Talk:Shiva Ayyadurai/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Systematic Difficulties with Sourcing, Reframing Article as Controversy, not Bio

I've intermittently been looking into sources of this article the last week and there seem to be pervasive problems. For example, the source cited as "Laxminarayan, Swamy (1 January 2011). Future Visions on Biomedicine and Bioinformatics 1. Springer" is actually a fluffy memoir-type piece authored by Ayyadurai. I think as a source it's better than a lot of other material -- it's more or less a real book, not overt propaganda based on a first glance, not a blog -- but obviously misattributed. Were this the only issue, I wouldn't comment at all but this fits into a more systematic pattern where sources that appear independent are in fact part of the self-promoting or soapboxing apparatus of Ayyadurai. Now as discussed in sections above, it's good to let Ayyadurai have his say, and since there is a controversy of sorts here, I think it's important that Ayyadurai is given his due, in his own voice. But the fact that references to Westinghouse, Michelson, and Chomsky, among others, have often been listed as independent but actually been poorly sourced statements hosted by Ayyadurai's website is troubling. The fact that Ayyadurai is currently using that same website to distribute discredited & retracted blogger-generated articles from the Huffington Post, as if they were current and unimpeachable news sources, compromises that site's reliability and suggests that all material from his site should get extra scrutiny. This is against the backdrop, touched on above and alluded to by the HuffPo, that texts such as the Michelson statement and perhaps the Chomsky statement may in fact have been authored or ghostwritten by Ayyadurai. I have no idea if anything like that is true or likely. I'm not qualified to make that determination. It's also worth noting that all these controversies developed in the wake of comments first made here on Wikipedia itself where after getting banned from editing for aggressive practices, Ayyadurai declared that he would not relent on revisions etc until his rightful place was recognized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vashiva). It was in this context that he first said he would consider going to a museum such as the Smithsonian to archive his materials, thereby strengthening his sources or verifiability, an undertaking which seems to be what set off the whole series of public statements and retractions by the Smithsonian, Washington Post, etc., about whether or not he had invented email. Point being: There is a controversy, it's pretty interesting, Ayyadurai is an essential voice to making that controversy clear, Wikipedia is a vital source for encapsulating the history of that controversy, but I get the feeling our sources are inadequately distinguishing between, on the one hand, verified scientific/historical determinations and, on the other hand, Ayyadurai-generated commentary and evidence. I don't want to go through the site and prune or verify all the sources because the list of full edits will make it look as though I went on a hack and burn mission, inviting retractions and so on. But I want to at least explain my concern, so that other editors can take note and consider ways of improving the citations. betweenfloors (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If the consensus here is that Ayyadurai's self-reported info is not reliable, and bio-related material keeps getting deleted, this article will no longer be about the person but the controversy, and should be renamed as such--like these. Given the amount of non-related bio material already deleted here recently, that point may have already been reached. Barte (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I admit to being so focused on the email section that I hadn't spent enough time on the remainder of the article. I'll try to take a look. To Barte I think we can avoid that outcome by cleaning up and tightening the controversy section so it doesn't appear as dominant as it does now. Protonk (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That would probably mean reintroducing some of the material recently deleted .Barte (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the point is that most of the material that was deleted was not of broader scientific and technological interest, or alternately, it was difficult to source reliably. I am unambiguously in favor of seeing this entry as about the controversy over Ayyadurai's contribution to email. As far as I can see, there is no broadscale scientific or technological interest in Ayyadurai. He has a startup or two, an article or two, but there are literally tens of thousands of graduates from Carnegie, MIT and CalTech that equally fit that description and don't have their entries. What is interesting and different here is Ayyadurai's claim to have invented email, and the varied responses it has invited. To look at this page of "talk" alone, no one is quibbling about the dozens of websites he's registered, nor about the status and fate of echomail. All the interest is focused on the claims surrounding the invention email. In other words, refocusing the article on the controversy is not necessarily something "to be avoided" but perhaps, instead, the logical result of the cumulative discussions that have taken place on this page. betweenfloors (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. As I mention above the email section can be tightened considerably but I don't see a reason to avoid the notion that it is his main claim to notability. I don't think the solution to 'balance' the article is to reintroduce deleted material. Protonk (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

So given the above, I just want to consider. It sounds to me (from the above) that the subject may not qualify as a notable academic. Consider the criteria here: WP:PROF. But perhaps he is notable for one event, which then, per WP:1E, begs the question: how notable is the event? Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage. Is that where we're at? Barte (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's valuable to note that PROF is a heuristic for the GNG, which the subject meets pretty handily. 1E may apply if we're being very liberal, but we'd also have to stretch it to the "event" spanning ~2 years. Protonk (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, but if this is going to be a biography, then it should be a real biography, not WP:PSEUDO: An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. I think that's a fair criteria, especially for a BLP, and distilling this one down to the email controversy won't achieve it. Barte (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

