Talk:Joe L. Kincheloe

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joe L. Kincheloe article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Education

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

A full professsor at Mc Gill is notable & a holder of a Canada Research Chair even more notable.DGG 04:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Needs wikification. DGG 04:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC) did first step. Needs sources. DGG 05:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

would like to add contributions of scholar with pertinent publications under each main contribution. will not repeat the bibliography. is that ok?

The way the first paragraph is written. It is unclear whether kincheloe and steinberg collaborated on having babies as well as doing scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.142.197 (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for Improvement[edit]

The Resources section seems to be a good collection of references that could be incorporated into text as inline citations. The section itself could be pared and eventually removed as these edits were made. The see also section is too long. One of to could be noteworthy. If the Kinchloe was involved in the fields, that could be noted in the body text and links to those fields made in-line. More references are needed to support the Infobox sections on influences and influencers. --papageno (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited Volumes? A little over the top as notable enough for the bibliography, don't you think? He was a department chair, his name's on tons of stuff he didn't write.

This guy's primarily known for his (absolutely dreadful) Critical Pedagogy book and his bizarre America-hating variant of Critical Pedagogy called "Constructivist Epistemology" which, unfortunately, is rather popular in several Ed programs that buy into such fads. Really, that's about it.

I have no clue where Dewey is coming from as an influence. This man was the furthest thing from an instrumentalist humanly possible. His critical pedagogy book openly denies reality and his book "White Reign" reads like the warblings of a schizophrenic man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.20.12 (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Above Entry (Suggestions for Improvement)[edit]

The above entry lacks conformity to NPOV standards. I suggest more targeted suggestions for future discussion relating to specific edits, relevant information, and article organization. Vektoar (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, the vacabulary[edit]

I'm just surfing by but have found things elsewhere that make me think I want to know what Joe Kincheloe had to say. But I can't understand this, it's all inbred gobbledygook. Surely teachers want to reach widest?

Maybe it's the way he himself talked? Reading a review at Amazon:

- - - snip - - -

This book exemplifies why I tend to stay away from "critical studies" (or whatever academic current this represents). Written by a professor in an obscure vocabulary that reeks of self-appointed elitism, it develops a convoluted argument against McDonald's as a cultural force that is subverting the polticial process in America and even the world. He claims that a burger is not just a burger, but instead eating one is a political act and even a religious ritual without offering anything in support of such claims except his weird academic discipline.

While I find much of value in such radical critiques as No Logo or Fast Food Nation, which in spite of their excesses explore very worthy questions, this book is simply off the deep end. Even worse, though the author claims he has done field research in conversations with people queueing at McDonald's, the book is really pure academic indulgence in the form of an incestuous group that reads and supports each others' writing - and perpetuates a common vacabulary.

These views are so outrageously silly and incoherent that it is hard to believe someone can make a living by writing - and teaching - about it. [...] I wish I could say that I learned something useful from this book, but I didn't. Instead, I waded through such phrases as: "When consumers are in hermeneutic freefall, they are set up for advertisers poised to insert corporate consumption values into the vacuum left by the dissolution of previous beliefs." If this guy is trying to connect to the public, he's got a LONG way to go.

- - - snip - - -

Dude, vacabulary. Kinda perfect I think. But so hard to figure in a guy who wrote blues lyrics.

108.225.235.201 (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]