This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Catherine Hakim article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jagathi K.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is unsourced and makes no demonstration that the topic meets WP:ACADEMIC. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
My responses to your non-response is:
As you could not be bothered addressing the substance of my comment -- the fact that "[t]his article is unsourced and makes no demonstration that the topic meets WP:ACADEMIC", I'll be reinserting the template shortly. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 15:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I would also point out that the article is largely a regurgitation of Hakim's resume. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Alastair Haines: I find nothing humorous about your supercilious and tendentious commentary.
Now, unless you have something serious, substantiated and germane to say, I would suggest that you take your intellectual 'self-gratification' elsewhere. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
For the record: Hakim is not a research fellow, she is a senior research fellow, a position that at a number of UK universities (see for instance
[1]) is considered equivalent to a distinguished professorship or similar and is a permanent position. Hakim has held this research only position position at LSE, the world's most prestigious institution in the field of sociology, since 1990. She came from the position of Director of the
ESRC Data Archive. She meets the following inclusion criteria:
Criterion 1 ("The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline"). She is a widely cited and debated scholar who has developed a widely discussed (albeit controversial) theory and who has written more than half a dozen books and countless articles in the leading journals in the field)
Criterion 7 ("The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"). She has for years been the subject of extensive media coverage and interest from policymakers [2], and is routinely described as a "leading" or "prominent" academic by the media and as one of the most influential in the fields of maternity leave and women's work.
Among contemporary sociologists, Hakim is among the few dozen most notable.
Apart from that, she is also notable as a civil servant as the former Director of a government agency. Soc628 ( talk) 05:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
2) Nicola Lacey is a senior research fellow at Oxford, as you can see from her bio, she has been a full professor at LSE and other universities for 15 years prior to becoming senior research fellow. Wikipedia articles aren't valid sources in any event, and the article seems to need expansion. You claimed the position of senior research fellow doesn't meet the inclusion criteria, which is just wrong, as the term can have different meanings. Having a permanent, senior research-only position at the world's leading social science institution is way more notable than being an ordinary professor at some second tier university.
3) Whether you "question whether it is likely to have any lasting impact" is just speculation, i.e. your own personal opinion. Whether "follow-up studies appear to substantiate her work" is not relevant, what's relevant is the debate in the scholarly community (notably the leading sociology journal) for the last ten years concerning her work. Even if she was proven to be completely wrong, she would still have made a notable contribution.
4) That's not really relevant. Reliable sources describe her as having "considerable international recognition and policy influence" [3]. Even if she had stopped having policy influence, it wouldn't change the fact that she had it at some point.
5) That's not relevant either, these biographies are waiting to be written. Soc628 ( talk) 06:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
To your point 1:
To your point 2: What kind of indications you see remains your own opinions only. We'll just stick to what reliable sources say. It's not like Hakim's notability is dependent on political developments in some far-away country like Australia. Only during the last few days and weeks, Hakim has been the subject of tons of media coverage describing her as a prominent/influential/leading and so on academic, which you could easily have verified yourself:
There's a lot more.
Also, I have no idea what you mean by "Hakim's initial flurry of publication" (2003). Hakim has been an active researcher since the 1970s, and one of her most widely cited books, Key issues in women's work, was published in the mid 1990s.
To your point 3: Only you are claiming that being the Director of a government agency, or a non-departmental public body (I don't see the relevance of the distinction as far as notability is concerned), is not notable.
Notability of academics is judged by their publications and impact, not by whether they hold the title "professor" (which is conferred upon just anybody in the US). As an academic who has written over 100 scholarly papers, many in the top journals, well over half a dozen books on the leading publishers, who has developed a widely cited theory that other academics write scholarly papers about, who has influenced policymakers at the Prime Minister level and is the regular subject of extensive media attention, Catherine Hakim is an extremely influential and well-known academic. The fact that she holds one of the most sought after jobs for an academic in her field (sociology at LSE is better than Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard) doesn't change anything in either direction, neither does her work title, which probably is similar to the ones used at Oxford and Cambridge. Soc628 ( talk) 20:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The link you posted is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the position of senior research fellow. "3 pieces over 8 years" is just another example of a strawman from your part. There seems to be no point in discussing anything with you (noticing the behaviour in the previous discussion as well), she is notable, and that's the end of the discussion. Soc628 ( talk) 03:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
No, you claimed there had only been 3 media articles in 8 years. I had already pointed out that there have been several articles just during the last few days, including this, this, this, this and several others. Many of these specifically referred to her as a "leading academic". There's no point in citing every single newspaper article about Hakim in this article. Soc628 ( talk) 04:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
It was you who claimed that the position of senior research fellow (i.e. all senior research fellows) didn't meet the inclusion criteria, which is nonsense, when this at several UK universities is equivalent to a distinguished professorship. I don't know the exact nature of Hakim's position, but as pointed out, it's irrelevant, it's her publications and impact that matter. Soc628 ( talk) 05:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
From WP:RS..."When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Also...The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, "....that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet. The source given is an archive of available articles. Please explain how my edits fail your interpretation of the RS standard.-- Buster7 ( talk) 11:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Records indicate her age is between 60-64 [9], but it's hard to find the exact date of birth. Soc628 ( talk) 05:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to add to the discussion on her (obvious) prominence in the field:
Her book Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference theory ( Oxford University Press, 2000) is cited 961 times according to Google Scholar.