To get us all on the same page, I'd like to quickly quote the relevant criteria: "'1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. 8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. 9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC'." As far as I can tell, the subject meets none of these criteria. I am aware these are not hard and fast determinations, just guidelines, for eligibility. The major impact he seems to have had is on some short-lived articles in the popular press, which were (for the most part) later retracted. It seems like one or two editors are really excited about his work but that the world scientific and technological practice has largely ignored or dismissed his significance. If this is the case, it seems like this is material for a controversy article, not material for a bio. Is there a explicit argument against my analysis, substantiated by some sources that attest to the subject's notability as a person (rather than actor in a controversy)? I might be missing something because the posts have gotten so numerous, but I don't see any solid source (besides materials generated as part of Ayyadurai's own self-promotional PR campaign) that justify the article. betweenfloors (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The subject (in the first sentence) is described as being a scientist, inventor and entrepreneur, but notability is not substantiated in any of these. Unless the article is broadened considerably, I think this is a controversy masquerading as a biography. Barte (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a title change and refactoring around the spurious claim to have invented email. (Picking a title is left as an exercise for the reader...) The previous AFD discussion for the page may be pertinent. Some good came of this anyway; I checked the contribs for the Ayyadurai shill who created the page and managed to junk some of his spam elsewhere on Wikipedia. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"Controversy over the inventor of email"? Per Haigh, this is almost certainly the only one. Barte (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggest "invention" not "inventor", since the facts actually are that there is no one "inventor of email", but it was invented. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather we not get lost in a hedgerow over whether or not the subject meets a specific notability guideline. I think it is highly unlikely that this article would be deleted at AfD unless someone made an incredibly convincing case that the various controversies which sparked news interest represented an exceptionally drawn out "one event". I'm not convinced by that case thus far. Protonk (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a discussion about a potential move, not a deletion. If the idea is controversial, perhaps we should formalize the discussion to invite broader comment. Barte (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If the article is moved (and presumably these links removed or redirected) that's tantamount to a deletion (and the discussion above about PROF indicates this characterization isn't far off). I'd recommend instead writing a new article on the email controversy, stubbing this article down to a summary of the personal details and the 2 major events of concern, then linking to the new article in a hatnote. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea so many articles linked to this one. I think your idea is worth considering. Barte (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the best solution is, haven't been witness to enough editorial decisions in the past. What I can say is that I suspect this entry was, one way or another, generated by Ayyadurai as part of an attempt to gain himself some legitimacy. Even now, a careful scrutiny shows that more than a few of the claims are dubious or falsely cited to mask the fact that they come from Ayyadurai's puffing himself up. For example, when he was a kid working at the university office where his mom was a secretary, was he really a "research fellow"? What would that even mean, to have a 14 year old kid who was a research fellow? (I say this as someone who is currently a fellow at a research institute, and gets a decent salary for that, but am more or less unsure what this claim means for Ayyadurai. And as noted above, the source cited is "Laxminarayan, Swamy" even though the article it links to is signed by Ayyadurai. In the end, all sources and publicity for this article seem to lead back to Ayyadurai by 1 or 2 degrees, with the exception of a few critical sources. In the end, the only things we know about Ayyadurai are 1) what he himself has said (and he's been shown to be untruthful on a number of occasions) 2) and what various retracted newspaper articles stated and then retracted. Apart from that there's not much public interest or verifiable fact about this guy, let alone scientifically or technologically verifiable concerns. I suspect references to him in other articles were inserted by interested parties. As mentioned above, I take Ayyadurai's at his word when we stated on another wikipedia page that he "will not relent" until this site reflects his interpretation of reality. Anyway, I defer to collective wisdom. betweenfloors (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I support aggressively stubbing the article down until it is limited to sources we can rely upon. My point about AfD above (or moving the article to just be about the controversy and removing the biographical elements entirely) is just a cautionary note. I think absent some very considerable research and a well reasoned nomination, this article would be kept at AfD (maybe after some strong debate). Whether that's an outcome driven by wisdom is up for debate, but it's my rough prediction. Protonk (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of limiting the article to reliable sources and agree that we need to stay vigilant. The dilemma is that in any biography of a contemporary human, most sources lead back to their subject by one or two degrees. The Boston Magazine ("Return to Sender") article we cite is probably the closest thing to a profile by a reliable secondary source, but it's a safe bet that the reporter relied at least in part on material from Ayyadurai himself. I don't have a good answer here except that, on Wikipedia, reliable secondary sources are generally not second-guessed. Barte (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC) And to be clear, I don't think this article should be moved without something close to editor unanimity. We don't have that: I take Protonk's objections seriously. So my concern going forward is that while we look at the sourcing and verifiability of the various claims in the article, that we still strive to make this a standard-issue BLP, which means including, where we can, other areas of the subject's public life. Barte (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Married?

