Jump to content

Talk:Rabia Salihu Sa'id

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabia Salihu Sa'id

[edit]

From Opabinia regalis:

  • She's been profiled in mainstream news sources about science, like this Nature News piece, checkY
  • and also in Nigerian sources, like this one. checkY
  • She's also a fellow of the African Scientific Institute, although I'm uncertain of their selectivity.  Done - added info to the article
  • And while none of these are substantive coverage alone, they're evidence she's obviously active in advocacy and public outreach [1], checkY
  • [2], checkY, by the author, put it in further reading
  • [3],  Done - added info to the article
  • [4].  Done - added info to the article
  • She's published more than a single paper, though mostly in Nigerian journals (her CV is here). — chock full of details for researching sources, helps clarify the length of her career
  • She also seems to be putting some of her professional effort into her outreach work, e.g. [5],  Done - added info to the article
  • [6]. — interesting article, but written by Sa'id so not a good source from that perspective

From Joe Roe:

  • Significant coverage by the BBC (which whatever its involvement with this article is still a very reliable source)
  • [7] checkY
  • [8], checkY
  • NPR [9], checkY
  • Nature [10], checkY
  • Elsevier [11] checkY
  • Yahoo News [12] stand out in particular. -- checkY, but another version, not yahoo news

From Espresso Addict

  • She has gained substantial press coverage, some of which is reasonably detailed eg this article in Nature.checkY

From Agricola44

From Carcharoth

  • She has also received ongoing publicity since, such as this.checkY

--Not sure I have them all, and I think some are dupes, but have a start.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked off items already used in the article with a plain checkY and  Done if added to the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

[edit]

Right now, I am looking to get meatier content about her academic and research career (especially between the 1990s and today), but here are some additional sources that may be useful. By the way, her surname is also spelled Said, Sai'id and Saeed and she uses "RS" instead of "Rabia Salihu" in the byline of some journal articles.

  • Tulshyan, Ruchika (19 February 2015). "The Number 1 Reason Women Don't Get Promoted At Work". Forbes. 100% of the women interviewed reported gender bias. Black women are more likely than other women to report having to prove themselves over and over again. Both Latinas and Black women scientists report regularly being mistaken as janitors. + Sa'id states, Women make up only about 14% of Nigerian academics but account for about a quarter of the science and technology professor. — This is in regards to the STEM outreach and mentoring that Sa'id does to encourage women to explore careers in the sciences, specifically physics.
  • "Women on the 'Problem with Science'". BBC. Comment: Transcript embedded in xml code, but in blocks so it's easy to read here. Minor mention, but in the greater context, particularly for low-income people. {{cite news}}: External link in |quote= (help)

--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elsevier award

[edit]

