Talk:John Rex

Untitled

This article needs looking at - here are some suggestions. Is he British or South African? If he is a Brit, then why is he described as a SA scholar. Details of date and place of birth would help. References to his (published?!) work re race relations is vital, since his notability may depend on it, and the posts he held at University would be useful. A citation for the comment regarding "both radical and scientific" should be given. What "Labour Party" election does this refer to? Is this election as an officer within the party, or as a candidate for the party in a local/national election? Lastly, pertinent biographical info would help as well - then we (you actually, this is my contribution) can move onto categories!LessHeard vanU 21:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

removed Wikify tag.

I think the article is now at a start standard - but more needs doing! A summary of the honorific titles and professorships would be handy, as would any further bio details. Also, the bibliography needs looking at - ISBN Numbers, publishers and dates etc.

Also, I would like to suggest that User:84.251.88.222 gets themselves a wiki account - you have done some good work and you may like to help around the place. It would also make it easier to communicate. LessHeard vanU 20:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am considering re-introducing the Wikify template. There is now a lot of good information, but the article doesn't look to be in the best format. By putting the template in a new editor will hopefully have a look (with fresh eyes - I am now perhaps not objective enough) and edit the article to Wikipedia standards. I'll wait a couple of days before proceeding, so having the tag back doesn't surprise/upset folks.LessHeard vanU 16:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happens to this "style" or format ( most of this is of little or no concern to me) I have much more good information to present and will do so when i see that such an effort is worthwhile. I am happy to bend with a wikiway ( standards is maybe not the best term here) but it is so difficult to mix-in. if that "appreciation" text ( see below) was included many things would be able to get going. references are there and here is no so called orinal research involved. This is not a rant or rave by the way. My own technical idiotism does not help much and i guess most of the problem is mine. You see i do not even know what "tag back" means.84.251.88.222 11:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I simply mean to say I will re-introduce the wikify template. Please feel free to include the "appreciation" text below back into the article text (remember, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone!). When I get access to a computer of an evening again (looks like the week after next) I may be able to do more than just make suggestions.LessHeard vanU 13:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you wiki guys do not understand the problem here. Just how does one put back the "appreciation" bit so that more work can go on in sequence? How does one do that? I am not alone in such hassles that i know.

"Appreciation" moved from article.

It may be said that Professor Rex was seen by many as a UK representative of what in America would be called a C.Wright Mills tradition. Indeed his book "Sociology and the Demystification of the Modern World" (1974) was seen in this light by Americans. Indeed one American academic reviewer, Leon Bramson, in the journal "Theory and Society" Vol 2, number 2, summer 1975)made thiese points clear. If C.Wright Mills and his "Sociological Imagination" (1959) raged, with reason, against the functionalism and the verbage of "Grand theory" so much attached to Talcott Parsons then we can say that John Rex raged, with good reason, too, from the UK. Rex tried to reach a wider audience than that of mere academia in this book but he refused to give away any of the strict reasonableness of analysis based upon classical traditions of the Enlightenment. Rex often tried to reach a wider audience than that of academia (ibid). Again this was a major theme, a theme of both moral committment alongside an objective position, brought out in the 1993 book ( edited by Herminio Martins) written to respect the 70th birthday of Professor Rex.

As to the less publicised and less academic work John Rex has often worked with what can be called "the street". His work with the Workers Educational Authorities (WEA) in the UK or the working folk movements in South Africa is significant. He even made a contribution to European Outdoor Adventure Education meetings, in Austria, (1996) by asking for an awareness of both social structures and difference as it concerned race and ethnic relations with outdoor adventure education as a practice. Rex asked for more than a mere psychological approach. He also asked for the alternative, "Progressive Education" , movements to respect ethic and multi-cultural difference(s)and not to label differences as a deficit. John Rex worked inside and outside of the official univerisity. It is this work that is less discussed. ( see EU Congress report "Youth and Social Work on the Move 1996 edited by Amesberger et al)

Wikipedia does not allow original research or comment. If the above is distillation of published comments, or is indeed a taken from one article then it can be put back providing that the source(s) is(are) referenced/cited.LessHeard vanU 21:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope I have improved this now - I am still learning this Wki-way and i am rather dumn on IT stuff. Stay with me. I am not all all sure that I know much about all this IP address and account stuff. Perhaps i have not studied this all enough. But anyway, in my opinion, the words above now references are rather objective and deserve putting back on-line. rgds s

