Talk:Shiva Ayyadurai/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2021

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your opening statement "and promoter of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and unfounded medical claims.[4][5] " is basically slander. You could at least quote a reputable source and state "some critics claim he promotes conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and unfounded medical claims". Instead, you allow unbiased expert sources such as Buzzfeed and MotherJones to make unqualified assertions. This is why Wikipedia is not credible to real academics.

{2603:8081:1701:3DD2:ECE6:F5DF:6AEF:E955 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Please change: "and promoter of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and unfounded medical claims" to "some critics claim he promotes conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and unfounded medical claims" to remove blatant slander.

Thanks for the edit suggestion, anonymous editor. If you can demonstrate coverage in independent reliable sources that show that this person is a legitimate scientist, and that the (for the sake of argument) conspiracy theories / pseudoscience theories he promote are not conspiracy theories / pseudoscience, we can surely change that opening statement. Based on that standard, though, it's evident that no one has found such sources. Llightex (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of Reliable sources/Perennial sources refer to Shiva Ayyadurai as a scientist. LA Times: "Scientist Shiva Ayyadurai" USA Today: "if Ayyadurai's name sounds familiar, it might be because he's the scientist who claims" Politico: "Ayyadurai, or “Dr. Shiva” as his fans call him, is a controversial scientist" The Register: "has agreed to pay computer scientist and biotech entrepreneur Dr Shiva Ayyadurai $750,000 in damages" Vanity Fair: "Ayyadurai, or “Dr. Shiva” as his fans call him, is a controversial scientist"

I suggest describing him as a "controversial scientist." 50.52.125.129 (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That's fair, we can refer to him as a scientist. But that doesn't negate the fact that reliable sources have characterized many of the things he promotes as "conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and unfounded medical claims." So we could change "V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai (born Vellayappa Ayyadurai Shiva,[2] December 2, 1963)[3] is an Indian-American engineer, politician, entrepreneur, and promoter of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and unfounded medical claims" to "V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai (born Vellayappa Ayyadurai Shiva,[2] December 2, 1963)[3] is an Indian-American engineer, scientist, politician, entrepreneur, and promoter of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and unfounded medical claims." I don't know if that adds much, given that we already say that he's an engineer, so not sure if it's worth it to add that word. What do you think? Llightex (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

A handful of sources using a particular descriptor does not mean we have to use that descriptor. "Engineer" is already descriptive of his educational credentials and professional experience; stating he's a "scientist" is both misleading (implying his job involves him personally doing scientific research and that he has any scientific authority) and unnecessary, especially for someone whose primary output is comfortably under the purview of WP:FRINGE. JoelleJay (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience and unfounded medical claims?" The source for those statements are references 4, 5, and 6. I can't read 4 because it's behind a paywall. 5 is this Mother Jones article that contains a list of three different people who are being lumped together. The single paragraph in the article discussing Shiva...I apparently can't quote because it contains naughty words that the edit filter doesn't like, but it provides no sources for anything about him except the email controversy. It makes a claim about a claim about might be a conspiracy, but not psuedoscience or a medical claim...but doesn't even provide a quote to give context. Saying that people are taking advantage of codid19 to promote their agendas might be a conspiracy theory, but it's not a medical claim or psuedoscience. Further, its statement about "QAnon- styled" conspiracy seems awfully WP:Weasel Wordy to me. The actual QAnon theory being described in the article is attributed to a Joseph Arena, not Shiva Ayyadurai. The fact that the writer thinks something Shiva said is in the style of something that QAnon might say, is obviously a WP:RS Statement of opinion, and possibly a WP:NPoV failure.

Next we get to citation 6...which is this Buzzfeed News article. WP:RS Perennial Sources links ten pages of discussion as together they're RS at all, and specifically mentions excercising caution for anything that they've published since 2019. Meanwhile, this article, like the Mother Jones article, conatins a list of several people, of whom Shiva is only one. The section on conspiracy isn't talking about him, or even medical conspiracies. It's talking about 5G conpiracies being advanced by completely different people. Of the section actually talking about Shiva, most of it's discussing the email invention controversy, which may well be a point of contention, but it's certainly not psuedoscience or unfounded medical claims.

