Talk:Shiva Ayyadurai/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"inventor of email"

I'm not sure we really should use that as a ref at all, implicitly legitimising it. Will sleep on it but if someone can do better in the meantime, fine. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That said, the reversion on the grounds that it's a "non-reputable source" is obviously daft. Ayyadurai claiming XYZ is a reliable source for a statement that Ayyadurai claims XYZ! Pinkbeast (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It has now been reverted with the summary "Take it to the talk page", which is also absurd, considering. (Ping Barte who can perhaps sort this out while I'm asleep...) Pinkbeast (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I see how adding the reference improves the introduction. I doubt most people will know that Ayyadurai is behind the website, especially if they only read as far as the introduction. In my view, using it as a reference could implicitly legitimize both the claim and the website in readers eyes. I would be in favor of leaving this reference out of the introduction. Echawkes (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I think saying that Ayyadurai claims 'to be the "inventor of email"' improves the introduction. He does claim that, and he claims it in those words. Hence, I think that text should be restored, and that's what this discussion was intended to be about.

I have no particular attachment to using that particular Website as a reference, and obviously I share the concern about legitimising it, but presently we are in the odd situation where the text "inventor of email" has been removed (by a single-purpose IP) on the basis that it has no source, and then when a source for it has been added it was removed when patently it does in fact establish that Ayyadurai claims this very thing.

Hence I'm not sure what we should do about it but I am sure we should restore that text. How best to cite it (if we actually feel that is necessary) is something I'm happy to discuss. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Echawkes. I am mindful of WP:PROMO, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, WP:SELFPUBLISH, and the Philip Roth debacle. Zazpot (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's quite the opposite of Roth and Broyard. In that case, vast OR went on to associate Broyard with the book, which Roth later denied. In this case, Ayyadurai is the source of the myth and most credible commentators (including WP and TechDirt, but not the NYT) have either simply ridiculed this on sight as implausible and purely self-sourced, or have then refuted it point by point with other precedents. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: this situation is different to Roth's in the respects you mention. It is also different insofar as no-one but Roth can know for sure what was in Roth's mind (i.e. that topic was subjective), whereas other people wrote and used email systems prior to Ayyadurai (i.e. this topic is objective). However, the situation is similar in that in both cases, third-party WP:RS make one claim, while the subject of the article contradicts that claim. In cases like this, the article (here as with Roth) should be sourced from the reliable secondary sources, not from the subject of the article. All the more so in this case, because the issue is not about what was in a person's mind, but rather about what they did (or did not) create in the external world and when they did so. This was the point I was getting at, here. Zazpot (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think PRIMARY is just fine for claims (that they've been made). We're not interested in sourcing the content of the claim itself (as we just don't believe it anyway). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: WP:PRIMARY says, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. (Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.)" I don't regard the current source as having been "reputably published", and I do think that other policies restrict us here, as I have already mentioned above. As such, it seems highly preferable that the article should instead source the claim from one or more WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. Zazpot (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Then let's remove the whole section about "claimed to invent email" and then we can delete the article as non-notable.Andy Dingley (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Er, no. The claim is notable due to its having been reported upon in multiple WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. Ayyadurai, in turn, has been reported upon in multiple WP:SECONDARY WP:RS as a peddler of falsehoods or half-truths, and is notable for that. Let's simply use those WP:SECONDARY WP:RS rather than Ayyadurai's self-published, self-promoting website. No need to throw out the baby (the article) with the bathwater (a poor source). Zazpot (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I really don't understand the objection here. Of course in general caution must be taken with primary sources; obviously, in this case, we could not source anything about the actual origin of email to Ayyadurai. But all that is being sourced to Ayyadurai is a statement about what Ayyadurai himself claims, and he is a perfectly reliable source on his own claims; the source is one of the places he is claiming those things!

You say above that the issue is about "what they did (or did not) create in the external world and when they did so". It's not. The issue is about what Ayyadurai claims to be the case; all that these recent edits have done is to change one quoted phrase about his claims.

None of the policy links you cite seem relevant.

WP:PROMO? Either way, the article prominently features Ayyadurai's claim to have invented email. It is not made more promotional by quoting the phrase "inventor of email".

WP:ELMIN? We're adding a reference, not an external link.

WP:SPS? That comes down to WP:SELFPUB; "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". No, it's not an exceptional claim. "Ayyadurai invented email" is an exceptional (and false) claim; "Ayyadurai claims to have invented email" is not, but we're not even discussing that. The disputed content means the claim here is 'Ayyadurai uses the phrase "inventor of email" when claiming to have invented email', which is an utterly unremarkable claim. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

However, I've no particular attachment to the self-published source, so I've replaced it with an article from The Indian Express, which I hope will render the question moot. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinkbeast, thanks for replacing the self-published source with a third-party source.

For the sake of mutual understanding, and in case the issue arises again, let me (belatedly) address your points, even if they are presently moot:

• WP:PROMO? ... [The article] is not made more promotional by quoting the phrase "inventor of email".
  No, and I did not suggest that it was. The article is, however, made more promotional by linking to a site that is (a) owned/controlled by Ayyadurai, (b) about Ayyadurai, and (c) specifically designed to promote Ayyadurai's self-aggrandising claim. Such a link is likely to drive traffic to that site, which would be a form of mild promotion for Ayyadurai if only one of (a), (b), or (c) obtained, but is clearly an egregious form of promotion since all three obtain.
• WP:ELMIN? We're adding a reference, not an external link.
  Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Neither I nor WP:ELMINOFFICIAL object to the addition of suitable references. However, this particular reference is in the form of an external link to a site owned/controlled by the subject of the article, and therefore arguably falls under the purview of WP:ELMINOFFICIAL.
• WP:SPS? That comes down to WP:SELFPUB; "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". No, it's not an exceptional claim. "Ayyadurai invented email" is an exceptional (and false) claim; "Ayyadurai claims to have invented email" is not, but we're not even discussing that. The disputed content means the claim here is 'Ayyadurai uses the phrase "inventor of email" when claiming to have invented email', which is an utterly unremarkable claim.
  I well understand your point. However, the site that was linked to does make the exceptional claim that Ayyadurai invented email, and it exists primarily or entirely for that purpose. As such, being a self-published source making an exceptional claim about the subject of the article, it is a poor choice of source.

Hope that clears things up. Thanks again for caring about this and for working with other editors to understand the issues and to try to find a mutually acceptable solution Zazpot (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with any of these contentions, although it is largely moot now. Short of outright refspam, we do not concern ourselves that we might be promoting a source if it is otherwise suitable; we don't, for example, worry that selection of references might be promoting one newspaper over another.

WP:EL (of which WP:ELMINOFFICIAL is part) starts "This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references ...". The policy simply is not applicable to references, as you can see from the commonplace use of corporate websites for prosaic facts about the company.

