I've been curious about Foucault lately, partly because of how influential he is, and partially because of how much Jordan Peterson hates him :)
Anyway, in this video from the School of Life on Foucault (super academic I know) it talks about how Foucault tried to use historical research to back up his claims that modern institutions aren't all that they're cracked up to be.
But, based on what is said in the video his depictions of the past seem rather idealized . For example, I am skeptical of claim that people with mental illness were celebrated during the Renaissance. Which made me think it was time to ask some real historians. :)
Is Foucault's historical research well-received with academic historians, or is he seen as an otherwise good theorist who is out of his depth?
Not to discourage further discussion, but this older thread may have something of interest until another person answers.
Edit: I want to give credit to the top comment, but the person deleted their account.
Historian here. The Reddit thread the moderators have provided had some great points and some excellent references if you want to do further reading. Basically, I don't know any historian that really thinks of Foucault as a historian. He didn't see himself in that way and the actual facts presented are often used to make overly sweeping arguments. Foucault is mainly best for challenging the ways we think, for leading us to ask new questions, rather than because he provides clear answers supported by clear evidence. Besides, his opinions were constantly changing. I would make a similar point about Edward Said: his actually history is terrible. And for both men, they make sweeping statements that can be circular and don't always convince. But even those who dislike/disagree are influenced by them and it has shifted discussions. If you just want the history, not the theory, do check out the extensive body of work by Roy Porter on the history of medicine and mental illness.
Edited for typos.
The link to the previous discussion is worth a read, especially for some of the critique from a historian's perspective. I don't necessarily agree with much of it (because it is beside the point) but there is a core point, also in your YouTube link, which is that Foucault was first and foremost a philosopher not a historian. His focus was on power and how it permeates all aspects of living. This might seem a bit over-the-top and circular but power and truth have an intimate relationship that is difficult to ignore. Foucault also recognized, in an interview published in 1977, that the issue of power and truth was not going to be resolved in the study of language (though I am not aware of him exploring that in his writings). To get a sense of where his thinking did lead, I would suggest the debate with Chomsky. (There was a YouTube link but I can't find it. The transcript lacks some of the emotion displayed in the latter part of the debate.)