The relevant portion of that source, seems to be this statement: "Ayyadurai accused Fauci of ties to Big Pharma without evidence, according to Politico, and called for him to be fired. He defined COVID-19 as “an overactive dysfunctional immune system that overreacts and that's what causes damage to the body," which is not accurate, according to medical experts. Ayyadurai has also claimed that vitamin C could be used to treat the disease, which is not true, according to the World Health Organization." Unfortunately when I look at some of the links provided by that source, they don't appear to say what the Buzzfeed News article says they say. What "experts?" Who, exactly? The article doesn't say, and instead links as its source this other Buzzfeed News article by the same journliast that also mentions 'experts' without saying who or providing any sources. Buzzfeed News is already questionable as a RS to begin with, but this is medical information and WP:RS specifies that there are higher requirements for sources of medical information. Buzzfeed News citing Buzzfeed News does not seem like RS here, especially when I find other claims in the article that appear to be contradicted by actual medical sources.

The article then goes on to claim that WHO says it's false that vitamin c can be used to treat covid, but when I go the the WHO link that they provide, what it actually says is "Vitamin and mineral supplements cannot cure COVID-19 Micronutrients, such as vitamins D and C and zinc, are critical for a well-functioning immune system and play a vital role in promoting health and nutritional well-being. There is currently no guidance on the use of micronutrient supplements as a treatment of COVID-19." "Can be used to treat" is not the same as "cures covid" and "there is currently no guidance" is definitely not the same as "this is false." It's really hard to consider this Buzzfeed New article RS when its own sources contradict what it says.

As far as using it to treat covid goes, there are countless pubmed and National Institute of Health studies saying things like trials found statistically significant reduction in the mortality and vitamin C may also provide additional benefits for the prevention of viral infections, shorten the disease course and lessen complications and High-dose vitamin C has an antiviral effect, and has been used by several researchers to treat COVID-19 by intravenous infusion, achieving good results. The evidence may be insufficient for WHO to offer official guidance, but this is certainly not "psueodscience" or "unfounded."

While we're at it, this WP article offers further clarifation in the "COVID-19 misinformation" section, where it states that "In March 2020, Ayyadurai published an open letter to then-U.S. President Donald Trump, writing that a national lockdown was unnecessary and advocated that large doses of vitamins could prevent and cure COVID-19". Here is the letter. Please show me anywhere in that letter where he claims that vitamin c can cure covid. Show me anywhere where he claims that it can prevent covid. That's not what it says, and I don't even see the words "prevent" or "cure" anywhere in there at all. What it actually says is that "in healthy individuals the immune system processes pathogens with a natural immune response that is mild and non-lethal; however, in those who are immuno-compromised - their own immune systems may overreat; and in the case of COVID-19, attacking lung epithelial cells and tissues leading to hospitalization and mortality." He then goes on to make several entirely generic health protocol recommendations that you could find anywhere. Get vitamins C, D, A, and iodine, and get some sunlight, in order to help your immune system fight the disease. Recommending vitamins to make recovery from an ilness easier is not a claim about a "cure" it's not a claim about "prevention," it's not "psuedoscience" or "conspiracy" or "misinformation," and it's not even very controversial. He may as well have added in "drink lots of water and get some rest." Agaain, here's that link from the World Health Organization listing some of these things as being "critical for a well-functioning immune system." Do you need RS for his claims about immune system overreaction? Here you go: A phenomenon known as a "cytokine storm"—a rapid overreaction of the immune system—is one of the most worrying features of COVID-19, Some COVID-19 patients experience a “cytokine storm.” A cytokine storm is a strong immune response, etc. I'm pretty sure the National Institute of Health "dot gov," AKA the primary agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and public health research, is a better WP:RS for medical information than some Buzzfeed News journalist who uses his own articles as sources for his claims. This issue isn't even specific to covid-19: Immune system overreaction may enable recurrent urinary tract infections, excessive immune reaction appears to be the fatal factor in patients who die of SARS, etc. It's ridiculous to claim that this is psuedoscience or misinformation.