The site does contain extraordinary claims, but it's not being used as a cite for an extraordinary claim. That is surely the point of the restriction; there are cases in which one would have to be a bit careful (if my Website proclaims I am a princess of Mars, you might not even trust it about my birthdate even though that is a mundane claim) but that is not the case here - you could not ask for a more reliable source for "Ayyadurai claims X" than Ayyadurai claiming X. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think we should definitely keep the self-published reference and the context in which it's used "he claims to have invented email" is clear enough. What it does need though is expansion of the cite, to show that it's Ayyadurai's own site. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I've had a bash at that. It's a bit vexing in that what I really want to do is fill in the Author fields, but the diatribes there are not actually attributed to any given author. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there another source that attributes the "inventor of email" citation as being published by Ayyadurai himself? As it stands one could assume its self-published, but I think that needs to be verified to keep the citation. 100.36.177.246 (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting the "inventor of email" site might not be connected to Ayyadurai? That's ridiculous. It attributes itself to the "International Center for Integrative Systems", of which Ayyadurai is not merely a Director but the Director they choose to feature on their own front page (and refer to as the "inventor of email", say that the ICIS is his brainchild...). Pinkbeast (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to avoid legitimizing a potentially illegitimate source, regardless of how legitimate it may appear. 100.36.177.246 (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

We are now in the absurd situation where I've put in a secondary source which says '"CORRECTION: THE INVENTOR OF EMAIL IS STILL ALIVE," screams an e-mail not from the deceased Ray Tomlinson, but Dr VA Shiva Ayyadurai', but this has been reverted out on the basis that "source does not contain that self-quote". It does contain the words "inventor of email" used by Ayyadurai. It contains them in ALL CAPS, clearly attributed to Ayyadurai, in the first sentence of the article. I included that quote in the citation specifically. I have no idea what this IP is up to but plainly they are not editing in good faith. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

From the introduction: 'Ayyadurai is notable for his controversial claim to be the "inventor of email".' The quote from your source does not reflect the same thing, it reflects that he's claiming the "inventor of email" is still alive, not that the "inventor of email" is himself. 100.36.177.246 (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You have to read the source itself, not the one line quoted. "The controversial Dr Ayyadurai claims he was all of 14, when as a research fellow at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, he invented email in 1978." This text appears _before the first line of the article proper_. It could not be more prominently displayed. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You're trying to use a quote where there simply isn't an acceptable, in-context place to quote it from. The current state of the introduction reflects the same idea, so I do have to wonder why you're so interested in keeping the quote. 100.36.177.246 (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

One of us is the single-purpose editor; one has to wonder why you're so interested in getting rid of it. Your objection is absurd; I've produced a secondary source that very clearly states Ayyadurai makes that claim in those words.

Once again, you're not discussing this in good faith. The objection above that Ayyadurai might be saying someone _else_ was the still-living inventor of email shows that; no-one acting in good faith could believe that. Absent any coherent objection from someone who's not an SPA, the cited text should clearly be restored. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Why do you believe including the quote is even necessary? Does it communicate an idea that the current text does not? 100.36.177.246 (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You first, single-purpose bad faith account. Why are you so keen to take it out? Remember that absent consensus, the default is to keep the state before the discussion - ie, with the quote. Doubly so now it is well-cited. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The proposed cites have been problematic and I feel the quote itself is unnecessary to communicate the idea of his claim. 100.36.177.246 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, I would appreciate if you could stop the unproductive "bad faith" accusations. 100.36.177.246 (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• IP, your feelings are entirely irrelevant here. I'm waiting on someone to revert you and either block you or semi-protect the article to prevent you from continuing this nonsense. You are so obviously in violation of all kinds of stuff that your invoking the rules is just funny. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussions here should be in regard to reaching a consensus, not your personal feelings about me. Also: WP:DNB 100.36.177.246 (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to pop in my 2 cents worth. (a) Including an exact quote of his claim is important, because quite a bit of the controversy turns on the subtleties of 'email' vs 'EMAIL', via 'electronic mail'. (b) While we may have grave concerns about the reliability of his personal site as a ref regarding history etc - for his own claims, they're surely perfectly appropriate and reliable. - Snori (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the quote provides a better distinction since the introduction goes on to mention "EMAIL". 100.36.177.246 (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

His own website is a reliable source for his claims, but when using it as a reference, it must be very clear that it is his own website. That can be difficult to make clear, especially in a brief introduction. I think the current (as of this moment) reference from The Indian Express achieves this. Echawkes (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Attribution is important, but there are plenty of sources for this claim, aren't there? Putting this in his own words helps make it clear that this is a defining characteristic he's fully committed to, not a manufactured controversy (like Al Gore's one-time "invented the internet" comment). Perhaps that's too subjective, but it does seem clearer to me. The Indian Express source seems usable, also. Grayfell (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Nicely put, Grayfell--thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Snori has expressed exactly my point; Ayyadurai claiming something is a reliable source for "Ayyadurai claims this thing". Obviously there are times one might have to be a bit careful; the person might be joking, or might be so pathological a liar (like Trump) that anything they say on any given day might not be taken as something they seriously claim; but neither of these cases applies to Ayyadurai, who has been entirely consistent about this claim.

Grayfell has expressed eloquently why the quote is worth having in the article. Additionally, it helps to make it clear that Ayyadurai claims to be the sole inventor, that email sprung fully-formed from his forehead. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems like a reference to RFC 561 (Standardizing Network Mail Headers, 1973) would be appropriate somewhere, but I'm not sure where. Jordan Brown (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Police mugshot

Since Ayyadurai was charged in 2005 but not found guilty, is the use of a police mugshot perhaps focussing undue attention on this incident? It is not otherwise a high-quality photo of the subject. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I think WP:MUG suggests the mugshot is inappropriate here. Barte (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think it's reasonable. It's not there as a photo, it's there as a source demonstrating that he was arrested and a restraining order issued. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

If it's there as a source then it should not appear directly in the article, but in ref tags; and it would make a terrible source, since an afternoon with the GIMP could produce something equally convincing, leaving aside that the material already has some perfectly good sources. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

There's no source. It appears to violate WP:MUG; I can't think of another instance where a mugshot has been used in a BLP, let alone one that didn't result in a conviction. The editor who inserted it has not made a case for it here. I think it's WP:UNDUE and easily fails WP:BLP guidelines. I'm removing it. Barte (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Harvard Tamil Chair controversy

Not sure if this is worthy of inclusion here: ‘Harvard Tamil Chair a scam’: Indian American scientist’s post sparks controversy. Shiva Ayyadurai claimed that the Harvard University was "exploiting Tamilians by making them pay for their own historic artefacts". He also claimed that Hebrew script is based on the older Tamil Brahmi script, and that the "Hebrews in academia" were colluding in an effort to "reduce Tamil to a ‘goo goo ga ga’ language". utcursch | talk 16:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether thenewsminute.com is a reliable source or not. I couldn't see this picked up by another sources. Something that definitely should be added though is this published by buzzfeed yesterday about fake facebook profiles supporting him. SmartSE (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The News Minute clip, which came out in January 2018, is the only thing I could find not published by Ayyadurai himself. Any followup? Other sources? Barte (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking more I found these:

• http://www.newsindiatimes.com/shiva-ayyadurai-says-tamil-chair-at-harvard-exploiting-tamilians
• https://www.hindupost.in/education/opposing-harvard-tamil-chair-hijacking-cause-musings/
• https://www.indiaabroad.com/harvard-university-s-tamil-chair-under-fire/article_096df49d-c16d-5c23-982b-6f500416555e.html (can't read this myself from the EU).

None of them are sites I've come across before, but I can't say I know much about Indian sources. SmartSE (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The India Abroad site strikes me as particularly useful in that it reports beyond Ayyadurai's initial comments. I'm not sure whether the controversy is worth including here, but I wouldn't object if someone wanted to add it. Ditto the Buzzfeed Facebook story. Barte (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

First Circuit appeal?

