Jump to content

Talk:Vandana Shiva

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

Unfair criticism

[edit]

It seems to me that the criticism from proponents of corporate interests, GM etc is unfair and prejudiced, and lacking in scientific basis. 51.148.176.21 (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Shill Gambit... 37.35.148.242 (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does this section's concern apply to the criticisms of Michael Specter, Keith Kloor, Stewart Brand, Birendra Nayak? These are investigative journalists and writers, who themselves are no friend of corporate America. They lodge complaints against Shiva based on her pseudoscientific evidence-base, her plagiarism, and her unethical claims. Hardly "corporate interests."
Brand, for example, was a fixture in the hippie circles of the 60s and 70s, engaging in Acid Tests, and hung out with Ken Kesey. How exactly is this guy a picture of "corporate interests?" He's just not an extremist. if that makes him a corporatist, then basically everyone but Shiva is, too. — Shibbolethink ( ) 21:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Vandana Shiva ties to the Sri Lanka Agriculture Disaster

[edit]

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2022/06/20/viewpoint-green-technology-rejectionist-vandana-shiva-at-center-of-sri-lankas-disastrous-organic-farming-embrace-and-crop-protection-chemical-rejection/

https://indianexpress.com/article/world/sri-lankan-prime-minister-mahinda-rajapaksa-resigns-7908244/

https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/sri-lanka-takes-emergency-measures-to-avoid-food-crisis/articleshow/89492088.cms?from=mdr

So far these are allegations against Shiva that is being examined here.2601:640:C682:79C0:B181:9A97:AEAD:D9CA (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European Scientist and Folta in agdaily

[edit]

@Drmies: I'm a bit puzzled by your justification for removing this - why do you consider European Scientist to be a "partisan primary source"? Looking at https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/about-us/ and https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/masthead/ I don't see any reason to indicate that it wouldn't be a reliable source. Folta's piece also looks reliable to me, unless I am missing something. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Smartse, did you see the opening sentence of that piece by Folta? It's blatantly partisan, and what is it supposed to verify--"she was criticized for use of hate speech", a claim that says in Wikipedia's voice that she did in fact use hate speech, which strikes me as a matter of opinion. But worse, someone made our article say that she asked for journalists and scientists to be executed. OK--let's follow that thread, which from the AG Daily website you linked goes to this article, which talks about a website that is now sanitized and supposedly investigated by the FBI, but the link for such an investigation goes to this partisan site, which also doesn't prove the FBI is involved. Anyway, the Patheos article mentions neither the website allegedly run by Shiva, or Shiva herself. In other words, it's crap, and it's even worse of a BLP violation than I thought. Because what you consider a reliable source, AG Daily, is in fact nothing but a pretty shady website run by God knows who--go look at their "About Us" page, which leads to the media company running it, this one. I'm not going to defend Shiva's claims about...well about anything, but I am seriously wondering about who placed all these attacks on this page, because that is what they are.
    And while European Scientist looks far less sketchy, and has an editorial board, it's still weird that it is not clear at all whether they are reporting on this letter, or actually promoting this letter, considering that the author of the letter is also the author of the article. In other words, it's primary, but either way it's fishy. Either the journal (if that is what it is?) reports objectively in an article NOT written by the writer of the letter, or the editorial board, for instance, takes a stance. But this, no, this is odd. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cloud200, it seems I'm talking about your edit. Please don't misunderstand me: I am very serious here when I say these were, in my opinion, BLP violations for a couple of reasons: fishy (partisan) sourcing, and incendiary language (ha, your words first) improperly attributed. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandana shiva life

[edit]

Essay in english 2409:408C:909E:B7B:0:0:22BE:38A0 (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]