This whole article is a biased hit piece, full or incorrect citations, statements of opinion, statements that contradict well-established medical knowledge, and claims that aren't even supported by the sources provided to substantiate them. 50.52.125.129 (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Show me anywhere where he claims that it can prevent covid. That's not what it says, and I don't even see the words "prevent" or "cure" anywhere in there at all. What it actually says is that "in healthy individuals the immune system processes pathogens with a natural immune response that is mild and non-lethal; however, in those who are immuno-compromised - their own immune systems may overreat; and in the case of COVID-19, attacking lung epithelial cells and tissues leading to hospitalization and mortality." He then goes on to make several entirely generic health protocol recommendations that you could find anywhere. Get vitamins C, D, A, and iodine, and get some sunlight, in order to help your immune system fight the disease.

So apparently being immunocompromised is equivalent to having an autoimmune disorder and makes one particularly susceptible to a cytokine storm?? I guess that would resolve the debate over whether COVID-19 kills through immunosuppression or CRS!

Anyway, I've now LMAO'd my way through the stupidest thing I've read since Nathan Choi's websitecarefully considered his letter, and...the whole thing reads like a parody, as if someone was asked to create the most laughably self-serving (who gives themselves the post-nominal "MIT PhD"?!), anti-intellectual, New Age heroic manifesto imaginable. But since part of your argument actually seems to be that he's making "generic health protocol recommendations":

STEP 1 - Organize our citizens into four (4) groups
Group I - Testing positive for COVID-19
Group II - Hospitalized and in critical condition
Group III - Immuno-compromised & NOT COVID-19 positive
Group IV - Healthy individuals & NOT COVID-19 positive

STEP 2 - Deliver a Personalized Protocol for Each Group
Group I Protocol
• Quarantine until they test negative for COVID-19
• 400,000 IU of Vitamin A Palmitate per day for 2 days
• 50,000 IU of Vitamin D per day for 2 days

Group II Protocol
• 400,000 IU of Vitamin A Palmitate per day for 2 days
• 50,000 IU of Vitamin D per day for 2 days
• Deliver intravenous Vitamin C - 100g drip per day until they are back to normal.

Group III Protocol
[Immuno-compromised are those, though not limited to, with: AIDS, CVID, Diabetes (Type I & Type II e.g. high blood sugar), COPD, Asthma, Cystic Fibrosis, autoimmune disorders, and those taking monoclonal antibody drugs]. This protocol will support boosting their internal defense mechanisms.

For Children:
• 400,000 IU of Vitamin A Palmitate per day for 2 days
• 50,000 IU of Vitamin D per day for 2 days
• 500 mg of Vitamin C per day
• Iodine/Iodide - e.g. Brand Lugols - 3 drops per drink, once per day

For Adults:
• 400,000 IU of Vitamin A Palmitate per day for 2 days
• 50,000 IU of Vitamin D per day for 2 days
• 1,000 mg of Vitamin C per day
• Iodine/Iodide - e.g. Brand Lugols - 6 drops per drink, once per day

Group IV Protocol
[These are healthy individuals, who do not fall into Group I to Group III]

For Children:
• 1,000 IU of Vitamin A Palmitate per day ongoing
• 2,000 IU of Vitamin D per day ongoing
• 250 mg of Vitamin C per day
• Iodine/Iodide - e.g. Brand Lugols - 3 drops per drink, once per day

For Adults:
• 10,000 IU of Vitamin A Palmitate per day
• 5,000 IU of Vitamin D per day
• 1,000 mg of Vitamin C per day
• Iodine/Iodide - e.g. Brand Lugols - 6 drops per drink, once per day

The tolerable upper intake level (beyond which doses are associated with liver toxicity and teratogenicity) of retinyl palmitate in adults is 3,000 mcg in a day; 400,000 IU is 7300% the UL. The maximum suggested daily dose of vitamin D is 4,000 IU, with 800 IU being the RDA; 50,000 IU is what is sometimes recommended for weekly intake for people with vitamin D deficiency. High-dose intravenous vitamin C is already, at best, a controversial practice; standard doses seem to be around 200 mg/kg per day for 2 to 4 days, so an 80 kg man would be getting 16 g/day. Ayyadurai is suggesting 100 g per day "until they are back to normal". And of course none of these "personalized" guidelines make any mention of life-or-death-relevant parameters like sex, pregnancy, drug interactions, other medical conditions, family hx...nope, just blanket ultramegadoses of vitamins for everyone. He doesn't even clarify whether healthy people are supposed to be getting their 1000 mg vitamin C orally or intravenously! Claiming this crap isn't pseudoscientific because some articles advocate general vitamin supplementation (even in the context of COVID-19!) is like using the success of ATO to promote indiscriminate arsenic administration as a cure for cancer. JoelleJay (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss edits, not to debate the merits of his claims. Quote from the header at the top of this page: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately"

