Talk:Catherine Hakim

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Sourcing and notability

This article is unsourced and makes no demonstration that the topic meets WP:ACADEMIC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

ROFL.

"I've never heard of John Doe, obviously he's not notable."

Tagger has not demonstrated that he has read any of the links provided even in this short stub.

Since this is now the sixth example of the tagger operating in such a manner, this is the first warning for belligerant tagging.

A cool user page and cooler sig (Talk-Stalk) are serious mitigating factors. I trust this won't end in tears. ;)

Alastair Haines (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My responses to your non-response is:

1. "ROFL." WP:TROUT. Get a clue.
2. "I've never heard of John Doe, obviously he's not notable." Address this quote to somebody who actually said it, or something vaguely resembling it.
3. "Tagger has not demonstrated that he has read any of the links provided even in this short stub." No references, no evidence that topic meets WP:ACADEMIC. Read.
4. "Since this is now the sixth example of the tagger operating in such a manner, this is the first warning for belligerant tagging." And consider yourself warned for removal of legitimate maintenance templates, per {{uw-tdel2}}. If you don't want to write good articles, and don't want to be tagged for their shortcomings, you can always leave.
5. "A cool user page and cooler sig (Talk-Stalk) are serious mitigating factors. I trust this won't end in tears. ;)" Both are irrelevant.

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)

Since the humour escapes you, and you've restored the tag, I'll spell things out directly.

Just because you don't know who Hakim is, doesn't mean the rest of the world don't.

The references on this page include information that show Hakim to be notable.

Are you actually interested in Hakim? If you are, check the info. If you're not, why on Earth are you here?

Since both "issues" you raise are plainly false, your tag will be removed in due course.

All it says is, "I, Hrafn, can't see the references, so can't use them to learn about something I don't know." [Stricken per WP:TALK "Do not misrepresent other people" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ]

Wiki is not a blog for us to tell people what we don't know. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Alastair Haines: I find nothing humorous about your supercilious and tendentious commentary.

1. "Just because you don't know who Hakim is, doesn't mean the rest of the world don't." Wrong and irrelevant. Both I and "the rest of the world" know that she is a "research fellow" (a position that does not meet WP:ACADEMIC -- a guideline that this article does not otherwise demonstrate her as meeting).
2. "The references on this page include information that show Hakim to be notable." Wrong. The article cites no references, only a single EL, to her bio page at her employer (not third party, thus does not add to notability, do not pass 'Go', do not collect $200).
3. "Are you actually interested in Hakim?" Only to the extent that she's employed to eulogise Goldberg & his works. But then she's not particularly notable -- and gets very little attention elsewhere on Wikipedia (in fact the excessive quotation of her on Steven Goldberg & The Inevitability of Patriarchy is actually longer than this article & Preference theory).
4. "Since both 'issues' you raise are plainly false, your tag will be removed in due course." It is your claims that are false.
5. "All it says is" that Alastair Haines is prepared to misrepresent other editors comments and uncivilly put word in their mouth.
6. "Wiki is not a blog for us to tell people what we don't know." Given that the article doesn't demonstrate that we do know anything notable about Hakim, I find this comment absurd.

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)

1. You are responding to an 18-months old thread.
2. Research fellow contains no indication whatsoever that "senior research fellow [is] a position that at a number of UK universities is considered equivalent to a distinguished professorship or similar"
3. Citations generally imply 'work we were cognizant of in performing our own work' rather than 'work that had significant impact on our work'. Given that none of the follow-up studies appear to substantiate her work, I'd question whether it is likely to have any lasting impact.
4. Both John Howard and his Liberal/National Coalition are out of government -- so it is questionable to what extent her work has impacted Australian policy.
5. Only 3 of the 8 directors of the UK Data Archive have articles. The other two that have are Ivor Crewe (the Master of University College, Oxford and former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Essex) and Howard Newby (the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Liverpool) -- both standing well above Hakim academically.