When you log onto Wikipedia you should get an option asking you to sign in or open an account. Simply give yourself a username and a password (which only you will have access to). Wikipedia immediately creates a username for you. You will then likely get a message from a friendly administrator who will direct you to the training contents, which are the best way of finding out how wikipedia works. I highly recommend creating an account.LessHeard vanU 13:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that is done - account made. But after spending one hour looking through so much stuff i must now be careful. Although semi-retired I still need to lecture and write to make a living. By the way if you are the person that I think you might be you are much younger than i thought and also much younger than I. Wow!

Why did I ever get into this? My students and a few "old" university guys told me to wake up to the wikiways. So i am testing out all the time as i write verifiable information. But i remain a little suspicious. However i have already, now, become half convinced that this project is worth it.

Thanks for your help. s

Okay - I see that the above has been put back into the article; I'm not going to remove it since it does seem to be academically based. However (and there is always a however) another editor may yet delete it. Whatever - I hope the guy gets the article he deserves.LessHeard vanU 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a pretty solid textbook case of weasel wording (pardon the name, but that's what it's called). Starting off a sentence with "it may be said" is a HUGE red flag. The cornerstone of the encyclopedia is to maintain the neutral point of view, and this means that claims made in articles, particularly those which are opinionated, should be well sourced. When an opinion is made in an article, it needs to be sourced with reliable sources- we need to know who said it, and why it matters. The Weasel-word page really sums it up nicely:

• Who says that? You?
• When did they say it? Now?
• How many people think that?
• How many is some?
• What kind of people think that? Where are they?
• What kind of bias might they have?
• Why is this of any significance?

In addition, there's also a line to be drawn between essay writing and article writing- namely that essays tend to try to drive their own point, while articles are supposed to be aimed at giving a general, balanced view. I'm sorry if I'm being unclear about my revert in the article (personally I think this article could use a rewrite, and more importantly, sources, or else it could end up on Articles for deletion). If anyone wants to discuss this further, contact me at my talk page. --Wafulz 23:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I thought I was a lone voice (please extrapolate cliche of your choice) here. The contributor is likely to have some good info - but it must be in the proper context. I will assist all I can, but any comment must be verifiable for inclusion here. My talk page is also open... 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)LessHeard vanU 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting this article

Alright, so I think there's two things that have to be looked at for rewriting this article:

1. Compile the sources. These are absolutely crucial since without them we won't be able to compile a "References" or "Notes" section. Any claims that involve opinions, comparisons to other works, critical views, etc, must have a footnote. The citation system here is admitedly awkward, so I'll be happy to answer questions about it.
2. The Manual of style, which will cover the format of the article and what the proper (and neutral) tone should be. As an encyclopedia article, everything should be succinct and to the point- we need to know who he is, what he did, and why it matters. Knowing this will make the article much easier to write and edit in the long run

As for actually restructuring the article, it will need to have well-defined sections. Something like this:

John Rex (b. 1925) was sociologist known for (stuff). This section
should be very quick and to the point, as to summarize the rest of the article.

==Biography==
Rex was born in South Africa in (go in a bit further, marriage, family, etc)
This section can also contain information on how his life influenced his work

==Career==
Say what he actually did. This section doesn't necessarily have to be called
"career" either. This can have subsections to describe aspects of his career
(educational/political/as an author/etc)

==Publications==
===Books===
List of books. If he has a lot, just list the important ones.
===Articles===
List of articles or minor works. Same as above.

==Footnotes==

==References==

==External links==
(if available, a few external links that might provide further reading)

This ought to provide a rough outline, which of course does not have to be strictly adhered to. As noted on my talk page, I only have partial access to a computer right now, so I can't dedicate as much time as I'd like to to this article. --Wafulz 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

further problems

An attempt was made to remove the basic uncontroversial facts from the article, on the grounds that they were not specifically sourced. This was of course inappropriate , as Wikipedia does not require online quotations, unless there is some reason to challenge the facts, and good biographical 3rd party sources were provided, and so I restored it.. Some apparently unsourced and possibly controversial opinion was also removed, but I did not restore that. I also checked that some of the remaining opinion was specifically attributed, as is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)