[185][186][187] he argued young children could give sexual consent.[188]"

The first claim, that Foucault argued in favour of adult-child sex and pedophilia as forms of liberation, is firstly untrue. Nowhere does Foucault specifically make this argument. This kind of argument - one for liberation - is generally antagonistic to Foucault's entire philosophical style. Furthermore, the sources to support this claim are three opinion pieces from the New York Times, none of which themselves include rigorous citation that confirms receipt of any such claim on Foucault's part. The inclusion of sentence can only be justified if one takes seriously Guy Sorman's recent defamation of Foucault, that which has been thoroughly debunked. See an investigative article on the matter and the overview of events by the Centre Michel Foucault:

https://www.jeuneafrique.com/1147268/politique/tunisie-michel-foucault-netait-pas-pedophile-mais-il-etait-seduit-par-les-jeunes-ephebes/ 

https://centremichelfoucault.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Communiqu%C3%A9-Foucault.pdf

The first clause -- "Foucault was a proponent of adult-child underage sex and pedophilia, considering them a form of liberation for both actors" -- mut be removed. The second -- "he argued young children could give sexual consent" -- can only remain if a direct source is given, namely, Foucault's testimony to the court on this issue. That document is readily available in the original French. This English article gives an overview of the affair which actually captures the nature of Foucault's view on the issue which is not a straightforward argument "For" sex between adults and children in the name of a so-called liberation but rather complicated the discrimination between heterosexual and homosexual cases as well as sought to reaffirm, common in the continental legal tradition, more room for the judge to ultimately make a legal verdict in each specific case. See: https://lundi.am/Michel-Foucault-before-the-commission-for-penal-code-review Lostobject (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This looks to be well sourced. Please establish a consensus to remove. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I, for one, completely agree with the entire argument above, by Lostobject. warshy ^(¥¥) 20:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I do as well, for the most part. In fact, I seriously considered removing the first part of that sentence myself instead of posting the edit request on his behalf. My one reservation is that, although the first two citations are clearly passing mentions and inadequate for the claim, the third one is a book review; while inadequate itself, it might be worthwhile to obtain the books and see what they say. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

In light of the unanimous consensus, I have removed the first clause of that sentence. I have also removed the adjective "young" from the second clause and updated the reference with Foucault's own work. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2022

Change '"Homosexuals" has by the same power' to '"Homosexuals" have by the same power'. Halfinjest (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The article is discussing the word homosexuals, not the group. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Allegations of molestation

Iskandar323, regarding this edit, the Al Jazeera piece is an opinion piece. The Times is RS, but with the other two sources not being RS, it would seem UNDUE to include it EvergreenFir (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Also New York Times, Dissent Magazine (not sure how this rates) and the Los Angeles Legal Examiner. There are plenty more behind paywalls, etc. The simple statement that the accusation was made by Guy Sorman, regardless of the veracity of the accusation, appears to be fairly beyond repute. That affirmation alone does not feel too bold for Wikivoice. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, maybe some word smithing would help and a merge with the section above it? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. A standalone heading is undue. And the allegation should probably be attributed to Guy Sorman, who appears to be the sole source for it. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Reads better now with the re-phrasing by Drmies - perhaps separate headers remains best given the slightly odd conflation of ideas if merged. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you much for those edits EvergreenFir (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2022

For grammar reasons change "publications which displayed his increasing involvement with structuralism" to "publications that displayed his increasing involvement with structuralism" Snowballone (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Question

Why is Foucault's article extended-protected? Was it vandalized egregiously? SpicyMemes123 (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Missing info that I feel should be added

The early life/university education section of the article in french talks about Foucalt (rather solitary at the time) initially failing (in 1945) the concours to join the Ecole Nationale Supérieure - (even if only by a little margin and despite having put in a lot of work) and only passed, "attaining excellent results" the second time in 1946:

"Foucault, à cette époque, est assez solitaire, «il travaillait tout le temps et se liait assez peu aux autres»: il s'accorde, selon ses propres dires, une première récréation (d'un quart d'heure) quelques semaines avant le concours. «Le concours, la compétition, en faire plus que l'autre, être le premier, quelqu'un comme moi a toujours vécu là-dedans», expliquera-t-il plus tard. Malgré cela, il échoue (de peu) en 1945 aux épreuves écrites du concours d'entrée à l'École normale supérieure: il est cent unième, alors que seuls les cent premiers peuvent se présenter à l'oral. 217.109.134.81 (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

No possibility of editing?

