Talk:Joy Hakim

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.

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.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proper grammar and syntax[edit]

Please use it.

Straw men[edit]

' However, she has faced some criticism for being "too multicultural" and trying to make history "fun" for kids." '

This is highly biased. Who doesn't want history to be "fun"? From Straw man: A straw man "argument" is a bogus, distorted or deliberately flawed interpretation of an otherwise valid position that has been altered so it can be more easily attacked, delegitimized and disassembled (hence the straw man metaphor) before the eyes and ears of an otherwise impartial audience unfamiliar with the facts and history of an issue or case.

— Omphaloscope talk 01:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article used to say that the criticism was for trying to make it "fun" at the expense of accuracy. A convenient editing out, eh? 12.175.230.56 06:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source of this criticism is a web-only, fringe group-- unsubstantiated source. KenThomas (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly.--KJRehberg (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Iv'e done this history and it includes ample details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenDP (talk • contribs) 21:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Straw Man[edit]

' However, she has faced some criticism, generally from conservatives, for being "too multicultural", too hard on conservative presidents and not critical enough of liberal administrations. '

The way the article is currently written, it looks like it's trying to make conservatives look petty in their complaints, thus delegitimizing the actual (unsourced and unquoted) arguments that may have been proposed by said conservatives. Imagine if it were reworded to say:

' However, there is much criticism, mostly from those that lived through some eras covered in her books, that her works are overly international and un-American, in addition to the defamation of conservative presidents and the ignoring of liberal politicians' faults. '

Although it would have nearly the opposite effect to word it that way, all that's changed is the exact phrasing. None of the verified facts have been changed. 12.175.230.56 06:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, ALL of this line of discussion is bases on an unsubstantiated source. Seems moot. KenThomas (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Although there are some external links, there are no citations within the article itself. The article should reference the complaints that it refers to when it talks about the controversies and criticisms of the subject. 12.175.230.56 06:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are now references, however, "the Textbook League" is a web publication / fringe political group -- seems to have about the same legitimacy as the fringe physics theories which resulted in the NPOV policies. If there is no serious discussion soon, I will likely follow the advise that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful." KenThomas (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that body copy shall not be removed. The critical material is neither libelous nor poorly sourced.--KJRehberg (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of Wikipedia article by the subject[edit]

I just checked the edit history and the last two edits were by someone with the username "Joy Hakim". If this person really is Joy Hakim, then I think this violates policies on editing one's own article. If the person is not really Joy Hakim, then I think that it is a case of impersonation which I also believe to be against Wikipedia policies. MarkGyver 23:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this seem to have affected the substance or bias of the article? (On a quick diff I don't see evidence). Worth watching. KenThomas (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Format Errors; BIAS[edit]

There are many format errors such as lack of spacing and punctuation where it is needed. I have to agree the article itself is biased in a way. It needs to be rewritten. Completely. Or else deleted. An article giving bias and illogical information about another person must be attended to. WikiSuccess1048 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still see a bias? Would the bias be eliminated by removing the "criticism section," or do you see other issues? KenThomas (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please properly format your comments. The perceived bias may be gone after my rewrite, and I don't think that WikiSuccess1048 was referring to the "criticism" section. According to my disinterested review of the older revision of this article it read more like a dust jacket biography or publishing house biography blurb than an objective encyclopedia entry.--KJRehberg (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restructured, Cited, and Edited, but needs Biographical data[edit]

The article has been restructured, properly cited, and the excessively POV press-release material has been removed. The criticism section has been expanded, rewritten, and cited. The cleanup tag has been removed. The Stub tag remains because the article needs more biographical data..--KJRehberg (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joy 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/20080725093239/http://www.k12.com/curriculum_and_products/history_main/american_history_before_1865/ to http://www.k12.com/curriculum_and_products/history_main/american_history_before_1865/

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).

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) 11:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]