  • No connection \ COI to Elsevir. - I have no close connection or conflict of interest.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elsevier COi? No, of course not - Plus, "Squirrel!" Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I have to say that I am disturbed by the provenance of this prize. Its awarders give the impression, which earlier on in this AfD debate misled some, that the research of the awardee was done within the framework of mainstream science and had been recognised by the community of mainstream science. At this stage of the AfD it is appears to be accepted by most contributors that this is not the case (but plausible arguments claim that notability can be found in WP:GNG and WP:People). It may be the case that Elsevir has been willing to expend money in establishing the prize in order to claw back some of its reputation. If this had been done in a transparent way it should be commended. It seems to me that some zealous followers of WP:Women in red have been unwittingly harnessed into promoting the interests of a megacorporation. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • Xxanthippe Is your concern a content concern (i.e., there should be some sort of special handling of the discussion of the award in the article, if it's kept) - or are you asking people who based their vote on the Elsevir award to reconsider their vote? Or something else?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a connection to Elsevier apart from having published in one of their journals (which is hard to avoid these days). I'm as critical of their business practices and stranglehold on academic publishing as anyone, but it doesn't really get more "mainstream" than Elsevier. Also, for what it's worth, technically the award was given by the quasi-independent grant-giving body the Elsevier Foundation rather than the publisher itself. I'm sure they do give out these kind of things to try and salvage their nosediving reputation, but I don't see how that makes it any less of a notable achievement for the awardees. Dubious motivation didn't hold back the Nobel! Joe Roe (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xxanthippe, why are you chasing shadows here? If someone was promoting Elsevier, they would more likely be creating articles on the Elsevier Foundation, on the awards themselves, and on the other prize recipients (from other years as well as this year). Not that such article creation would necessarily be wrong if done correctly. This article was clearly created by someone with an interest in Nigerian topics. As has been pointed out, Elsevier is about as mainstream as you can get in science publishing. Are you going to start objecting to Microsoft Award next? And if you can't even spell Elsevier correctly, I am sceptical that you should have been among those pinged by Agricola44 for your "scientific background". Anyone with a background in science would know how to spell Elsevier correctly. OK, withdrawing that last bit, as it is a legitimate alternate spelling (if still a bit odd to see it used here). Carcharoth (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I encourage people to stop second guessing motivations for media articles written about Rabia Salihu Sa'id. Going down that path is problematic on many fronts and in fact leads to Wikipedians using our own views to decide who is notable instead of relying verifiable reliable secondary sources to decide the selection of content for Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is almost certain at this point that this article will be kept because of the sources. However, I think what Xxan is pointing out is the larger issue of our role in sustaining any misrepresentation. The Elsevier citation expressly says the award is for her briquettes research. The bio in Nature repeats that the award was for her work. However, we now know this research was published in a vanity journal, has been cited only once, the citing article likewise appearing in a vanity journal, and that mainstream science is unaware of this work, outside of the Elsevier award. In my opinion, questions of due diligence, undue promotion, fact checking, unfortunate wording, etc. on the parts of Elsevier, Nature et al. are not really the issue here...after all, they are sources. Our dilemma is whether to suppress this information, in which case WP readers will be left with the false impression that this person has made scientific impact, or to include this information to truthfully and fully convey the biographical details for the reader. Agricola44 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Xxanthippe and Agricola44, the award you object to is offered by Elsevier Foundation AND the American Association for the Advancement of Science, no slouch organization. I am not a defender of the credibility of Elsevier, a megacorp of academic publishing, with a sorry reputation for overpricing journal subscriptions to libraries, and misrepresenting some journals as refereed when they are not, and even printing and selling research that is in the public domain. Print publishers are understandably worried about OER and online publishing, but that doesn't excuse in any way their Luddite reaction to fight our progress in making information more accessible, free where possible--philosophically orthogonal to WP’s mission, it’s an existential battle for them as a business. However, as we’ve noted, their credibility comes into question. I, as one non-zealous WP:Women in red follower, have no interest in promoting Elsevier. But all these arguments are irrelevant. Using WP's academic criteria, her bio might be judged WP:TOOSOON, but there are multiple independent, reliable sources publishing about her, so by default she meets GNG... and, well, fin. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstand me. I'm not objecting to the Elsevier award, nor am I saying it's not sourced. However, I am reminding panelists here that it was given under false pretenses in the sense that it is claimed to be a research award, but was bestowed upon a person whose research has yet to see the light of day in mainstream science. As I said, the "disconnect" on the parts of Elsevier, Nature, AAAS (whether lack of due diligence, careless promotion, etc) is irrelevant, as are opinions on Elsevier's corporate practices (mentioned several times, including your WP:TEXTWALL). FYI, the briquettes research was not published in an Elsevier journal, as far as I can tell. I recognize the article is likely to be kept. The issue is whether we suppress these details of which we are all now aware. Agricola44 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Xxanthippe and Agricola44, if I'm understanding you correctly, you all seem to be objecting to any mentions of the topic of the research that Sa'id is doing by the group giving the award, by the media covering the award, and by Wikipedia because you do not think Sa'id is worthy of an award based on her body of work on this topic. This approach seems wrong because 1) the topic of her research is of interest and would naturally be covered when writing a media piece about her getting an award 2) Wikipedia should follow the lead of reliable sources for the content about her work unless it is outrageously stating a fact that is implausible. Then we would require multiple sources to confirm. (this doesn't seem to apply here) So, I have no problem with mentioning the award and mentioning that the award was based on her work in Atmospheric Physics. (I was reluctant to reply more about this in the Afd because it seems more appropriate for a talk page discussion on the article.) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, I'm not objecting to mentioning the award. On the contrary, I'm saying more information will be needed to put this award into context. Anyone familiar with scientific publishing will indeed recognize the problem of vanity publishing. Please familiarize yourself with the very similar case of Jacob Barnett because it is a good predictor of where things will go after "keep". See you on the talk page. Agricola44 (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Continued discussion on this talk page