Her book Key Issues in Women’s Work (second edition Glasshouse Press 2004) is cited 593 times.
Her book Research design: strategies and choices in the design of social research (Contemporary Social Research Series, Allen & Unwin, 1987) is cited 476 times.
More than 20 of her works are cited more than 100 times, a good portion of them many hundred times.
This is extremely much for any social scientist, and arguably, any scientist. Soc628 ( talk) 18:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Will people please stop WP:LINKSPAM/ WP:REFSPAMming http://www.cherwell.org/culture/blogs/2011/10/18/playing-the-beautiful-game! The blog of a student newspaper is neither a WP:RS, nor an appropriate wP:EL. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 13:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Catherine Hakim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Catherine Hakim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?:The article thus far does a decent job explaining what Hakim has stood for and accomplished, however, the material is poorly organized. Some subtopics are not explained in depth enough to truly understand the connection between Hakim and the said topic. For example, an individual's background can contribute much to the individual's motivation and choice of career yet this section is quite empty. Hakim's idea of the "sex deficit" can also be explained in more detail to explicate where she stood in this argument. Her viewpoint is lightly touched upon and a further explanation can be provided to show what Hakim had fought for. Additionally, perhaps a few of her published works can be analyzed and added to this article under their own section to provide a progression of her thinking and activist viewpoints. Jagathi K ( talk) 01:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I am thinking about adding using these references to add to the article. Other users, please give me your feedback on the credibility of these sources as well as if they will be able to substantially add to this article.Thank you.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11794182/Meet-the-academic-who-thinks-prostitution-should-be-legalised-because-men-need-more-sex.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5qjSsQIoRA http://www.catherinehakim.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/AIFSarticle.pdf http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0950017012468303?journalCode=wesa https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310655429_Catherine_Hakim_Erotic_Capital_the_Power_of_Attraction_in_the_Boardroom_and_the_Bedroom Jagathi K ( talk) 02:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Catherine Hakim article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jagathi K.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is unsourced and makes no demonstration that the topic meets WP:ACADEMIC. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
My responses to your non-response is:
As you could not be bothered addressing the substance of my comment -- the fact that "[t]his article is unsourced and makes no demonstration that the topic meets WP:ACADEMIC", I'll be reinserting the template shortly. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 15:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I would also point out that the article is largely a regurgitation of Hakim's resume. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Alastair Haines: I find nothing humorous about your supercilious and tendentious commentary.
Now, unless you have something serious, substantiated and germane to say, I would suggest that you take your intellectual 'self-gratification' elsewhere. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
For the record: Hakim is not a research fellow, she is a senior research fellow, a position that at a number of UK universities (see for instance
[1]) is considered equivalent to a distinguished professorship or similar and is a permanent position. Hakim has held this research only position position at LSE, the world's most prestigious institution in the field of sociology, since 1990. She came from the position of Director of the
ESRC Data Archive. She meets the following inclusion criteria:
Criterion 1 ("The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline"). She is a widely cited and debated scholar who has developed a widely discussed (albeit controversial) theory and who has written more than half a dozen books and countless articles in the leading journals in the field)
Criterion 7 ("The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"). She has for years been the subject of extensive media coverage and interest from policymakers [2], and is routinely described as a "leading" or "prominent" academic by the media and as one of the most influential in the fields of maternity leave and women's work.
Among contemporary sociologists, Hakim is among the few dozen most notable.
Apart from that, she is also notable as a civil servant as the former Director of a government agency. Soc628 ( talk) 05:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
2) Nicola Lacey is a senior research fellow at Oxford, as you can see from her bio, she has been a full professor at LSE and other universities for 15 years prior to becoming senior research fellow. Wikipedia articles aren't valid sources in any event, and the article seems to need expansion. You claimed the position of senior research fellow doesn't meet the inclusion criteria, which is just wrong, as the term can have different meanings. Having a permanent, senior research-only position at the world's leading social science institution is way more notable than being an ordinary professor at some second tier university.
3) Whether you "question whether it is likely to have any lasting impact" is just speculation, i.e. your own personal opinion. Whether "follow-up studies appear to substantiate her work" is not relevant, what's relevant is the debate in the scholarly community (notably the leading sociology journal) for the last ten years concerning her work. Even if she was proven to be completely wrong, she would still have made a notable contribution.