It has been almost six months since we cited an Ars Technica article reporting that the Techdirt appeal was filed in the First Circuit. The article had a link to this document, dated 6/28/18. But I haven't seen anything since. A search on Justia came up with four cases involving Ayyadurai, none at the First Circuit level. Any thoughts? Other places to look? Otherwise, I'm inclined to delete the sentence re: the appeal until we get a followup source. Barte (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Sentence deleted. Barte (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Climate science denier

Just in case this becomes relevant in the future: 1 2. --mfb (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

And an anti-vaxxer, to boot. Charming fellow. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Personal life

I'm not sure all of anon's recent changes to the assault & battery paragraph are confirmed by the sources, but for sure, we have no evidence the incident ever lead to a conviction. Without that, I think that by Wikipedia standards, it amounts to a cheap shot. Someone make a case to the contrary, or let's remove it. Barte (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There being no counter-argument, I've removed the paragraph. Barte (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Article contains propaganda

This article is politically biased against its subject, grossly inappropriate for an encyclopedia that represents its content as informative. The part about spreading misinformation is biased and opinionated. It even draws on a propaganda web site named "Straight Georgia" which is a political advocacy site see footnote 50. I don't believe Wikipedia is the place for political attitudes and propaganda, especially when it is dishonestly represented as objective fact. This statement from the Wikipedia article: "During the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic Ayyadurai used social media to spread various conspiracy theories about the pandemic." is subjective opinion and propaganda seeking to discredit Dr. Ayyadurai. It cites no source or authority. It assumes its author has agency to decide what is or is not a "conspiracy theory." Wikipedia can do better than this. This article needs to be edited to remove its bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiogenesofTexas (talk • contribs) 16:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you make some points. "Straight Georgia" seems like a dubious source to me too. And the section could be written to omit the terms "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories". As always, we should error on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs. Barte (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The name of the newspaper is "The Georgia Straight". It seems like a reliable source to me? Dracunculus (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on the newspaper name. Looking at all these sources, seems to me that collectively, they don't match those in the rest of the article. Mainstream publications covered the email controversy. They even covered his first senate run. But with the exception of a single mention in a NYT article, Ayyadurai has not gotten much national attention for his views on the virus. That doesn't mean those views shouldn't be noted. But WP:UNDUE is a concern. Barte (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19 and promoting alternative theories

He seems to be actively involved in promoting conspiracy theories during this time of the Covid-19 Pandemic. He has been quoted by Sean Hannity - https://hillreporter.com/hannity-deep-state-could-be-promoting-covid-19-hysteria-60910 - and has given a long interview to Next News Network and available on youtube (link to you tube video) promoting anti-vaccine ideas and conspiracy theories that spread potential mis-information in this delicate time. I think there should be something on the main web page reflecting these activities. I feel this information is critical to readers and shouuld be added rightaway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C1:C100:36A0:A836:2C90:D9B8:3B3A (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you need more mainstream sources to have taken note before adding allegations about "promoting QAnon conspiracy theories" to a biography of a living person--see WP:BLP and WP:V. Barte (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC). Have removed reference to "QAnon".

This is the same stuff as is covered by the NY times article you linked in the above section. There's also this from the Washington Examiner. - MrOllie (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD. Barte (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC) and be WP:CAREFUL. Barte (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

On his own website he's providing videos of him as a "Dr" (no clarification to those ignorant of the differences) and making specious claims about COVID, this time on RT "The ongoing coronavirus outbreak, now officially a global health emergency. At least 213 deaths and around 10,000 cases have been reported. RT America’s Sayeh Tavangar reports. Then biological engineer Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai joins Michele Greenstein (in for Rick Sanchez) to share his expertise." There are other videos there but I am not in the mood to listen to this man talk about things on national television that he knows less about than my pet rock.81.97.100.208 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

More sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I noticed that AIDs denialism also comes up. SmartSE (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You can see the original video here: [6]. It very clearly has Ayyadurai endorsing Duesbergian HIV/AIDS Denialism too (51:54 to 55:06). From his own mouth. How is this not in the article? --DsouzaSohan (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This page is a mess

I understand the sentiment of many people making edits right now... but people are going way too far in the wrong direction. This page has become a parody of what a good Wikipedia article should be. First of all... is Buzzfeed considered a reliable source on Wikipedia now? I'm not asking facetiously, I'm genuinely curious. Because it's used in this article extensively. We need to take a step back, and make sure this page is worded well, without the obvious bias that is has now. It can be done. That sort of thing only makes the situation worse... and does nothing to actually inform people. If a page of a controversial person has such poorly worded and obvious bias... Wikipedia as a whole will lose credibility. Bzzzing (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it depends largely on the content of the Buzzfeed article. A listicle about pictures of cats absolutely does not count. Legitimate reporting in order to show specific instances of pushing a conspiracy as this dude is actively doing, I'd say, is fair to use. Also, while I agree with you undoing of my edits regarding linking to "Quackery" page, which was immature and uncalled for on my part, I do believe there is important wording in explaining that the guy argued for something vs. explained, and whether or not he is "advancing misinformation" or "developing theories about misinformation." Both are descriptions of what one can do, and both are neutral. His actions fall into the former category instead of the latter, I'd argue.

Hobomok (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Because [Buzzfeed is] used in this article extensively. Only if one cite counts as extensively. And only if one section renders the entire page a "mess". Barte (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Buzzfeed isn't, but BuzzFeed News is a separate news organisation that is reliable - they have won several news awards and are a member of the White House press corps. - MrOllie (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks MrOllie

Here is the last sentence from the section in question:

"In March 2020 he published an open letter to president Donald Trump where he wrote and explained why a national lockdown was unnecessary and advocated that large doses of vitamins could help prevent the disease."

That is more like what Wikipedia should look like. The only changes I could see there would be something like "he explained WHY HE BELIEVES a national lockdown was unnecessary". My point is... when dealing with a person who is *especially* controversial, we need to be EXTRA careful with NPOV, because people who come here believing everything he said will see weasel words and immediately assume that Wikipedia is "one of them" or "part of the conspiracy". The best course of action is to simply lay out the facts, explain what he said and what he believes, and occasionally add, when appropriate, lines such as "...although the mainstream medicine suggests otherwise [then add citation]" instead of using weasel words like "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories". When something is true, we just need to lay it all bare, and it will be obvious. Aggressively biased wording just doesn't help anything. Bzzzing (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The version of that sentence before the most recent changes (and what I have just reverted to) was "he wrote that a national lockdown was unnecessary" which does a good job of explaining that he wrote that without seeming to imply that we agree with him in Wikipedia's voice. I think the 'explained' version is more awkward and tends to imply that he was explaining a known fact rather than a point of political debate. Also while I think a link to quackery was uncalled for, a link to Megavitamin therapy might be useful. - MrOllie (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Also, I just went looking for the "hair dryer video" since another editor said it wasn't Ayyadurai in the video... and it turns out that video was done by a guy named Dr. Dan Lee Dimke (who is even more of a lunatic. sorry don't quote me on that). There is no mention or involvement of Ayyadurai at all. Not sure how that got mixed up. Here is the link where I found it: https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/03/fact-check-using-a-sauna-or-hairdryer-will-not-kill-coronavirus.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzzzing (talk • contribs)

It would be really unlike Buzzfeed news to get something so obvious incorrect. Maybe there are two videos, the Ayyadurai one which the article acknowledges was taken down and a second one by Dimke? I'm not sure we should be second guessing the source here. - MrOllie (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