[edit]
  • As I said, it appears that you are objecting to any mention of her area of research in association with the award. But it seems fine and normal as it is written with the announcement by the other reliable sources and in the Wikipedia article now. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Agricola44, I was trying to follow your points - until I saw with the very similar case of Jacob Barnett because it is a good predictor of where things will go after "keep".. 1) This does not at all seem to be a similar case, and 2) how do you know that that is where the article is going to go after a keep? Are you saying the BBC and other mainstream media are somehow caught up in her glow and are missing that she's not at all notable for articles in their newspapers, etc.? You absolutely lost me (as someone trying to understand your point of view) there.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies if I have not been clear. Let me review my position and also let me point out similarities to the Barnett article, which are the basis of my prediction that this article will follow a similar path. First, the following facts are not in dispute.
  • Sa'id was given an award by the Elsevier Foundation for her research in environmental science (the "charcoal briquettes" work) at an AAAS event. This was mentioned in other outlets, like the Nature news feature, which also specifically mention it is a merit-based award for her work.
  • Sa'id's work has not been published in any mainstream venues. Indeed, the charcoal briquettes paper (the research for which she received the award) was published in IJETAE, a well-known vanity/junk "journal" (see e.g. Beall's List).
  • Sa'id's work, including the IJETAE paper, has not been cited in any meaningful way, i.e. outside of a few citations from other junk journals.
So, what we have is an award that was bestowed for purposes other than what even its own citation says. My contention is that this aspect needs to be in the text of the article, otherwise our article will mislead almost all WP readers into thinking Sa'id is a notable scientist (as it did, in fact, with many of the AfD commentators). Since her work has not seen the light of day within mainstream science, this would knowingly portray a false image of the subject. How is this similar to the Barnett article? Briefly, Barnett made a number of claims of enormously far-reaching research accomplishment in physics. Although anyone familiar with elementary physics recognized these claims as false, they were carried by numerous credible sources (BBC, 60 minutes, etc). The article was kept through several AfDs because of these sources. The problem was whether to hold the article to a stub having only verifiable vital data, or to include all these claims (which were the basis of the sources, which in turn were the basis for the article's existence), along with our jurisprudent statements that these claims are false. This should sound familiar. Anyway, the article was jerked back and forth and seems finally to have settled on a version that gives the complete warts-and-all truth of his claims and their falsity. It is not terribly flattering. These similarities are why I think there is a good chance there will be similar rancorous debate. Indeed, I already see some editors posturing that we cannot criticize this award because there are no sources. But, in the end, I do not think such cheesed-up arguments will prevail because the problems here are obvious to anyone who knows how scientific work is vetted and published. Hope this is helpful. Agricola44 (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
But, this seems to be your opinion, not fact. At least nothing that we can verify right now. In addition, her article is not based upon that one award. I voted keep for having met WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE, not WP:PROF, because of her career + the work that she does mentoring, promoting STEM, and encouraging women. This is not a young kid, this is a woman whose career and community service go beyond that one award - and over a period of time.
What is a best-case scenario for you regarding this article?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not questioning "keep". Please let's move past that, and her age, and anything else like empowering communities and such. It is not my opinion that her research has had no impact. Is it your contention that we should knowingly conceal this fact from WP readers, given that she received the Elsevier award for research? Agricola44 (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I don't know if you're talking to me, because I didn't mention delete in the last reply to you. And, I'm not for concealing anything at all that should be in the article. I'm just trying to better understand what you want.
It sounds like you think that there should be something in the article about the fact that she received the Elsevier award, but has not had journal articles published in mainstream scientific journals, and even the article that she wrote is not recognized and cited by others. (although this might not be the way that you'd word it - I don't want to get stuck on wording)
I'm not trying to be contentious with this question, it is just naturally where I go: is there a source for whatever it is that you think should be added to the article?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One strategy would be to quote the language on the AAAS site: the awards were given "in recognition of research that has strong potential social and economic benefits" [italics mine]. That wording, without being unduly negative, at least recognizes that her research has not had an impact yet. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is in the article's title header: Sa'id was awarded specifically For her research that seeks to solve Nigerian environmental challenges, such as decreasing deforestation by turning carpenters waste into briquettes to replace firewood. She is currently working on a government project to gather atmospheric data, and is a..., a citation which makes very specific scientific research claims. As for whether her research will have any future impact, there's no margin in WP:CRYSTAL. Agricola44 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Carole: I think we are having some trouble communicating.
  • I don't know if you're talking to me, because I didn't mention delete: Yes, I was talking to you, based upon your saying "I voted keep for having met...".
  • It sounds like you think that there should be something in the article about the fact that she received the Elsevier award, but has not had journal articles published in mainstream scientific journals: Yes, I've said that now almost a half dozen times between the AfD and here.
  • is there a source for whatever it is that you think should be added to the article?: I might diplomatically reply that we are already moving toward WP:CHEESE. Do you understand how scientific work is vetted? Please see the 3 facts above that I said were not in dispute. They're not in dispute.
I'm glad to know your against concealing something that should be in the article. So, let me ask you directly: should a statement be in the article to the effect that she received the Elsevier research award without having done any research that mainstream science is aware of? My answer to this is "yes", because if we omit this, then WP readers will be misled into thinking she is a notable researcher. What is your answer? Agricola44 (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Agricola44, the Wikipedia article content needs to reflect the content of the reliable sources not what we know or think we know. It is not up to us to decide whether she is a notable researcher and put that information into the article one way or the other. We merely need to write about what the references tell us. So, no mention is needed about anything related to her notability as a researcher. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]