So, http://www.etonline.com/news/150856_fran_drescher_marries_shiva_ayyadurai/ says they are married. http://tamilnadu.com/entertainment/personalities/interview-with-dr-v-a-shiva-ayyadurai-the-inventor-of-email-and-systems-scientist.html has Ayyadurai saying "Though we did not have a formal wedding or marriage", but on the other hand he is not a very reliable source. https://twitter.com/frandrescher/status/508781239877128194/photo/1 says they are married (also https://twitter.com/frandrescher/status/509175812629618688) but that could just be usage, like how we tended to refer to same-sex civil partnerships as "marriage". http://www.frandrescher.com/about-the-show/ doesn't even mention him, albeit it's partly promoting a specific TV show, albeit one about marriage.

I'm happy with what we have now, but I'm putting this here in case the issue comes up with new sources. It's less than clear. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Drescher and Ayyadurai have provided different descriptions of the same event, with Drescher's tweet being widely picked up. Here's the Los Angeles Times coverage, for example, based entirely on the tweet and her assistant's account. I'm uncomfortable making the determination. How about: "On September 7, 2014, the actress Fran Drescher and Ayyadurai participated at a ceremony at Drescher's beach house among close friends and family. Accounts differed between the two participants over whether the event was a wedding or a celebration of their love and friendship." Barte (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

If anything I guess that inclines me towards "yes, married", since Drescher is not known to be an unreliable source. Rather than the implication that someone's being economical with the truth, how about "a ceremony (which Ayyadurai described later as "a celebration of their love and friendship") at Drescher's beach house among close friends and family. Drescher tweeted afterwards that she was "married" to Ayyadurai." Pinkbeast (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

How about: "On September 7, 2014, the actress Fran Drescher and Ayyadurai participated at a ceremony at Drescher's beach house among close friends and family. Drescher later tweeted that the couple had gotten married. Ayyadurai later said it was not "a formal wedding or marriage", but a celebration of their "friendship in a spiritual ceremony with close friends and her family." Again, I don't think we should sit in judgement about whom is the more reliable source. We should treat both descriptions with equal deference. Barte (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, yes, although I think we have sat in judgement on whether Ayyadurai is a reliable source in the past. :-)

If no-one else interjects, stick it in the article? I think we've got all the cites above... Pinkbeast (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've played with the wording some more, added sources, and put it in the article. Further edits welcome. Making this more confusing is the fact that the full Los Angeles Times article also quotes Ayyadurai, in a tweet: "I married my warrior princess @frandrescher who my mom in God's great Heaven sent". Barte (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

invented EMAIL, not e-mail

The section header "Invented EMAIL" has misled the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/todays_paper?dt=2012-02-18&bk=A&pg=16) into thinking that Ayyadurai invented email, rather than merely inventing an email management system that he named EMAIL. Updating section header to be less misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andylatto (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• The extended mail command, known as mailx or Mail (with a capital M), was already in use at Berkeley when I arrived in 1978. It had an inbox and saved mail folders. It was compatible with the legacy mail software, which dated back to the 1st edition. -- Resuna (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• This link may be advisable as a reference: http://man.cat-v.org/unix-1st/1/mail -- Resuna (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• And by the time I arrived at IBM in 1980, tens if not hundreds of thousands of IBM employees used VNET email (I was JPS@RCHVM1 IIRC) on what at the time was one of the largest computer networks in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_VNET Jpgs (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• In high school in 1976, we "invented" email, too. It was a database-driven system with all the same features (and more) described by this guy (in this WP article, in the Post, etc.) This was easily accomplished, as all of it was well-known technology and practices, even to precocious high school freshman. In that same timeframe, I also used a commercial system (part of the APL*PLUS Timesharing services) that included email in exactly this way. And this stuff was by no means new in 1976. (This makes Ayyadurai's claims ridiculous and pathetic.) If anyone cared, I could produce hardcopy printouts from the era illustrating all of this. But I think it's too silly to bother, really. I think the WP article should be edited to reflect this common knowledge, and remove the (untrue) factual statements that he invented email. I mean, come on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.131.250 (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps the wording should be changed to avoid the word "invented"? Here's my suggestion ... Wrote and copyrighted an electronic messaging system he called "EMAIL", incorporating or re-developing many features developed earlier by other programmers.

There's nothing in the article to change. The word "invented" is used only in the context of describing his claims. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

CSIR controversy revisited

Per the section above, I've been revisiting the articles linked here. In two of them, I've removed the CSIR/Ayyudarai-related sections entirely because they appear to have been added by the socks with no obvious attempt to cover the controversy. At the same time, I've also revisited that subject here, and seems to me, the section does not reflect the reporting of its most notable sources: the NYT and Nature. Particularly the Nature article shows that Ayyudurai's critique of CSIR is corroborated by colleagues and not refuted in detail by anyone. (The biggest question is not whether he was justifiably sacked, but whether his sacking will discourage other expats from taking similar posts, though I'm not sure that fits here.) I've pared the section down to those two sources. It can be expanded, of course, but given this is a BLP, we should error on the side of caution. Barte (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Heads up