4) That's not really relevant. Reliable sources describe her as having "considerable international recognition and policy influence" [3]. Even if she had stopped having policy influence, it wouldn't change the fact that she had it at some point.
5) That's not relevant either, these biographies are waiting to be written. Soc628 ( talk) 06:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
To your point 1:
To your point 2: What kind of indications you see remains your own opinions only. We'll just stick to what reliable sources say. It's not like Hakim's notability is dependent on political developments in some far-away country like Australia. Only during the last few days and weeks, Hakim has been the subject of tons of media coverage describing her as a prominent/influential/leading and so on academic, which you could easily have verified yourself:
There's a lot more.
Also, I have no idea what you mean by "Hakim's initial flurry of publication" (2003). Hakim has been an active researcher since the 1970s, and one of her most widely cited books, Key issues in women's work, was published in the mid 1990s.
To your point 3: Only you are claiming that being the Director of a government agency, or a non-departmental public body (I don't see the relevance of the distinction as far as notability is concerned), is not notable.
Notability of academics is judged by their publications and impact, not by whether they hold the title "professor" (which is conferred upon just anybody in the US). As an academic who has written over 100 scholarly papers, many in the top journals, well over half a dozen books on the leading publishers, who has developed a widely cited theory that other academics write scholarly papers about, who has influenced policymakers at the Prime Minister level and is the regular subject of extensive media attention, Catherine Hakim is an extremely influential and well-known academic. The fact that she holds one of the most sought after jobs for an academic in her field (sociology at LSE is better than Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard) doesn't change anything in either direction, neither does her work title, which probably is similar to the ones used at Oxford and Cambridge. Soc628 ( talk) 20:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The link you posted is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the position of senior research fellow. "3 pieces over 8 years" is just another example of a strawman from your part. There seems to be no point in discussing anything with you (noticing the behaviour in the previous discussion as well), she is notable, and that's the end of the discussion. Soc628 ( talk) 03:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
No, you claimed there had only been 3 media articles in 8 years. I had already pointed out that there have been several articles just during the last few days, including this, this, this, this and several others. Many of these specifically referred to her as a "leading academic". There's no point in citing every single newspaper article about Hakim in this article. Soc628 ( talk) 04:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
It was you who claimed that the position of senior research fellow (i.e. all senior research fellows) didn't meet the inclusion criteria, which is nonsense, when this at several UK universities is equivalent to a distinguished professorship. I don't know the exact nature of Hakim's position, but as pointed out, it's irrelevant, it's her publications and impact that matter. Soc628 ( talk) 05:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
From WP:RS..."When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Also...The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, "....that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet. The source given is an archive of available articles. Please explain how my edits fail your interpretation of the RS standard.-- Buster7 ( talk) 11:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Records indicate her age is between 60-64 [9], but it's hard to find the exact date of birth. Soc628 ( talk) 05:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to add to the discussion on her (obvious) prominence in the field:
Her book Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference theory ( Oxford University Press, 2000) is cited 961 times according to Google Scholar.
Her book Key Issues in Women’s Work (second edition Glasshouse Press 2004) is cited 593 times.
Her book Research design: strategies and choices in the design of social research (Contemporary Social Research Series, Allen & Unwin, 1987) is cited 476 times.
More than 20 of her works are cited more than 100 times, a good portion of them many hundred times.
This is extremely much for any social scientist, and arguably, any scientist. Soc628 ( talk) 18:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Will people please stop WP:LINKSPAM/ WP:REFSPAMming http://www.cherwell.org/culture/blogs/2011/10/18/playing-the-beautiful-game! The blog of a student newspaper is neither a WP:RS, nor an appropriate wP:EL. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 13:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Catherine Hakim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Catherine Hakim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?:The article thus far does a decent job explaining what Hakim has stood for and accomplished, however, the material is poorly organized. Some subtopics are not explained in depth enough to truly understand the connection between Hakim and the said topic. For example, an individual's background can contribute much to the individual's motivation and choice of career yet this section is quite empty. Hakim's idea of the "sex deficit" can also be explained in more detail to explicate where she stood in this argument. Her viewpoint is lightly touched upon and a further explanation can be provided to show what Hakim had fought for. Additionally, perhaps a few of her published works can be analyzed and added to this article under their own section to provide a progression of her thinking and activist viewpoints. Jagathi K ( talk) 01:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I am thinking about adding using these references to add to the article. Other users, please give me your feedback on the credibility of these sources as well as if they will be able to substantially add to this article.Thank you.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11794182/Meet-the-academic-who-thinks-prostitution-should-be-legalised-because-men-need-more-sex.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5qjSsQIoRA http://www.catherinehakim.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/AIFSarticle.pdf http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0950017012468303?journalCode=wesa https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310655429_Catherine_Hakim_Erotic_Capital_the_Power_of_Attraction_in_the_Boardroom_and_the_Bedroom Jagathi K ( talk) 02:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)