I have demonstrated that much of the content of this page is poorly sourced, and contains claims from articles that 1) provide no sources for their claims, 2) provide sources to original content by the same authors, 3) are contradicted by the very sources they cite. This page is in significant violation of WP:BLP, and this content must be removed:

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." 50.52.125.129 (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

We don't require that the sources we cite in turn show their work and provide their own sources, that isn't how journalism normally works. You haven't shown that anything is unsourced or poorly sourced, so BLP does not apply. For example, you might want to read what RS/P actually says about Buzzfeed News: 'There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable.' Wikipedia biographies on people who spread COVID misinformation cannot themselves be turned into vectors to spread COVID misinformation, that's not what we do here. - MrOllie (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

And that is the reason why nobody takes the Wikipedia serious anymore and why the Wikipedia will NEVER be a valid source in any good scientific article: Because self-righteous moderators like MrOllie and others think they can push their personal bias on articles. You haven't in any way shown that the claims by 50.52.125.129 are wrong, you just say: "I don't want to edit it, because the article fits my bias". That's why this webpage, that started as a project, where EVERYBODY was able to contribute, has become a joke, where many articles about people, events, bands, songs etc. are stucked in the year 2010-2012, because nobody here likes to edit anything anymore, because when it don't fit the bias of the moderators, it's simply reverted or ignored. But well, there will be other online encyclopedias that will surpass Wikipedia and as Wikipedia is an open source document, you cannot even fight against them using and then editing wikipedia articles.2001:16B8:685F:6200:6884:B010:221F:426A (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Election claims - 4.2%

Hello. This is Dr.Shiva Ayyadurai. There are many false items on this page. Most recently, an update was made claiming I said that 4.2% was used to affect the elections referencing the video I did on Steve Bannon. This is absolutely FALSE. What I said was the Mike Lindell's numbers made no sense since it looked like a 4.2% was applied across all states in reducing Trump's vote BASED ON WHAT LINDELL presented. I said that this makes no sense, and I could not believe Lindell's numbers and as a joke said that would have only happened if someone had read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Kindly correct. This false claim was started on the Rachel Maddow show. It is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19C:4500:2580:E5AE:60EA:1202:3E9D (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right, thanks for pointing this out. The transcript (https://vashiva.com/steve-bannon-interviews-dr-shiva-at-mike-lindells-cyber-symposium/) does indicate that Ayyadurai brought up the 4.2% sarcastically to question Mike Lindell's claims:

[Dr.SHIVA:] Well, if you simply take the difference between what the Cyber Symposium reported, for every state, and what the news media reported, it’s 4.2%. It’s not even a crazy formula Steve. It’s just a subtracted 4.2%. My conclusion on this is something very simple. Either this whole thing is a hoax, disinformation, to try to actually take away the real substantive issues of Election Fraud like Ballot Images, etc. The biggest disinformation campaign being done using a very wonderful man. Or that there’s a bunch of nerds out there who simply said we’re just going to subtract votes by 4.2%. That’s what the difference is. Either it’s a hoax, or people read “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”.

SB: Let’s say the latter, the CCP. Does this show your analysis because you haven’t gotten to the raw data yet? But that data is represented, you don’t know if that’s actual. You’re not sitting here verifying whether the data is-

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, but I’m saying if you look at the data that Michael Lindell presented yesterday, and if you just draw a line, it’s a perfect line. X-axis, you have the percentage. So, X-axis is a percentage, it says that is being reported. What Mike Lindell reported. And the Y-axis is what the official results are for Trump. It’s a perfect line. This is either completely impossible, or it’s a hoax to do disinformation, to make this thing look completely bogus. And that’s what the nuance here is.