Ayyadurai's bogus claims are being added to University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey; could use eyes on that. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Barte (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattsabe. The investigation also potentially affects edits made here. Barte (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

They were nearly all confirmed. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether anything they've added here needs removing. There were other near-SPAs I came across that are stale so there wasn't much point including there e.g.:

• DGRichard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arttechlaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rockonomics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've removed a lot of poor content already that was linking here, but more checks on the articles that link here to ensure that the content is verifiable and not undue would be appreciated. SmartSE (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@SmartSE: I'll look over the linked articles over the next few days. Thanks for your work on this. Barte (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I've made and am suggesting a bold stroke--reverting this to a 7/9/15 version, which IMO was around the last version that reflects strong community consensus. This article received much scrutiny circa September 2014 after Huffington ran, and then retracted, a series of articles on Ayyudurai. And a bit more when Pinkbeast and I worked on the subject's marital status. Beyond that, I think it's hard to vouch for. In any case, it might be easier to re-insert material than to surgically remove snippets. Barte (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I would not object. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The article in its current form shows the revert. Barte (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Having checked the SPIs, yes, that was for the best. Thank you. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

"Bogus claims"?! Where is all this bias and vitriol coming from. The guy got 4 degrees from MIT, including his Ph.D., has published in Nature, CELL, did create a system with 50,000 lines of code, did get a copyright, did call it "email," Where is all this prejudice coming from? Who is Sam Biddle? Who called him an asshole and dick. I reviewed the history. That article led to people calling Ayyadurai a "nigger Indian" on blog sites and other racist nonsense. It's time to reflect on truth here. Perhaps because I'm a minority I see things a bit differently YatesByron (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)YatesByron

References

"Known for..." in infobox

I think the Known for "incorrect claim to invent email" in the infobox is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. We present the controversy. We don't resolve it. Barte (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's over the top to have that in the infobox so I've removed that part entirely for now. SmartSE (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

And I think the rewrite of the intro is even more misleading. I don't see much credible evidence that computer historians or industry experts believe the subject invented email. And that stance has been the consensus here from other editors. At this point, the intro is at odds with the rest of the article. Barte (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it looks to me as if the socks are back. I've reverted the edits as they severely misrepresent the later sources which state categorically that he didn't invent email. SmartSE (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mattsabe. SmartSE (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. I'm uncomfortable with the term "incorrectly" in the first sentence, per my reasons above. Barte (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. He's not known for the claim, so much as being known for a laughably-incorrect claim. Now, it would be non-NPOV to say it's laughable, but absolutely encyclopedic to use the word "incorrect". Please do not remove this word until we have consensus. ... richi (hello) 20:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it is highly inappropriate to reduce Ayyadurai to this and should be removed as it is libelous. Also, Ayyadurai beyond his 1970s creation did do many things in email which was earlier referenced and has been deleted. He is a pioneer in email technologies. Was interviewed by NY Times, was commissioned to write the 125th anniversary essay for The Wall Street Journal. In 2000, Deborah Shapley did do a feature article on him in the eminent MIT Technology Review. There are many credible references to this. In addition, he has been cited as Inventor of Email, Man Who Invented Email, Email Inventor by CBS, TIME, NDTV, and others. The prejudices and bias I am witnessing seem inappropriate and vindictive.... I am researching this case more closely in light of the $750,000 lawsuit win. YatesByron (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)YatesByron

I assume this is the talk page for this. The first sentence has been recently inserted by an anonymous person clearly to be libelous and vindictive. He is not "best known" for this and it is clearly against WP guidelines and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YatesByron (talk • contribs) 22:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

If your sources are as you say, this article could indeed be expanded and perhaps should to give a more even-handed picture. But you have to do it first in the body of the article, not just the summary. Regarding "best known for"--that's really a matter of coverage in secondary sources, which are the prime resource for Wikipedia articles. Is there another aspect of his career that has gotten more coverage? Barte (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

the "copyright" claim should not receive so much prominence

Copyright has nothing to do with first use or invention! nor with the names of things! There could have been a preceding program named EMAIL and he would still have been allowed to call his program the same thing. While it is a point of interest that his work was copyrighted--because it provides a record that the work exists, a point which nobody is disputing--it has nothing to do with establishing a claim of uniqueness, firstness, etc. If you get a trademark or a patent, that WOULD indicate that you were in some regard "first". Since laypeople do not understand the finer points of such intellectual property distinctions, I think that the constant stressing that "HE GOT A COPYRIGHT!!!" in the article serves to confuse the issue. Please, either explain that it is not an important factor, or decrease its importance in the article. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html 199.83.222.137 (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I take your point. Will self-revert. Barte (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The statement by the anonymous person is clearly wrong --- intended to strip Ayyadurai of any of his rights to invention of email. Copyright at the time of his invention MEANT EVERYTHING. To diminish the Copyright and its importance either shows ignorance or a deliberate attempt to support prejudicial comments of "Internet Pioneers" not subject matter experts. I have reviewed the facts. It appears following Ayyadurai's recent victory, there is once again a concerted effort to defame him on this Wikipage. Each time, in reading the history, his facts come out, a gang of bullies appear to run rampant and delete, facts, citations, and reference with prejudice. I want to remind everyone this is against WP policies and basic ethics.