While I agree with changing "explain" to simply "wrote" in the final section, the lead-in sentence regarding advancing misinformation instead of simply discussing alternative theories about misinformation needs to stay as-is. Further, I'd think the Buzzfeed News article vs leadstories.com was written in that manner for a reason--I think second guessing the source is a bad idea. It seems that the Buzzfeed article says Ayyadurai either posted his own video or posted Dimke's video as fact on his own social media. Hobomok (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This is what the Buzzfeed article says: "Ayyadurai also shared Fauci’s email to Clinton and has made several Periscope videos accusing Fauci of being a member of the deep state. Ayyadurai’s video, titled "How To Kill Coronavirus," was removed from YouTube for violating community standards." That's all they say about it. They're basically mentioning the video in passing, without any mention of the "hair dryer" part, so it's possible they may have made a mistake. I've just been all over the web, at sites like Brighteon and I have found no evidence of any other video called "How to kill Coronavirus" other than the Dimke one. There apparently was a video of Ayyadurai's that was removed from Youtube, and I'm trying to find out the name of it now. Once I find out, I'll link to a version of it here, and view it. In any case, I do think there was some confusion, since Dimke's video has the same title, and is about curing covid with a hair dryer. It seems likely there was a mix up, and they simply got the title wrong. But within the next hour, I'm pretty sure I'll find out what the name of Ayyadurai's removed video was, and provide a link to it, and try to sit through it and see what he says. Also, I've searched for both Dimke and Ayyadurai's names together... and can't find any source where Ayyadurai endorses Dimke. I think it's pretty clear the video they assumed was Ayyadurai's, was actually the Dimke video; or, they just simply got the title wrong. Bzzzing (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry one other thing... I still disagree with Hobomok's assertion that "the lead-in sentence regarding advancing misinformation instead of simply discussing alternative theories about misinformation needs to stay as-is"... but since I already reverted it twice... to avoid an edit war, I will stay out of it now, except to just again say that I disagree. Other people will have to weigh in on it. Bzzzing (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Here is the cached twitter page (cached because it was deleted, presumably because the poster realized she was wrong) that BuzzFeedNews used as a source that Ayyadurai's video was called "How to kill Coronavirus", and about using a hair dryer to cure coronavirus. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:axxxgkKTiAYJ:https://twitter.com/janelytv/status/1239951548010180608+

That appears to be the only source BuzzFeedNews used for that bit of information. You can see the title of the video that was actually removed, and it was an interview with Alex Jones about "the dangers of vaccines". So it does appear that the "How to Kill Coronavirus"/hair dryer video definitely was mistakenly attributed to Ayyadurai. Bzzzing (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me just say that, while we may disagree about the lead of the section, and I do not like the idea of wording in favor of what a conspiracy theorist might think upon finding the section, I do respect your opinion and I appreciate the work that you do here as an editor. Hobomok (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I really appreciate it.Bzzzing (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bzzzing: Buzzfeed News is a reliable source and we can't cross check every single claim made by reliable sources, but it does seem they screwed up regarding the hair dryer claim (note though that the twitter user the cited is also a buzzfeed journalist). I've emailed the journalist to point out their apparent mistake and ask them to correct it. The irony of spreading misinformation on misinformation is not lost on me! SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

What makes a claim "controversial" rather than "false"?

The first paragraph of this article states as fact that Email had been invented well before Shiva's program was written. If this is the case, his invention claim isn't controversial; it's just false. If I claim to have invented the wheel, would wikipedia treat this claim as "controversial"? I think the word "controversial" in the first sentence of this article is misleading, and should be changed to "false", and will do so unless a convincing objection to the change is posted here---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andylatto (talk • contribs) 01:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

See also this recent New York Times piece (not an op/ed): "...and other outspoken Trump supporters such as Shiva Ayyadurai, who has falsely claimed to be the inventor of email." On the other hand, in the entry itself, the one judge to rule on Ayyadurai's claim wrote "Because the definition [of email] does not have a single, objectively correct answer, the claim is incapable of being proved true or false." So does that make his claim false? Or impossible to prove? Barte (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think any IT professional would say it is false, but standards of proof in a courtroom are different. That said, Wikipedia isn't a courtroom so I can't think of any reason we couldn't change it to 'false claim' and cite that to the NY Times. - MrOllie (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the standard of proof here should be at least as high as a judicial verdict. There's no agreed upon definition of email. Ergo, the claim to have invented it can't be proved either way. My vote is to stay with the current wording and let readers judge for themselves. Barte (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you say that there is no agreed-upon definition of Email; I can give you cites from the OED, Merriam-Webster, and any number of other lexicographers, whose entire job is determining whether words have generally agreed-upon definitions, and publishing those definitions in dictionaries. Shiva's claim that "there is no agreed-upon definition of email" is just another false claim that he uses to back up his first false claim. The fact that two people (Shiva and a judge) believe that there is no agreed-upon definition doesn't make it true in the face of overwhelming citations to the contrary.Andylatto (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

That was the conclusion of the only judge to rule on the claim. The decision is in the article and reliably sourced. Dictionary definitions don't count--applying them here would be WP:SYNTH. Barte (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, per the article, Ayyadurai didn't claim that "there is no agreed-upon definition of email". That was strictly the judge's finding, and it favored the defense. Barte (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW, if you claimed to have invented the wheel, Wikipedia would have treated the claim as lacking notability, unless it was, say, picked up in Time and The Washington Post. Which is what happened here. Barte (talk)

OK, suppose someone already notable for other reasons, who had a wikipedia entry, started claiming they invented the wheel, and when pressed, said that the particular wheel they had built out of legos as a child was the first "true wheel", because something isn't really a wheel unless it is built out of rectangular blocks, and there is no generally agreed definition of wheel. Would this be described in Wikipedia as a "controversial claim"?Andylatto (talk) 12

32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Usually what makes a claim controversial in wikipedia's eyes is the presence of co-partisans who will dispute that a claim is false. In this case it is demonstrably false (the nyt can be sourced here as can a few of the sources already used in the email article), but I suspect we will continue to treat it as controversial. He has been shopping this claim around for years and venues which carried it uncritically (eg. the smithsonian magazine) regretted it while venues which published the truth were sued. That doesn't make it controversial, it just means he has the means and the savvy to continue to press it despite obvious evidence to the contrary. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)]

There's a workaround: drop the adjective entirely. "He is notable for his claim to be the 'inventor of email...'" Barte (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It's important that we don't mislead people coming here for more information into thinking that it is true, though. - MrOllie (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"for his widely disputed claim..."? Barte (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean what would we call, in plain language, a claim which is both widely disputed and contraindicated by the facts? Protonk (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd call it "widely disputed" and let the rest of the intro speak for itself. But then I lean toward caution with BLPs. Barte (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I changed the lede per the above. Seems to me there's consensus here for strengthening the term "controversial". I'm still concerned about declaring the claim "false", but I may be a minority of one on that. Barte (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a big improvement to the lede. It still seems odd that we are willing to say that he claims to have invented email in the late 1970s in the first sentence, and that email was actively used in the early 1970s in the fourth sentence (note that we don't feel it necessary here to qualify this as "what according to some definitions was email", or indicate any controversy here, but simply present the facts as facts), but not label the claim as false. Would it really be WP:SYNTH to conclude that if email was being actively used in the early 1970s, then he didn't invent it in the late 1970s? It still feels like we're saying his claim is false in sentence 4, so why not say it in sentence 1? Andylatto (talk) 12