SB: Or the CCP, this is just in their mathematics. They just said let’s do it this way.

Dr.SHIVA:They just did a gross, but it’s 4.2% across every, including Washington DC. Look, in the last 10 years the CCP’s mathematicians always rate top 10.

SB: Yeah, you’re saying you wouldn’t expect it to be that unsophisticated.

Dr.SHIVA: Unless they read the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. That’s the only thing, 42 out of a thousand.

SB: We need a deeper drill down. Tomorrow, we’re going to try and get you on the show, wherever you are, to walk through and give a couple of segments to actually go through these slides in more detail. And make sure we get the order right and everything like that, so people see it. We’ll put it up in the live chat. But this is part of the analysis that you’ve done in your battles in Massachusetts. You always bring logic and math.

Dr.SHIVA: There is a real Election Fraud taking place. There is likely a set of people who want to blur that. Those in power are not that stupid. In order to do that, they may do some outrageous stuff to put out something like this potentially, to hide the real issue. So, we don’t talk about Ballot images being destroyed, we don’t talk about what occurred in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, and we have to take that into account.

SB: And people try to say what’s happened in Arizona is important and what Kashel and these guys have in Texas now is no need to do this. Dr.SHIVA: I’m saying this is evidence of a potential disinformation campaign.

I've updated the section of the article accordingly. I'd note that it appears the NYT might also be mischaracterizing it in this way -- https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/24/us/arizona-election-review-trump-biden.html?searchResultPosition=2 -- "Mr. Ayyadurai, a favorite in right-wing circles, has spread baseless conspiracy theories about both Mr. Trump’s loss and his own defeat in a Republican primary race for a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts. Among them is a suggestion that 4.2 percent of Mr. Trump’s votes were siphoned away by fans of the book “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” in which the number 42 figures prominently." While this sentence is true, it leaves out the fact that the suggestion was made sarcastically. Llightex (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Unattribted quote

@WikiLinuz: Please add an attribution to the quote "dramatic succession of exaggerated claims..." It's unclear whether the authors of the cited paper are quoted or are in turn quoting someone else. Barte (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I've added the attribution in this revision diff. Also note, if a reliable source is behind a WP:PAYWALL doesn't mean it has to be removed, like you previously did. WikiLinuz (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Noted, and thanks. Barte (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Does this look like a reasonable alternative URL for the cite? https://tomandmaria.com/tom2/Writing/HistoriesOfTheInternetDRAFT.pdf Barte (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No. WP:PREPRINTS are not reliable sources. The URL, in this case the journal article, should be linked to a WP:PUBLISHED medium. WikiLinuz (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

As WP:PREPRINTS says, 'However, links to such repositories can be used as open-access links for papers which have been subsequently published in acceptable literature.' It's fairly commonly done, unless there is some reason to think the piece changed in consequential ways during the editing process. MrOllie (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

There are two issues with that link: (a) The paper isn't peer-reviewed and there is no way to confirm that it's official site of Haigh; let alone check for the paper's validity. (b) Site's homepage explicitly mentions these will contain many broken links. Moreover, preprints are akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online as the policy states; additionally, it also collides with the page numbers in the official journal article. So, no. WikiLinuz (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, all those objections go away when the paper is subsequently published. You've apparently got access to the paid version since you've quoted it: are there significant differences in that version? MrOllie (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@WikiLinuz:The excerpted quote you use appears to be intact in the draft. And as the entry is a WP:BLP and the quote is critical of its subject, I think we should error on the side of transparency. Barte (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Citing a preprint that is available on some random site is prohibited per the policy—again, having significant differences in two versions doesn't make sense here. The argument of linking to an open-access repo only holds if it's the official site of the scholar or if it's atleast known to be reliable although self-published like Academic.edu for example. If you really wanted the preprint to be placed, I suggest we explicitly place it out of {{cite journal}} template. WikiLinuz (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The policy plainly states exactly the opposite, as I just quoted above. Feel free to ask for clarification at WP:RSN if it is unclear. MrOllie (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I've added the link to the preprint as an additional access medium in this revision diff. WikiLinuz (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

Change "promoter of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and unfounded medical claims" to "conspiracy theorist, promoting pseudoscientific and unfounded medical claims."