Here are the facts concerning Copyright and why it is important, historically:

1) Neither Copyright nor Patent protection werr available at the time of Ayyadurai's invention. 2) To be specific, the Courts were not recognizing software patents 3) Only in 1980 did the Copyright Act of 1976 be amended to support the use of Copyright for protecting software inventions --- It was called the Software Act of 1980 -- Go read it "anonymous" 4) In 1981, as I have heard on various interviews, after Ayyadurai spoke to Dr. Paul E. Gray the President of MIT, did he get advice from Dr. Gray, to Copyright his 1978 invention to protect it. 5) Only in 1994 did the Federal Court of Appeals recognize software patents. 6) Therefore if Ayyadurai, did attempt to protect it later using patents, Prior Arte of his Copyright artefacts in the Library of Congress would have prevented it.

THEREFORE, Copyright was the only mechanism to protect his software invention. This is not minor. To say this is "nothing" is absolutely ignorant, defamatory and disinformation to prejudice and misinform the public. The naysayers and defamers of Ayyadurai seek to diminish the Copyright as their argument for attacking the signficance of his work.

This is simply wrong, on so many levels.

As a minority, I am deeply appalled by what I'm reading on these Talk pages and the deliberate and organized work to delete facts, and present him as self-promotional, when he is simply attempting to get the credit he rightfully deserves. This has got to end. I will be proactively adding facts, with citations to this page, and I expect them to be honored and respected. If I am adding them in violation of some REAL policy, let me know. If they are removed arbitrarily, we threaten WP and the Foundation.

It is clear that Ayyadurai was the first to create and invent email, the system which was the replica of the interoffice mail system and he got legal protection for it. If some of you cannot accept this, then you must look in the mirror and ask why you are making such illogical and irrational statements. Sam Biddle or writers of TechDirt are not the adjudicators of history. The facts are --- many of them are up on www.inventorofemail.com. If you don't like the evidence and react irrationally, then you don't belong on Wikipedia.

Again, I'm disgusted by what I've read. I've also reviewed the analysis of Thomas Haigh, who is biased and has thanked people of Raytheon for his biased analysis, and never has contacted Ayyadurai --- so much for a historain. In reading his page, he seems more upset that his "eminence" as being the adjudicator of email history as been subverted by truth. More to come on that. Moreover, David Crocker was also exposed by Dr. Debbie Nightingale in her report.

Both Crocker and Haigh have participated in actively pressuring publications using disinformation to pull down articles on Huffington Post and others. All of this is documented. It's time on these pages of WP, we honor truth and Wiki policies. Something terribly unjust is going on. Ayyadurai's victory of $750K doesn't do justice as I understand to the racist name calling that took place after Biddle's article. I've seen the facts --- he was called a "nigger Indian" and "Indian" who should be hanged.

In short, Copyright of his 1978 invention does mean a lot.

Let me also remind everyone, the guy has 4 degrees from MIT, is a PhD and provided other major contributions to Email Technology. I notice all of them have been removed by somebody. I ready the history. Yes he is best known for email technology. That should also be replaced. I will be starting a talk topic on that. Thank you for hearing my concerns. YatesByron (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)YatesByron

It is clear that he was not the first to create and invent email because email already existed well before 1978, a readily citable - and cited - fact. He may be a Doctor, but he's not Doctor Who.

The guff about "the replica of the interoffice mail system" is a common rhetorical tactic of his; essentially, he asserts that he was the first person to create an email system exactly like the one he created. That is not remarkable. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find that questioning the motives of Ayyadurai's critics and casting accusations of racism will not buy you much here. But if you believe there are other experts in the history of email and the internet who support Ayyudurai's claim, by all means add them. The same is true for the description of the lawsuit settlement and detailing Ayyadurai's other accomplishments. You just need to conform to the guidelines in WP:V and cite reliable sources. Barte (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Evidence he claimed to have invented email

The article does not provide evidence that he claimed to have invented email, which is rather important I would think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.236.9.32 (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"To the best of my knowledge, I was the first to design, implement, test and deploy these features in an everyday office situation. This was and is email as we know it today." Barte (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I know I'm coming in late, but that doesn't sound like what he's accused of at all! The key words in that statement are "in an everyday office situation." This was before public internet, before even FidoNet! Years before fidonet, actually. Not the first example of emails, of course not. The first in an everyday office situation? I don't know. The first that he knows of that was in an everyday office situation? Well, now it's probably true! If there was an honest controversy it would be over if use in a regular office is the defining characteristic of email, or if that is not actually any different than use in a university. I mean, it is a pretty weak claim, but also very subjective. The claim that it is actually false would itself seem to be false! The controversy as described in the article seems to be manufactured and dishonest.76.105.216.34 (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that what he claims keeps changing, as his claims get disproven ... richi (hello) 10:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Trim