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) 

1. That a single research fellow happens to be a full professor elsewhere does not mean that a research fellowship is the equivalent of a professorship (this is a bit like saying that because the Prince of Wales is also the Duke of Cornwall, that a dukedom is equivalent of a princedom). You have presented no valid evidence that "senior research fellow [is] a position that at a number of UK universities is considered equivalent to a distinguished professorship or similar" -- so my objection to this claim stands.
2. The The Age report you cited was written in 2003, shortly after Hakim's initial flurry of publication came out. I can see no indication that these views have had a sustained and thus "substantial impact outside academia" -- particularly given the failure of third-party follow-up studies to substantiate her claims.
3. It certainly means that you have no substantiation whatsoever for your assertion that "she is also notable as a civil servant as the former Director of a government agency" (incidentally, it appears to be more of a quango than "a government agency")

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

To your point 1:

• "The College (Trinity College, Cambridge) regards a Senior Research Fellowship as being of academic standing comparable to that of a distinguished research professorship at a major university"[4]
• Same at the University of Oxford: "The college regards a Senior Research Fellowship as being of comparable academic standing to an Oxford University professorship"[5][6]
• "A Senior Research Fellowship is of comparable academic standing to a Professorship in the University of Oxford."[7][8]

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:

• "... a leading academic has claimed" (The Telegraph)
• Leading female academic: 'Women can't have it all' (Marie Claire)
• "According to a leading female academic, Dr Catherine Hakim"

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) 

1. Oxbridge quite frequently does things differently. Whilst an Oxbridge research fellowship may be regarded "being of academic standing comparable to that of a distinguished research professorship at a major university" and "applicants ... expected to have a correspondingly distinguished record of achievement in research", there is no indication that a LSE fellowship is held in similar regard or has similar expectations.
2. No. I was commenting on the fact that no indication has been presented that her preference theory has received any non-academic attention in the last 8 years, and the fact that no indication has been presented that any follow-up study has substantively supported her results.
3. WP:BIO gives no indication that "being the Director of a government agency, or a non-departmental public body" is inherently notable.
4. (i) You have not demonstrated that her work had a policy impact in Australia -- only that it received some early positive press coverage. (ii) You have not demonstrated that she "is the regular subject of extensive media attention" -- 3 pieces over 8 years is highly sporadic.

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)

1. If you're going to make a fuss over Research Fellow versus Senior Research Fellow, these three positions] likewise offer no indication that LSE Senior Research Fellowships are "held in similar regard or has similar expectations" (or are viewed much differently from Research Fellow appointments, like the ones cited above).
2. I'm merely citing the only three media articles in 8 years cited in the article -- The Age (2003), The Daily Telegraph (2010) & The Times (2010). No strawman involved.
3. I would however agree that such argumentation is pointless -- as you have offered little beyond argument by assertion -- making your bald, unsubstantiated "she is notable, and that's the end of the discussion" par for the course.

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)

No, there is "no point in citing every single newspaper article about Hakim in this article", but there is every point in using them to flesh out this half-formed skeleton of an article. That is how you demonstrate notability -- by producing a substantial, well-rounded, well-cited article -- NOT by making endless WP:BOLLOCKS arguments on article talk about how a (LSE) Senior Research Fellowship is "equivalent to a distinguished professorship". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 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)

Talk first

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)

There is no "doubt". The source you cited was not "archived" material but a search-result. Search results are generally not considered to be an RS by wikipedia. If you wish to argue the toss on this, you can take it up on WP:RS/N Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth

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)

Citations

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)

Cherwell

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131117215235/http://www.czso.cz/eng/redakce.nsf/i/ladislav_rabusic_beatrice_elena_chromkova_manea:_hakim%27s_preference_theory_in_the_czech_context_%28demografie_2007_2%29/$File/Rabu%C5%A1ic-Chromkov%C3%A1.pdf to http://www.czso.cz/eng/redakce.nsf/i/ladislav_rabusic_beatrice_elena_chromkova_manea:_hakim's_preference_theory_in_the_czech_context_(demografie_2007_2)/$File/Rabu

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707054515/http://www.workplaceflexibilitymatters.org/conf/htdocs/speakers.html to http://www.workplaceflexibilitymatters.org/conf/htdocs/speakers.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.czso.cz/eng/redakce.nsf/i/ladislav_rabusic_beatrice_elena_chromkova_manea%3A_hakim%27s_preference_theory_in_the_czech_context_%28demografie_2007_2%29/%24File/Rabu%C5%A1ic-Chromkov%C3%A1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306022529/https://www.popcouncil.org/publications/pdr/vol29_3.html to https://www.popcouncil.org/publications/pdr/vol29_3.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding More Information

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)