@Agricola44: There's really no need to spill so many bytes about this. We have multiple reliable sources stating that Sa'id has researched, amongst other things, the use of charcoal briquettes as an alternative fuel, and she was given a minor but notable award for this work. So it's perfectly appropriate for the article to say so. If you have a source that says her research isn't actually worthwhile because it was published in "vanity" journals, then we can mention that. And if you have the source that questions the credibility of the Elsevier award we should put that in too. But if you don't have reliable sources for those two statements, then it's original research and has no place in an encyclopaedia article. This may mean that a great wrong goes unrighted in your eyes, but unfortunately that's just not what we're here for. Joe Roe (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agricola44 I know I got riled up about the link to the other article, I think it's taken us sideways. But, I really am trying to communicate with you. I was just say that I didn't vote based on WP:PROF, and what my reasoning was, and I don't know what the harm is in trying to figure out what you want. I was just trying to summarize - to get the the crux of what you're looking for - because you've said a lot of things. I hope that you don't feel the need to mention anyone's attempt to conceal anything again, per WP:AGF, and I've not seen any evidence that is happening.
My answer is that if there is a way to add a statement like that is in keeping with the guidelines, I personally don't have a problem with that. And, that is why I brought up sources. Perhaps I am too limited in scope there, but that has always been the criteria for adding content that I have used.-CaroleHenson (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agricola44, a minor correction (though a big misunderstanding in the context): you refer to 'charcoal briquettes' - the briquettes in question are not made from charcoal (this is the whole point): they are made from compacted 'carpenter's waste' (whatever that is). Anyway, maybe a better starting point for this might be to look at the other women who were given this award in the same year. Take a look at the award citations for the other four women listed here and see what you think. Are the other women more 'notable' for their research? Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

@CaroleHenson: a query about these three edits:

  • [14]: this added a source that you don't have access to. If you don't have access to it, how can you tell if it should be added? (This is a pet bugbear of mine - to judge whether an external link is appropriate, you need to be able to judge the content.) What is the article about? How much is about Sa'id?
Yep, if that needs to go, that's fine. I was doing a search and I believe I read it in an abstract. I'll take it out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • [15]: same comment for this - I may have this book somewhere. It is relatively easy to get hold of. Where is Sa'id mentioned? If you don't even have a page reference, what is the point of adding this?
I don't remember that one, but it was through some kind of search. It's gone.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • [16]: why was the YouTube link I added removed? I got to that YouTube video from the TWAS article here, where it is described as: "A short film by Nicole Leghissa of Trieste, Italy, captures the inspiring stories of five women scientists from the developing world who won the 2015 Elsevier Foundation awards". I am struggling to understand why a link to that video was removed (it is an official publication by TWASvideos, so not a copyright violation). It seems entirely relevant to this article.

Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:YOUTUBE, my take is that people overuse adding youtube videos to external links. If you disagree, add it back. I won't revert it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article in Physics World only mentions Sa'id briefly:
Four physicists have been named as recipients of the 2015 Elsevier Foundation Awards for Early Career Women Scientists in the Developing World. Nashwa Eassa of Al-Neelain University in Khartoum, Sudan; Mojisola Oluwyemisi Adeniyi of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria; Mojisola Usikalu of Covenant University, Nigeria; and Rabia Salihu Sa‘id of Bayero University, Nigeria, were honoured along with the Vietnamese computational mathematician Dang Thi Oanh for “research that has strong potential social and economic benefits”.
It's probably not worth including as further reading. Joe Roe (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's gone.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rabia_Salihu_Sa%27id&oldid=1208056058"