It will have to be done carefully, of course, but the "EMAIL controversy" section has become very bloated. The history and the issues should be able to be outlined in much less space, leaving the references to provide the detail. Snori (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I agree that it needs condensing as well. SmartSE (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. Thanks for having at it. Barte (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

GM soy

I've added a section to the article about his 2015 paper that claimed GM soy contained elevated levels of formaldehyde. It was widely debunked, including by the European Food Safety Agency, so I hope I have given appropriate weight to the differing opinions while also keeping it succinct. There are a few more sources here in case anyone wants to add more information. Hopefully there is no need to, but just in case, this content falls under 1RR due to the Arbcom ruling. SmartSE (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Contributions to Email Technologies

A few days ago, I added several sentences with clear citations showing evidence of Ayyadurai's contributions to Email technologies beyond his 1970s invention of email. This was arbitrarily deleted. The deletion was concomitant with an attempt to characterize him as merely being responsible for falsely claiming to have invented email. I would like to add the following statements that provide the complete picture of this individual.

Since 1980, Ayyadurai is best known for his pioneering work in email technologies including by such organizations as MIT, the United States Senate, Unilever, as well as the United States White House, and has been widely credited as the inventor of email and referred to as "Dr. Email" and an email pioneer by publications such as The New York Times, MIT Technology Review, and The Wall Street Journal [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17].

References which I added: 9) Shapley, Deborah (January 1, 2000). "Dr. Email Will See You Now". MIT Technology Review. 10) Shane, Scott; Schimdt, Michael S. "Hillary Clinton Emails Take Long Path to Controversy". The New York Times. ...Shiva Ayyadurai, an email pioneer who has designed email systems for both government and large corporations. 11) Reidy, Chris (June 4, 1999). "As far as the Senate is concerned, Dr. Email is in" (PDF). Boston Globe. Boston Globe Media Partners. 12) Farrel, Greg (April 17, 2000). "Software helps Senator, firms mine, refine e-mail" (PDF). USA Today. 13) Conover, Kirsten A. (March 12, 1996). "CHEERING ON THE INGENUITY OF TODAY'S AND TOMORROW'S INNOVATORS". The Christian Science Monitor. Shiva Ayyadurai, founder of Millennium Productions, and inventor of the White House Encryption System. When President Clinton needed a reliable encryption system for his electronic mail, he turned to Mr. Ayyadurai, whose classification system beat those of industry leaders. 14) Miller, Joanne (September 2, 1981). "The Class of 1985 arrives to meet the Institute". Tech Talk. MIT. One designed an electronic mail system now being used at the New Jersey College of Medicine and Dentistry 15) Staff Writer (October 30, 1980). "Livingston Student Designs Electronic Mail System". West Essex Tribune. West Essex Tribune. 16) Ayyadurai, V.A. Shiva (July 7, 2014). "V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai on the Future of Email: It Gets Better - Email's Inventor Says Future Systems Will Have Artificial Intelligence to Help You Manage the Flood". The Wall Street Journal. 17) Bulkeley, William M. (November 15, 2001). "Echomail Provides an Answer For the Avalanche of E-Mail". The Wall Street Journal.Deonikar (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Deonikar

Can someone comment on why these references were deleted? from 1999 to 2014, over 15 years separate from the email invention --- he seems to have made major contributions. I noticed that his book The Email Revolution has case studies of his effort, and vandals have gone to his site in the midst of the email invention issue and posted all sorts of expletives including "fraud" similar to the dialog I see on these Talk pages. This is disconcerting and clearly a biased effort to destroy his reputation as a serious scientist and engineer. I would suggest the following to Deonikar:

"In addition to his 1970s work, Ayyadurai's work in email includes pioneering work starting in the mid-1990s on email management technologies used by organizations such as the United States Senate, Unilever, as well as the United States White House, and referenced in publications such as The New York Times, MIT Technology Review, and The Wall Street Journal."[references...]

OR we start a whole new section on this. He worked on the email invention for a few years, but email management he clearly worked on longer, and not including this on his page would be limiting for the reader.YatesByron (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)YatesByron

There is no doubt that he developed an early email system, and at an amazingly young age. However, he was never well-known for that fact because (a) it wasn't groundbreaking in any sense, (b) it had no impact or influence on the email we now use. There is also no doubt that he was heavily involved in later email filtering companies (using "the email we now use"). In the normal course of events, this would be a simple footnote to email history (as it is in the email article), and to his own career, where he has a wide range of interests away from email.