"promoter of conspiracy theories" seems a bit wordy, even though I understand its use in the string. Conspiracy theorist is more colloquial, and is better understood by the average reader. 2600:8806:6204:EA00:90:3645:1941:26D4 (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Biased Psychoses.

The person that is in control of the "edits" is an idiot. How blind can you be? You should be removed from your duties based on your unfound bias.RealWizzBlizz (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4Cf0UCwU>

Proposed edit -

FROM THIS "V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai (born Vellayappa Ayyadurai Shiva,[2] December 2, 1963) is an Indian-American engineer, politician, entrepreneur, anti-vaccine activist, and promoter of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and unfounded medical claims.[3][4][5][6][7]

TO THIS "V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai (born Vellayappa Ayyadurai Shiva,[2] December 2, 1963) is an Indian-American engineer, politician, entrepreneur, anti-vaccine activist, and promoter of the truth, freedom, and health movement. ] RealWizzBlizz (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC) " to remove the slander that fits your psychosis. <https://vashiva.com/workers-unite-beyond-left-right-truthfreedomhealth-escalate-the-movement-get-educated-or-be-enslaved/> RealWizzBlizz (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Person that needs to be removed from Wikipedia. - {Thanks for the edit suggestion, anonymous editor. If you can demonstrate coverage in independent reliable sources that show that this person is a legitimate scientist, and that the (for the sake of argument) conspiracy theories / pseudoscience theories he promote are not conspiracy theories / pseudoscience, we can surely change that opening statement. Based on that standard, though, it's evident that no one has found such sources. Llightex (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC) }

You are so lost. How's MIT for a source of his legitimacy? RealWizzBlizz (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC) https://news.mit.edu/2007/east-west-0917 https://news.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/techtalk52-2.pdf

The dude has countless lectures on his YouTube channel where he demonstrates his knowledge in the sciences, and easily refutes your ignorance. I challenge you to watch a video of his, and you demonstrate where he is wrong. I implore you! Do it! RealWizzBlizz (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)<https://news.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/techtalk52-2.pdf></https://youtu.be/eCIg3YIN9-s>

Not done. His support of vaccine and COVID conspiracy theories are well sourced. You may want to read WP:TPG Cannolis (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2022

Covid-19 disinformation campaign is baseless. Everything he said is backed by facts, and there is no argument otherwise. This should be removed from page unless you have information to back these claims. 2600:1011:B032:775B:50E2:DBCC:CE47:50BC (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The current article is very well-sourced in that section. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 22:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Potentially useful source on election misinformation

This Jan 2022 article in 'IEEE Computer' may be relevant; it would be inappropriate of me to edit my own reporting into Wikipedia, so I am noting this here should someone else be tempted to do so. The final section of the article reports on Lindell's August 2021 Cyber Symposium and mentions Dr. Shiva's remarks:

The State of the Art in Voting Machine Technology

This is an "interview" of me by Hal Berghel, but I put interview in quotes because Hal invited me to edit his questions, and then he edited my responses. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"Copyright application"?

I found this in this article:

filling a copyright application in August 1982

Under U.S. law, I don't think there's such a thing as a "copyright application." The Copyright Office registers claims to copyrights, and passes no judgment on the validity of such claims except when it judges something not to be copyrightable. Rather, any adjudication of validity is done only if someone disputing such a claim brings the matter to a court of law, and it is of course done by the court, not by the Copyright Office. One does not "apply for" a copyright; one registers a claim to a copyright.

Might it be that he applied for a patent and that that is what is meant? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Per the source we're using, a statement from the National Museum of American History:

At the time Ayyadurai’s work was done, computer software could not be patented. However, in 1982, he took out a copyright registration for his “EMAIL” program, as well as the related user’s manual. Two years later he copyrighted an improved system, “EMS,” that included not only a version of “EMAIL,” but several other programs. He has given the copyright documents to the Smithsonian, as well as a printout of the new form of EMAIL.