32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the phrase "pointed out" is too strong. "Argued"? And perhaps the lede should include a note that the only judicial ruling concluded the claim is unprovable. Re your note above: the definition of the wheel is agreed on and the date of its date of origin is reckoned in milleniums, not decades. An otherwise notable person claiming to have invented with Legos would either raise mental health concerns or be credited with a loopy sense of humor. Barte (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Argued isn't appropriate when referring to statements of facts rather than advancements of views or opinions. The lead also shouldn't overemphasize the judge's ruling, which is just stating that from a legal standpoint the claim is unprovable. Lots of things are known to be true but can't be proven in court. Wikipedia isn't a legal journal so we shouldn't be relying on legal views. - MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Dalit

User:Johnrameshkhan insists on adding this word, when our sources say only "untouchable" or "low caste". It's not necessary to go down the rabbit hole of what the difference in meaning might be, (negative?, positive?, something more subtle?), to understand that this is Just Wrong from a Wikipedia point of view. When challanged, on his Talk page he has again been misleading (e.g. "This is his latest video. He introduces himself as dalit", when he actually clearly says: "....I was considered an untouchable....",

We can disagree, but we must always strive to be honest. Snori (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Seems to me, this is a case where a clear declaration by Ayyadurai of his own identity matters the most. His online biography, for example, doesn't mention. Let's not try to guess or even infer. Barte (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

‘Dalit’ is not ‘untouchable’? Wow. He may not use the word because he is talking to Americans. His own online page in the sources I mentioned uses the word ‘untouchable’. Johnrameshkhan (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

On Ballotpedia, he says this: "I came to America in 1970 from India, where we were considered low-caste "Untouchables," or Deplorables." How about quoting him in the Early Life section? Barte (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

racism and conspiracy

hi!
right now the article says:

In March 2016, Ayyadurai alleged that the overlooking of his achievements was a result of racism and a conspiracy between mainstream media and the military–industrial complex, particularly Raytheon, where Tomlinson worked on ARPANET

no explicit reference is given for that. the only two references for the paragraph are a tweet and an article in The Hindu where the tweet is repeated.
the tweet suggests that Ayyadurai wants to depict himself as a "David" against the "Goliath" (military research, ...). imho the present wording is a bit too much interpreting. or am i just missing the relevant parts in the The Hindu article? or is there another reference that verifies the wording (result of racism and a conspiracy ...)? -- seth (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lustiger seth: Good point. I edited it to remove unsourced content (diff). See what you think.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 14:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Standard for the Format of ARPA Network Text Messages

This is the RFC that invented bcc, cc, etc. People cannot invent this, we only see RFCs. He only invented all those Drafts, Inbox, Outbox (NOT SPAM, LOL). 2A00:1370:812C:9562:9450:C202:4986:EA75 (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing your subject header (title) because people tend to glaze over when they see a raw URL as a section title, and this is a very interesting text, which I suspect some folks would like to at least take a look at. Full reference:

Crocker, David H., John J. Vittal, Kenneth T. Pogran, and D. Austin Henderson, Jr., Standard for the Format of ARPA Network Text Messages(1), RFC #733, NIC #41952 (21 November 1977), https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc733

:Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 01:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Shiva Ayyadurai is suing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-vaxx-movement-civil-war-has-erupted-and-its-just-as-ridiculous-as-youd-expect

Update there are now claims as of 2020 that Shiva Ayyadurai is suing RFK Jr. for political reasons. But really this is all about access to donors and who gets the anti-vax vote though. 2601:640:C600:3C20:82:8BEE:1F53:761A (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Locked to prevent vandalism???

Is this Wiki page really blocked to prevent vandalism or is it blocked from allowing users to correct this highly inaccurate page? Dillonp12380 (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Where do you think the page is "highly inaccurate"? And yes, it is locked to prevent vandalism since it was happening a lot. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This page tries to discredit Shiva's claims about ascorbate being used to cure acute respiratory distress syndrome in COVID-19 patients, despite the fact that peer-reviewed scientific literature corroborates Shiva's claim. Please see Boretti & Banik's study published in PharmaNutrition of June this year. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172861/

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2020

Dr. Shiva does not purport conspiracy theories and "unfounded medical claims." This allegation is a clear form of bias written by somebody with an agenda. As a medical doctor I can attest that Dr. Shiva's medical claims are not "unfounded" and have extremely strong scientific basis. Furthermore, this idea that he purports conspiracy theories is absolute nonsense and is a clear way to dismiss claims he's made that go against popular opinion.

Wikipedia strives to be a source of accurate, unbiased information. The first sentence of this article is full of nonsensical, agenda-driven crap. I request edits be made to this page. 98.180.147.168 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

And he absolutely does espouse conspiracy theories and unfounded medical claims. The objection above is nonsensical. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Claiming you're a doctor or other expert will get you zero traction here. Claiming it from an anonymous IP account will get you even less. What's credible? See WP:V.. Barte (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The doctor making the objection above is very clear, his point is well made, and claims against Dr. Shiva regarding his medical statements do seem biased. Ad hominems bring discredit to the one making them and should not have a place in a Wikipedia article.

I find it amusing that a religious charlatan like Kenneth Copeland would get a more professional introduction in a Wikipedia article than Dr. Shiva. I am happy to call someone like Kenneth Copeland a charlatan in this talk page but again an ad hominem like that does not belong on a Wikipedia page even 'if' there is a consensus. It's simply unprofessional.

It 'is' clear that Dr. Shiva's claim of inventing email is disputed and that claim should be clearly stated as disputed. tg3793 (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing about Dr. Ayyadurai's comments indicate that he furthers conspiracy theories because technicalities, data, and mathematical analyses are not conspiracy theories. These claims come across as baseless, biased statements designed to discredit this individual.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

In the COVID-19 section, Dr. Shiva's claims about vitamin c (ascorbate) curing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been corroborated by peer-reviewed scientific literature. Please see the following article published in PharmaNutrition in June 2020: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172861/ This is only one of many sources validating Shiva's claim. 198.84.129.48 (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Vitamin C advocates have been saying this kind of thing for years - Vitamin C cures cancer, cures AIDS, and now COVID. It never stands up when people try to replicate the work. - MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please see WP:MEDRS. Just because something is on PubMed does not mean it is necessarily reliable. Best, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC).

Your argument against the clinical use of ascorbate is fallacious. You claim that just because scientific, peer-reviewed sources support its use, doesn't 'necessarily' mean it's true. Peer-reviewed sources from reputable journals are the upmost reliable sources of scientific information you can get. If you claim that PubMed sources are not reliable then I would have to seriously question the sources that you do deem reliable and more importantly your motive for selectively filtering information, particularly as it relates to physiology and pharmacokinetics. PharmaNutrition is most certainly a reputable source and well regarding in molecular biology circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.129.48 (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

More sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7307812/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7318306/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.129.48 (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31852327/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30153778/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25185110/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27940189/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7167497/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7137406/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332915/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.129.48 (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This list could go on for pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.129.48 (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

My apologies I should have been more specific. The change I want to see is the removal of the vitamin c claim from a section titled "misinformation". I'd rather it be labelled a "claim". "misinformation" implies that there is no evidence to the claim, or there is 100% proof that the claim is not true. The concept is, at the very least, a debate within the scientific community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.129.48 (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. To be crystal clear, this will not be done per WP:FRINGE. I caution you against re-opening this edit request a third time as it is possible to consider re-opening a thrice-rejected edit request disruptive editing.