How strange there is no edit facility for this article. My only criticism is that 'Polish People's Republic ...' needs a 'the' in front of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.184.91 (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done The article has been extended-protected since July 2021 because of persistent additions of unreliably-sourced claims about his behavior. :3 F4U (they/it) 00:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2023

Foucault also influenced Baudrillard 213.233.110.209 (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

A Prolific Kook is Still a Kook

His list of professions include "writer," which I would hope most philosophers do. Similarly, political activity is a hobby. He is merely a philosopher who engaged, for some reason, in literary criticism. That's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.24.86.250 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Foucault's ethical turn

I'm no expert on Foucault, but I was very much impressed by his 1984 lecture about parrhesia and the ethics of freedom of speech (boldly speaking the truth even at great cost to oneself). And if I recall correctly, he was going to write about ethics in his unfinished 'History of Sexuality'. Should the Wikipedia page reflect his turn towards ethics in the lede? SpicyMemes123 (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

one header missing

There's a header for every section of his chronological biography, except for the first section in "Early career". I propose "First jobs in France".--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done with a modification. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Minor quibble

It says "Appearing at the height of interest in structuralism, Foucault was quickly grouped with scholars such as Jacques Lacan, Claude Lévi-Strauss, and Roland Barthes," ... Being more familiar with their 'oeuvres' than I'd care for, could we change 'scholars' to 'intellectuals'? 2001:7E8:C420:6C01:B97E:896B:BC80:9485 (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Minor edit proposed under 'Views on underage sex'.

In this section, it is noted as saying, "...calling for the decriminalization of all "consensual" sexual relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen, the age of consent in France." as this does not tell the entire story on why this was controversial.

Yes, he wanted to have sex with children below the age of 15.

However, he stated he himself signed a petition that explicitly addresses the 'Affaire de Versailles' to decriminalize sexual intercourse with minors from both genders aged 12–13.

This can be found here and in this Wikipedia article as well. Dr poggers (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

Proposal to add to the section "Further reading" the following entry:

Erb, Maurice. "Madness and Method – Is the 'Emperor of Theory' Naked?" Foucault-Blog, 2023. https://doi.org/10.13095/UZH.FSW.FB.293. 2001:8E0:2222:5400:5094:212D:F502:38DF (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a blog, but most of all it is in German, not English. I don't think it would be much help to English readers. Thank you, 19:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

However, it is the blog of a recognised journal of the Open Library of Humanities, and many of the essays, like this one, are published in English and have a DOI, 09:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.97.11 (talk)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Grammar

“According to May, two of the aspects of how power has shaped peoples′ way of being, thinking and acting is described in the books where Foucault describes disciplinary power and the history of sexuality.”

”is” should be “are” (two of the aspects are, not two of the aspects is”). Nukeychess (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Critique of Foucault

https://youtube/NBFSDd_5tiE?si=1QG4RRZNjiiyMGZm

This is a pretty good critique of Foucault's position. Not sure if it has any relevance to the page? 2607:FEA8:FC70:7E18:C4C3:B4D2:955B:70C7 (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Not really, as Peterson or anybody can publish anything on Youtube, just like anyone can add content to this article. Which means that neither YouTube, nor Wikipedia can be considered a reliable source. P.S. though I figured it out, your link is malformed—missing a dotcom suffix.Mathglot (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

yes sorry it is missing a . After the u in youtube. 2607:FEA8:FC70:7E18:C4C3:B4D2:955B:70C7 (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Link to "Poland" under Personal life/Politics links to wrong Poland

In the sentence "After spending some time working in Poland", "Poland" links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Polish_Republic which existed until the end of September 1939 : the Poland that Foucault visited was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_People%27s_Republic . 192.94.31.2 (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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)