We use the term "registered" in the main article, but not the lede. We could use it in both, but unless we have another source, the general wording of the statement is what we have to work with. He "took out a copyright registration" on his initial work and he "copyrighted" a later one, which, I take it, amounted to the same thing. Barte (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I made an edit which hopefully improves things. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I afraid I think your edits make matters obviously worse. Why omit the year of the claim, that he made it in Time magazine, and that he cited this 1982 registration as evidence? (And, less seriously, why the clunky "claimed he invented email" ... "the email invention claim"? What was wrong with "this account"?) Pinkbeast (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Points taken: I reverted it back. In this thread, I don't see anything convincingly making the case that the original wording was incorrect. Barte (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's a compelling reason to keep the copyright detail in the lead. It's irrelevant to his discredited claim of inventing email. It's also confusing because nobody disputes the copyright registration and most people would not understand that it lacks significance. As for the mention of Time Magazine, why is this necessary in the lead? He's made the claim everywhere. It's his identity. His web site inventorofemail.com promotes him as THE INVENTOR OF EMAIL™ ScienceFlyer (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's irrelevant; it's one of the main points he bases his spurious claim around. If I claim to be the rightful King of the Britons because I pulled a sword out of a stone, it's nonsense, but it's still an important part of my claim, and if my claim becomes notable I would expect WP to mention it.

I think the mention of Time Magazine is worthwhile, not least because it's not just self-published. If I can fool Who's Who into thinking I'm the King of the Britons, that's more in need of documentation than if I register a Website or yell it at passing clouds.

The answer here is to make it clear that the copyright registration doesn't do much - although, honestly, "Historians strongly dispute this account, however, because email was already in use in the early 1970s" is just marvellous and I'm not sure the lead really needs much additional material to establish the claim is pure bunk. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The email claim is what first established notability (including here), and it's important to establish how that claim first gained traction. Barte (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It is critical that we recognize one of the ways this false claim has been spread and amplified is misunderstanding about the meaning and significance of what was essentially just a routine documentary process which conveyed no special significance or priority whatsoever to Ayyadurai. We absolutely should not depend on the wording of a source which we know to be confused on the subject. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Complotto o verità??

What the Doctor publicly communicated (in April 2020) by putting himself at the forefront of the fight against global vaccination today 17/01/2022 has proved true. What do you reply? Nobody comments? Nobody enters notes? It would be advisable to apologize publicly and add notes regarding the plot which in the end turned out to be ABSOLUTE TRUTH. TODAY WITHOUT VACCINE NN NOTHING IS DONE .. At least in Italy no gym, bar, restaurant and, shortly, bank and post office .. for a few days already people over 50 have not even been at work. I await data-backed explanations ... Thank you 79.25.78.80 (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a perfect example that even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Fbergo (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep, a broken clock... Or a Scientist with 4 degrees who actually understands biology. Not that it requires these degrees to see that covid vaccines harmed more people than helped. So tell me if a broken clock is right twice a day is Biden a clock without arms? 47.188.34.115 (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Missing source for statement

The statement "After the election, he promoted claims of election fraud that were shown to be false by fact checkers." Is missing a reference to a source. I'm of the opinion everything should have a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.184.138.134 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The intro is a summary and requires no sources. See the main article for the references. Barte (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Haigh affiliation

Thomas Haigh (mentioned in the EMAIL section) is affiliated with University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, not University of Wisconsin–Madison (Current article text has a link to the UW redirect). Someone who can edit the article please make this minor change. Corundum Conundrum (CC) 17:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for pointing out. Barte (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Need reference

Need reference for the vague statement “Historians strongly dispute this account because email was already in use in the early 1970s.” Which historians? Please provide information about where “email”, the electronic inter-office mail system, was used prior to 1978. Basic electronic messaging, that existed prior to 1978, is NOT the same as the full inter-office email system. 2600:1700:FF9:3A00:28C7:F398:D05D:73AC (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Three historians are mentioned and cited in the article, of which the lede is a summary. They would appear to disagree with your contention re: the electronic messaging vs email. See also History of email and its cites. Barte (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: birthdate

Please delete the birth date here as there is no source provided. 2600:100C:A21C:E44E:DC4:BC3B:4D5B:AA52 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