Ayyadurai did not say "vitamin C in extremely large intravenous doses can have a positive effect on Acute Respiratory Disorder", he flat-out stated Vitamin C (implied to be the ascorbic acid tablets in ever grocery store) could treat Covid. Those are two completely different statements and the latter is completely false. It is properly considered misinformation. There is no actual scientific debate on this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This article about Dr. Shiva is scandalous libel and defamation of character.

I got to know Dr. Shiva, and NO his methods are not questionable and HE DID invent the first email system. He has proved it in a court of law. As far as COVID 19 goes he was absolutely correct. Where you get conspiracy theories I have no idea. He helps people understand the science of the immune system. He is world renown for his expertise in this field of study. His therapeutics are used now to help people recover from COVID 19. The best defense against any virus, is a healthy immune system for the cyto-storm is what kills a human, created by their own body to kill the virus when that immune system has been compromised. Vitamin A, C, & D are all very useful in boosting the immune system which he states. That is not misinformation, that is fact!!!!! His recommendations where to isolate those with co-morbidities that compromised the immune system to be quarantined, and fed mega doses of vitamins to boost their immune system to help recover. In his many pod casts he has demonstrated what each vitamin does, what it creates, what its' function is and how we consume each vitamin. The problem with you and the rest of the mainstream idiots is a vitamin is not made by the BIG PHARMA industry and only costs a couple of dollars at your local drug store, instead of hundreds or thousands of dollars for a prescription written by an expensive doctor. The deaths from this disease; even skewed numbers given due to hospital administrators being paid between $15K & $50K for tagging all these deaths with COVID 19 for each and every death; are not representative of what the mainstream media was telling us it was going to be. It is no where near 2 - 4 million people in the United States dead from COVID. And if you happen to really read the CDC site, their statistics for all the other diseases people have been dying from for hundreds of years have disappeared from their reporting data. They just changed the column of the cause of death.

You need to remove this scandalous libel and defamation of character before you are sued and rightfully so. Dr. Shiva gives a shit about people unlike you and the mainstream media, the democrats, and the scam artists of this nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.230.2 (talk • contribs)

Subsection is titled irresponsibly

The subsection presently titled "COVID-19 Misinformation" contains mainly inappropriate inclusions. Most of the sentences should be moved to a subsection titled "Alleged COVID-19 Misinformation" until such time the claims are proven incorrect. The paragraphs in this section say that he said untrue things, without providing any actual evidence to the contrary. A Politico or other pop article is not sufficient evidence to establish claims from a scientist with four MIT degrees as being misinformation. The only sentence which belongs in this section at this time is the second sentence, "In January 2020 he claimed that the coronavirus was patented by the Pirbright Institute, but the patent he referenced relates to avian coronavirus, which infects birds, not SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the pandemic." No other claim in this subsection offers objective facts nor evidence to actually dispute the claim made or prove it to be misinformation. Responsible journalism would provide three or more reasonably equivalent science sources to dispute, for example, that a large dose of multiple vitamins can prevent or cure COVID-19. Until that can be accomplished, this is alleged as misinformation, not shown as misinformation. We are left to presume that the guy with four MIT degrees who is telling us to take vitamins is nuts, but are given no actual sources to which to ascribe this notion. This is not an encyclopedia worthy section of an article, but instead of politicized opinion alleging misinformation in an absence of evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:0:7620:d4d7:9943:4722:1efe (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

We follow what the sources say and there are multiple sources calling his statements out as misinformation, they don't say that it is "alleged". How many degrees he holds is completely irrelevant and that's simply an argument from authority. SmartSE (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of peer-reviewed sources that corroborate his claims, so it seems like you are selectively filtering information to fit a narrative. This is not the objectivity that Wikipedia used to stand for. At the very least, please move his claims about the clinical efficacy of ascorbate to a different section. Saying this claim is "misinformation" is patently false and dangerously misleading to readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.129.48 (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

So, you want the article to say he is right, giving as a source "Plenty of peer-reviewed sources, according to some random person on the internet"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Voting fraud

In reference to the final paragraph in the "Politics" section, the claims in his YouTube video have been debunked by another YouTuber I suggest removing the "call to action" in the paragraph in addition to adding the refutation. 69.206.117.38 (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a properly formed request and we shouldn't turn it into a "he said, she said" based off youtube videos, but there are some reliable sources discussing his claims about the primary in Mass. and the presidential election in MI: [7] [8] [9]. SmartSE (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Delete the second paragraph

It is incoherent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.51.66 10:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi 70.54.51.66! Firstly, may I kindly ask that you always sign comments on talk pages using four tildes (~). Secondly, I have read through the second paragraph of the lead section, and it seems easily readable to me. It is based on the evidence provided in the later paragraphs. I personally see no reason to change it, but if would be good to discuss if you think there is an issue. Is there anything specific you would like to change? Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

EchoMail was in use in the 1980s

Not sure what to do with this info, but if this fellow claims to have created EchoMail, it's worth noting that an email system by the name "EchoMail" was already in use in the 1980s as an email transport for the FidoNet BBS system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FidoNet#Echomail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.230.2 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Probably not possible to add this info without introducing wp:original research, but we can keep a lookout for this detail. If you're able to find any articles in the media or academic texts that discuss this in relation to Ayyadurai, then it could be added. Jlevi (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Clearly biased against Shiva Ayyadurai

I've been a follower and donor to Wikipedia for years. But I was disappointed by this article which is clearly heavily biased against Shiva Ayyadurai. I've seen Wikipedia policy that articles should have a neutral tone. This one is filled with statements like "he incorrectly claims" or similar. Comes across as judgemental and biased. Since Shiva Ayyadurai appears to be running for political office, there is implication the article is political motivated and politically biased. This should be off-limits in a encyclopedia format. Facts only should be presented with a neutral tone, leaving conclusions about correctness or incorrectness to be left to the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResponsibleAl (talk • contribs) 00:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@ResponsibleAl: You're mistaken about what we mean by neutral. To us it means summarising the available sources so that the views in them are presented in the article. If all the sources say "he incorrectly claims" then that's what we say too. See WP:NPOV. SmartSE (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an open Collaborative encyclopedia maintained by a community, as far as I understand this isn't a membership based community so the comment above using the word 'us' and implying the user commenting before isn't part of this community is antithetical to the founding principles of Wikipedia. That being said, I completely agree that this article is strongly biased. If the intent of this article is to summarize the available resources, where and in which resource does it refer to Ayyadurai as a conspiracy theorist? I see no credible resources coming to this conclusion, yet this article takes a broad leap in using this politicized terminology. If no resources can be referenced that use this terminology then the conspiracy wording must be removed.Igor (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Igorf: Which references for the COVID-19 misinformation section do you see as being unreliable sources? (I'm not claiming they are all necessarily reliable, I simply want to better understand your concerns.) Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed the references used in the "COVID-19 misinformation" subsection, and everything seems well-referenced. General information comes from fairly reliable news sources, and fact-checking information comes from Politifact. I disagree with Igorf - the term "conspiracy theorist" is warranted based on the available evidence. This section is very scathing, but it is evidence-based and almost certainly correct. Just because it makes conclusions about the subject does not mean it is biased. Of course, if anyone can find reliable sources that can show that the subject does not engage in conspiracy theories, or that the article is biased, then this can be discussed. However, any evidence presented would have to be comprehensive to be considered more reliable than the bulk of evidence already provided. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how anyone can look at this article and claim it is not biased. It is partisan crap, and one of the reasons I no longer use Wikipedia for anything that relates somewhat closely to politics. I don't know who wrote that piece, but they should be ashamed of betraying everything Wikipedia stands for. I don't care much for this Doctor, but using Wikipedia to attempt defamation to make a political point is simply shameful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.62.54 (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is biased against Dr. Shiva. Plus, the title "pseudo-scientist" is a great misrepresentation. What is science? Is science only what the mainstream consensus/authorities/powers that be claim to be 'correct science'? Science at its core is building theories based on logic and facts, testing those theories, learning from the experiments/tests, and then adapting/adjusting the theories etc. Does he produced illogical theories or those that are not based on facts? Please reconsider what is written in this wiki page- it is biased, false and very disrespectful --Schmuel (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Explain to me how this works? Someone can delete his title as scientist, and put psuedoscientist, even when there is still a reference citing that he is a scientist? Dudesiff (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

People can be scientists and pseudoscientists at the same time, if they talk nonsense about fields where they are not experts. That is what he does. And this guy is not even a scientist, he is an engineer. Totally different thing.