However, in 2011 and 2012 he misled Time, the Smithsonian and the Washington Post. It's human nature for some individuals to "push" their own agenda, so frankly the fault was largely with those organisations, (and later HuffPo) who seem to have taken no efforts to check what were clearly "extraordinary claims". Of course what has fanned the flames is that fact that Ayyadurai has gone on to "double down", when these claims were rubbished - first by quibbling over specifics of what is email, and then by bringing race and caste into the mix - and now getting a lawsuit funded by Peter Theil (notice that Ayyadurai is careful to say that he is “totally unaware of any behind-­the­-scenes financial arrangements involving my attorneys and anyone else”). Snori (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a good summation of the sources Snori. The problem I have with the suggested text above is that it is name-dropping large organisations to infer importance and also very vague as to what he actually did. We should definitely include WSJ's article on Echomail, but that details how Echomail had competitors (so was it pioneering?) and that Ayyadurai refers to himself as Dr. Email (very different from others coining this about him, as the above text infers. SmartSE (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

As a biographical entry, this one deserves to be broadened beyond the email controversy, including other areas of Ayyadurai's career, and not every item need be pioneering or influential to be included. That said, the EMAIL controversy is by far the most notable in terms of reliable secondary sources. It is central here to establishing notability. What I would not like to see repeated is what happened at one point to this article: what seemed like an attempt to bury the controversy section with other material. (Most of it was removed after Huffington Post ran its multi-part special, then withdrew it.) Barte (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep. I wasn't suggesting that things have to be pioneering to be included, just that the text suggested above was inaccurate. SmartSE (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

YatesByron, no-one is going to take you seriously on this talk page if you keep repeating the claim that Ayyadurai invented email. Email existed in 1973; it was not physically possible to invent it in 1978. It just makes you look like a shill for the man. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd put it somewhat differently. The entry has references to a number of people with expertise in internet history who disagree with Ayyadurai's claim. On the other side, we have Ayyadurai, himself, including now, his accusations of racism on the part of his critics, and a brief reference to Noam Chomsky, whose broad CV does not include that of internet historian. (Chomsky repeated Ayyadurai's assertion, but did not further the argument.) To shift the balance, we need more references to independent experts who have weighed in on Ayyadurai's side. Barte (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm slightly torn here because of course you are completely correct about Wikipedia policies and I am wrong; it's not for me to decide what is self-evidently false. On the other hand, it is self-evidently false all the same. :-/ Pinkbeast (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

What is self-evident is that there is nonsense.YatesByron (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It is nonsense to say that anyone invented anything in 1978 that already existed in 1973. If I were to claim that I invented the steam locomotive, it would not matter how many Websites I set up to claim that I did, nor how many people I fooled into thinking that I did. The claim would be self-evidently false. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

PinkBeast, just because you and others are a part of a witch hunt to deny the invention of email by Ayyadurai, don't think YOU are going to be taken seriously. Beyond what YatesByron has addressed, it is is obvious to any person of color that there is gross and egregious prejudice that is based on the presumption by you and your gang, who are working in collusion, that if you simply keep repeating that he did not invent email, such repetition of a lie will make it true. The evidence is clear that he did invent email. As an Indian, your prejudice is crystal clear.

I have read through the entire history on this talk page and elsewhere. You and the others have been consciously and forcibly removing citations and content that are favorable to Ayyadurai. In fact Richi just moments ago removed facts that Ayyadurai has four degrees from M.I.T. You and others are removing citations and facts with a blanketed comment that such facts are "self-promotional." Supposed "experts," who are against Ayyadurai such as Haigh are quoted and given large sections, while eminent systems scientist and experts in systems architecture such as Prof. Debbie Nightingale of M.I.T. and her detailed analysis are simply removed. Her analysis exposes the lies of the "internet pioneers." Your arbitrary deletions expose a deliberate disinformation campaign using Haigh and Crocker, who are not experts, given one does not need the internet for email. Moreover, Crocker is biased since he is attempting to rewrite the history of email and inappropriately attribute it to the ARPANET when they did not invent email. If there is any experts, it is people like Dr. Les Michelson who was there in 1978 when Ayyadurai invented email. Why are his comments and references and reports being removed? Dr. Michelson is today the Head of High Performance Computing at Rutgers.

I want to reiterate that I have loaded up multiple citations that clearly show that other news organisations do refer him to be the inventor of email. Removing my inclusions which included citations is against WP policy.

Again, as an Indian, I do find this racist (sorry, if you find it hard to believe, but it is), especially if my edits that are loaded are simply removed, when they are factual and within WP policy. To reduce him to be "...most notable for his claim..." is wrong and defamatory. This was removed before by Smartse for being vulgar, but now it is back, and is snarky, unnecessary, and more importantly FALSE.

Ayyadurai has spent his whole life since 1978 as an inventor, entrepreneur and scientist. He is perhaps most notable for his consistent work in email technologies, not just the invention of email in 1978.