There are two sources in the 'personal life' section that at least give an approximation to it. tedder (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

""I invented email" guy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect "I invented email" guy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 5#"I invented email" guy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Clovermoss (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

What consensus would that be exactly? he never invented anything and never will. His contributions to society are barely noteworthy and the only reason this wiki page exists is because of his compulsive lying. 118.102.87.87 (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

evidence please? 174.240.160.25 (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The first time the word EMAIL was ever used in world history is from a 14 year old writing a program in 4 tran code. That young man was Shiva Ayyadurai. I don't see the quote from Nome Chomsky the most cited human after Christ,"There is no controversy, Shiva invented Email." 2600:1700:4550:2A50:94C9:41F2:B373:6D39 (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That is simply not accurate, as this article clearly explains, as well as History_of_email#Terminology_and_usage MrOllie (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I do love the references to Nome(sic) Chomsky and Christ, though. tedder (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

and 4 tran (a precursor to 4chan perhaps?) —Tamfang (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

2024 presidential run

Isn't Ayyadurai constitutionally ineligible to serve as president, since he isn't a natural-born US citizen? If so, shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Jah77 (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Added a sentence about his ineligibility. Ayyadurai has stated he believes the natural-born-citizen requirement was abrogated by the 5th and 14th Amendments. (Courts already have rejected this belief.) But, for Wikipedia purposes, Ayyadurai's beliefs about his eligibility should be included in this article only if there is a reliable source for them, and there may be WP:SELFSOURCE concerns. Weazie (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Obvious Bias

Articles like this about people would always be better if not written by liberals with such obvious biases against conservatives or other such people whose opinions they didn't like or disagree with. 2603:7080:8C00:2F00:4532:F333:114F:D6AB (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Any specific part you wish to highlight? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The sentence "After the election, he promoted claims of election fraud that were shown to be false by fact checkers." lacks a source. 73.227.29.77 (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing can be found in the body of the article. I repeated one of those cites in the lead. MrOllie (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The (currently broken) linked Reuters article refers to a government official's statement (representing the commonwealth of MA) and the opinion of two legal scholars.

Fact checking implies an investigation to uncover objective facts (ideally conducted by third parties), not what amounts to the opinions of three people, one of whom was running PR for an entity that would lose face (or worse) if wrongdoing or negligence were found.

This is gross misrepresentation.

Nothing was "shown to be false". The article was an editorial with (two) legal opinions and PR that called itself "fact checking". The author didn't even bother to contact the person making the allegations, so it isn't even useful as a point-counterpoint article. Regardless, calling the (poor) display of one perspective of a contentious matter "fact checking" makes a mockery of real fact checking. 98.35.116.223 (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we follow the reliable sources. That you personally disagree with the source is immaterial here. MrOllie (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Nah, the mocking began before he took up politics. —Tamfang (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based off of reliable sources, sometimes they are biased in a particular direction. If you have any reliable sources which lean in his favour then please provide them as I've been totally unable to find any.

It looks to me like Wikipedia is not biased against Dr Shiva, reality is. 2.30.180.212 (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

How interesting that Wikipedia has not updated its stance on Dr Shiva’s “allegations” regarding his entire view on Covid 19! Dr Fauci has been found involved with the origins of Covid 19 cover up and listening to Dr Shiva’s talk in April 2020, he was right on the money with how the pandemic would be handled. I owe my life and members of my family’s health to this man’s advice, yet your description of him still smears Dr Shiva as a conspiracy theorist.

Wikipedia seems no longer to be the reliable source of info that it was just a few years ago. What a shame 2601:14B:4980:3CD7:484E:8747:DC3E:9B2F (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay so Wikipedia is being biased, but you want an entire article to be rewritten based on your personal opinion of the man? If you have sources and want something changed, say what you want changed or change it. Smurr7 (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Truth behold

Now we know that the article claiming that Shiva is anti vaccine and conspiracy theorist is all now fake claims. It's sad that Wikipedia has not edited their news despite court suggests otherwise on various court cases around the world. So Wikipedia better keep itself abreast so that it's will not be an irrelevant source of information Nostreborarierep (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)