No one has given any valid reasons here for making the article more friendly to him. The only thing I have seen here is whining that the article disagrees with what the whiners think about this man. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and we write what they write. If you want us to write something different, you need to give reliable sources that write that different thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

A very quick internet search gave me 4 sources where he is referred to as scientist:; https://headlineusa.com/scientist-algorithm-steal-michigan/ ; https://www.libertariannews.org/2020/11/10/dr-shiva-ayyadurai-mit-systems-scientist-data-analysis-of-voting-fraud-in-mi-shows-69000-votes-were-transferred-from-trump-to-biden/ ; https://summit.news/2020/03/10/mit-scientist-claims-coronavirus-is-a-deep-state-fraud/--Schmuel (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

headlineusa is run by someone who is mostly notable for climate change denial. Libertariannews ran pieces supporting Qanon. summit.news is run by an InfoWars alumnus. These are not remotely reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This is an indication of a big problem of our time- information is politicized and those with power operate mass media companies that can manipulate information and have a monopoly on ideas and how they spread throughout the world. Today some of these ideas may be to someone's liking, but tomorrow it can reverse. The hegemony of the Church is replaced in our information age with the hegemony of the technocrats and mass media. They get to decide who are "reliable sources", their "unbiased" "independent" "fact checkers" get to "decide" [using a variety of techniques of manipulation] on what is fact and what is not. This is a real and growing danger to the fundamentals of objective Truth. What I would like to suggest is to rely more on deep logical analysis and real independent and objective critical thinking. We should try to move away from collective, group and consensus thinking, and back to that of analysis, objectivity and real, open discussion. --Schmuel (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Summarizing mainstream sources is at the very core of Wikipedia editing. If you want to argue, however futilely, that this basic operating principle is wrong, this isn't the place to do it. Barte (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

[Resistance is not futile.] Do you know where is the place for such a discussion?--Schmuel (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Schmuel, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Change "pseudoscientist" to "scientist".

What is science? Is science only what the mainstream consensus/authorities/powers that be claim to be 'correct science'? Science at its core is building theories based on logic and facts, testing those theories, learning from the experiments/tests, and then adapting/adjusting the theories etc. Does he produced illogical theories or those that are not based on facts? Please reconsider what is written in this wiki page- it is biased, false and very disrespectful--Schmuel (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Please present reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was worth reviewing the sources supporting the use of pseudoscientist. While there doesn't seem to be anything directly saying "Shiva Ayyadurai is a pseudoscientist", multiple reliable sources do refer to him in the context of his work being pseudoscientific. His publication on formaldehyde in soybeans is discussed in the 2018 book Pseudoscience The Conspiracy Against Science chapter "Food- o- science Pseudoscience" (p. 124). Mother Jones call him an anti-vaxxer (not much about this in our article atm) and is given as an example of covid misinformation on instagram "They use scientific language, and then they layer pseudoscience on top if it". Buzzfeed included him in a list of "Fake Experts Pushing Pseudoscience And Conspiracy Theories" and includes two specific examples of pseudoscientific claims made by him. As recently as 2016, "scientist" was a fair description but that no longer seems to be the case. SmartSE (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Is "pseudoscientist" an actual word? I don't see it listed in online dictionaries, nor in the pseudoscience entry. Barte (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Barte: It is in Collins and also used e.g. in Scientific American. SmartSE (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I truly believe the buzzfeed is politically motivated, and I don't think having views not aligned with the current covid-19 heavily pushed narrative makes one a 'pseudoscientist'. I don't know anything about "motherjones.com" but I heard Dr. Shiva speak about vaccines in a very scientific way while being careful not to express wide-generalizing negative claims about all vaccines. As for the book you mentioned- I don't have access to it. It does interest me- if you have a way of attaching the relevant part- I would be thankful. In any case this is part of a review from "goodreads.com" about the book- it should strengthen my position that the criticism toward Dr. Shiva is more about politics and conformism than pure science: "If anything, the treatment of Mills by Orzel embodies the idea of a "Conspiracy Against Science" by condemning divergent thought outright and adding to the stigmatisation of promising new theoretical developments. It is regrettable that the editors did not detect this. It may stand as a lesson to future generations of how human bigotry and the pressure to conform can impede scientific progress, even at the dawn of the 21st century." --Schmuel (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Smartse:. @Schmuel: Here is a list of often-considered sources with an assessment of their reliability for use on Wikipedia. That may be of use in helping evaluate the sources already used, as well as presenting any counter-examples. Barte (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

In light of that, note where I wrote Buzzfeed above, it should be Buzzfeed News. One other source to consider is sciencebasedmedicine.org who labelled him an anti-vaxxer in 2019. SmartSE (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Labeling people seems to be a politic weapon in our times- I wouldn't put too much weight on it. Also even if someone is against vaccines- that doesn't make him a "pseudoscientists", it just means he has an opinion that is contrary to the mainstream, which is not always that bad if one studies the history of science. We need to be very precise about this: If a person presents theories that are logical [analytic reasoning etc], and are based on facts and evidence- that person is thinking in a scientific manner. If that person includes experiments and learns from them etc- that person is a scientist [whether that person's ideas are mainstream/widely accepted or not].--Schmuel (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Schmuel, On Wikipedia we go by what the sources say, we don't come up with our own definitions or substitute our own judgement for the sources. In this case the sources clearly support 'pseudoscientist'. MrOllie (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur. The sources support pseudoscientist, not scientist. XOR'easter (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

A very quick internet search gave me 4 sources where he is referred to as scientist:; https://headlineusa.com/scientist-algorithm-steal-michigan/  ; https://www.libertariannews.org/2020/11/10/dr-shiva-ayyadurai-mit-systems-scientist-data-analysis-of-voting-fraud-in-mi-shows-69000-votes-were-transferred-from-trump-to-biden/  ; https://summit.news/2020/03/10/mit-scientist-claims-coronavirus-is-a-deep-state-fraud/.--Schmuel (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if having it in the first sentence is due, but it seems clear to me that pseudoscience was used to support anti-GMO activism as well as to minimize the gravity of the COVID-19 pandemic (other than some conspiracy theories). —PaleoNeonate – 22:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding: the lead could probably be shorter while still mentioning most important points of the body. For instance, the entire paragraph about the claims about EMAIL could be summarized as "Ayyadurai claims to have invented email although this has been disputed." or similar. —PaleoNeonate – 22:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Even if we decide not to call him a "pseudoscientist", he should absolutely not be called a "scientist" in this article. He is not engaged in scientific research; at best he does systems bio modeling (engineering), although his CytoSolve company doesn't seem to have any intellectual output (the only publication related to it is his 2011 paper which is cited all of 22 times) and it's extremely unlikely he's actually personally involved in any of its "pharmaceutical analysis" anyway. Giving talks and having opinions on science doesn't make one a scientist. Having a STEM PhD doesn't make one a scientist. Owning a company that purportedly "does science" using a program you developed doesn't make you a scientist. Having once done scientific research does not make one a scientist. And pseudoscientific investigations definitely don't make one a scientist. JoelleJay (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

So by your definition- only someone who is currently doing some mainstream scientific research is a "scientist". Is Neil de Grass Tyson a scientist? I don't think he is involved in research right now [unless developing a video game is considered research]. I think if we use your definition- we should erase the word 'scientist' from many wiki entries. It seems to me that there is a high level of subjective interpretation here. If we were talking about a "mainstream" person, with maybe mainstream political views etc. I am sure the comments here would be completely different. Wiki editor should strive for objectivity. In any case- I suggest simply erasing the world "pseudoscientist". The logic is- if he is not an active scientist- he is also not an active "pseudoscientist". Does this logic seem fair and correct to you?--Schmuel (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Schmuel, Neil deGrasse Tyson is the director of a planetarium and holds a post as a research associate with AMNH's department of astrophysics. He's a busy guy who does a lot of multitasking. Notably, though, he doesn't push fake coronavirus cures. Consequently, reliabe sources (the only things that matter, remember?) call him a 'scientist', so that's what the Wikipedia article does as well. MrOllie (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok then Tyson is not a good example then, but I am sure there are many others you can find that were once engaged in active research but not any more, but they are still referred to as "scientist". About the "fake coronavirus cures"- I am not familiar with these. If it is relevant- please detail those and attach the scientific research that proves they are "fake". Since covid-19 is a relatively new variation of the sars-1 virus, and research about possible cures is still at its infancy [not to mention the wide spread censorship of ideas that are not mainstream- view hydrochloraquine], I would be careful before declaring treatments to be absolutely "fake". Again this is where confirmation bias, groupthink, normative bias etc. come to play- and they are actually forces that turn science into pseudoscience.--Schmuel (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Schmuel, They're already detailed in the article. Megavitamin therapy is well known fringe nonsense and has been around for years. MrOllie (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

He absolutely without question should not be called a "scientist", but I do think having "pseudoscientist" in that list is intensely goofy. I understand the intent, but NOT having scientist in the list of things would have the same effect. Reading the parts of the lead that address his dangerous forays into offering 'scientific' 'expertise' about things he knows nothing about, compared to the titles he's notable for shows the same thing. It's just kind of silly. Parabolist (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would say don't add 'scientist' but remove 'pseudoscientist' per WP:LABEL. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, also per WP:LABEL. This seems an avoidable point of contention. Barte (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Scientist is clearly not supported by RS, if pseudoscientist is a real word then it shouldn't be. Maybe remove the reference but change the second have of the sentence to "and promoter of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and unfounded medical claims." 92.3.131.156 (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  "Shouldn't be" a real word, or "shouldn't be" supported by RS? We have no power over any of those. BTW of course it is a real word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  "Shouldn't be" a real word, I thought repeating that was superfluous. I'll accept it's existence, while keeping my opinion of it. Either way I'd still prefer moving the reference to pseudoscience to the second part of the first sentence. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  (The comma splice made it rather unclear, IMO. Especially as its status as a word is readily verifiable, so it's a curious hypothetical construction.) I tend to agree it'd be better avoided, partly as it creates an ambiguity as to what's been described is a quack in a real science, or a practitioner-in-good-standing(?) of a pseudoscience. Further muddled by Ayyadurai having real STEM qualifications. Your rework seems an improvement in clarity to me. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Election Claims

Should we add a section on his election theft/fraud claims? He's appeared in Mike Lindell's election fraud documentary as an expert and promoted a number of election conspiracies about both the 2020 federal election and his primary in MA on his YouTube channel and in the press. see here, here, here, here, here, etc. Gershonmk (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Source 1 is reliable, but only says he's appeared on Lindell's documentary, and nothing about the claims he's made. Source 2 is already cited as current ref #54. Source 3 is a podcast and therefore a WP:SPS and the host doesn't appear particularly well known as an expert either so it probably shouldn't be included. Source 4 is also self published and not reliable. Source 5 is a youtube video, and while the host is well-known, it's not a typical or ideal source to reference in a BLP. There is however this from AP about him being suspended from twitter and does mention the fraud allegations in the MA primary, but not in the federal election. It's perhaps surprising, but from my own searches, no RS seem to have picked up on the federal claims. SmartSE (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking more, this is probably good to use. SmartSE (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Strange times indeed when someone can get a respectable vote in a major-party primary, make wild accusations about electoral fraud, and it not make a media ripple. Would it be acceptable practice to make a note of the bare fact of his allegations of fraud, on the basis that his own self-published claims, Matt Parker's, and Kabir Naim's all concur on that much? Or is that just opening a can of worms? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Another source is https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:tr171zs0069/EIP-Final-Report.pdf pages 199-200, —PaleoNeonate – 21:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That looks like an excellent piece indeed! Unfortunately, at first wink what it looks like is an excellent piece of primary research, so again some caution is needed in using it. What may help a little further here is mentions of this in secondary sources, such as here (whiff of WP:SELF there, but Stanford as an institution is at least somewhat distinct from particular individual researchers), here, here, here, and here. Those others don't mention Ayyadurai directly, but they do perhaps argue for treating the report as a usable source, as against Rando Academic Paper. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @PaleoNeonate: - that looks very helpful. @109.255.211.6: Regarding SCHOLARSHIP, I don't think that's an issue here because it is an academic report summarising primary sources. While it is a primary source in some ways, it is a secondary source in others. The warning around using primary research is more aimed at avoiding overintepretation of e.g. a single experiment, which could be disputed by others whereas there is no doubt that that report confirms that Ayyadurai spread misinformation about the federal election, which is the main thing we were looking to include. SmartSE (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point, there is the whiff of the survey paper about it. On that basis, and given its citation in clearly secondary (and I think reliable) sources, I'd favour using it on that basis. Sadly I won't be that soldier myself, as of course the article is semi-protected, so I can't. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2021

Dr. Shiva is a promoter of truth and not "conspiracy theories". If I knew wikipedia would sell out like this I would never donate to your platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:5A7D:D80:A4BD:95F0:3987:C13 (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, anonymous editor, which will certainly be included in the article as soon as you demonstrate coverage in independent reliable sources that this person is a legitimate scientist. Wikipedia relies on independent relaible sources rather than anonymous contributors, donors or not.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Les Michelson, inventor.

In that interview, Ayyadurai recalled that Les Michelson, the former particle scientist at Brookhaven National Labs who assigned Ayyadurai the project, had the idea of creating an electronic mail system that uses the header conventions of a hardcopy memorandum. Ayyadurai recalled Michelson as saying: "Your job is to convert that into an electronic format. Nobody's done that before."

I'm pretty sure even if email didn't predate this nonsense by most of a decade this actually is the story of how Les Michelson invented EMAIL. Since the person paying you to complete a work for hire who has given you the task of implementation of the system is the person who invented the thing. Tat (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)