In fact, since 1980, that's nearly four decades, considerable press exists on him which provides clear evidence of his contributions to email technologies, starting with his inventing email in 1978, then from 1993 to 2010 for his work on EchoMail for providing email AI technologies for the larges companies in the world and organisations such as the US Senate, White House. Then in 2011 to 2013, he was contracted by the USPS and commissioned with a grant of nearly $100K by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to provide ideas and analysis on how to generate new revenues for the failing Postal Service.

Finally, the New York Times in 2016, contacted him as expert in email to ask his opinion on the Hillary Clinton issue, AND, the Wall Street Journal contacted him to write an essay for the 125th anniversary issue on the Future of Email. The New York Times DID NOT CONTACT Tomlinson. They contacted Ayyadurai and referred to him as an "email pioneer." THESE ARE FACTS with citations. The WSJ referred to him as the Inventor of Email. In addition, he has just released a book on the Future of Email, which discusses the dangerous issues on consumer privacy and control from the current "free" email services.

What is accurate is that he is likely the world's leading expert on email.

The facts are Ayyadurai has made consistent and monumental contributions to email technologies as well as other fields of science. He has published over his academic career articles in IEEE, Nature Neuroscience, CELL (eminent high impact journals). He was appointed by the Indian Prime Minister's Office to lead a new initiative CSIR-Tech for Innovation, and he is now leading two companies Systems Health and CytoSolve which are making significant contributions to medicine and health.

The gang who continue to be dedicated to hiding the facts, reducing his contributions to "...most notable for his claim..." and reducing him a "controversial" person should be expelled from this page for their disgusting approach to destroy Ayyadurai's reputation. I will be changing this and putting something that is accurate.

Moreover, there are news organisations and publications that still refer and cite him as the "inventor of email." Not adding these is continuing to support the prejudicial claims of those individuals who are committed to a false narrative that the ARPANET invented email. Neither the ARPANET nor Tomlinson, as Prof. Debbie Nightingale's paper clearly exposes, invented email. THAT IS A CLAIM. Perhaps the gang on these pages needs Dr. Nightingale's paper (some like Richi will likely weep) --- but the facts are clear from the evidence, Ayyadurai DID invent email --- not Tomlinson or the ARPANET.

I will be making the following edits fully compliant with WP policy as follows to reflect my point above.

1. Clarifying what he is notable for his early and continuing work in the development and advancement of email technologies. To this end I will be editing as follows

Ayyadurai is most notable as a pioneer in email technologies dating back to the system he wrote as a high school student in the late 1970s, which he called "EMAIL" as well as his continuing work in automatic email analysis, filtering and routing technologies [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8].

My references will include articles in eminent and reputable journal and papers:

[1] Shapley, Deborah (January 1, 2000). "Dr. Email Will See You Now". MIT Technology Review. [2] Shane, Scott; Schimdt, Michael S. "Hillary Clinton Emails Take Long Path to Controversy". The New York Times. ...Shiva Ayyadurai, an email pioneer who has designed email systems for both government and large corporations. [3] Reidy, Chris (June 4, 1999). "As far as the Senate is concerned, Dr. Email is in" (PDF). Boston Globe. Boston Globe Media Partners. [4] Farrel, Greg (April 17, 2000). "Software helps Senator, firms mine, refine e-mail" (PDF). USA Today. [5] Conover, Kirsten A. (March 12, 1996). "CHEERING ON THE INGENUITY OF TODAY'S AND TOMORROW'S INNOVATORS". The Christian Science Monitor. Shiva Ayyadurai, founder of Millennium Productions, and inventor of the White House Encryption System. When President Clinton needed a reliable encryption system for his electronic mail, he turned to Mr. Ayyadurai, whose classification system beat those of industry leaders. [6] Miller, Joanne (September 2, 1981). "The Class of 1985 arrives to meet the Institute". Tech Talk. MIT. One designed an electronic mail system now being used at the New Jersey College of Medicine and Dentistry [7] Ayyadurai, V.A. Shiva (July 7, 2014). "V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai on the Future of Email: It Gets Better - Email's Inventor Says Future Systems Will Have Artificial Intelligence to Help You Manage the Flood". The Wall Street Journal. [8] Bulkeley, William M. (November 15, 2001). "Echomail Provides an Answer For the Avalanche of E-Mail". The Wall Street Journal.Deonikar (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Deonikar

2. I will also provide the facts and references of those organisations that refer to him as the inventor of email and change as follows:

Organisations such as TIME, CBS, WSJ, NDTV refer to him as the inventor of email[1][2][3][4]. While others such as The Washington Post, The Huffington Post, and the Smithsonian Institution, have followed by public retractions or removals of claims that he invented email, after objections by historians and internet pioneers [5][6][7].

My references will include following:

[1] Chandra, Vikram (July 27, 2011). "Exclusive Interview with the Inventor of E-mail". Gadget Guru. New Delhi, India: NDTV. [2] Aamoth, Doug (15 November 2011). "The Man Who Invented Email". Time Magazine: Techland. Retrieved 11 June 2012. [3] Rocca, Mo (April 4, 2015). "Episode 19: Inventor of Email". The Henry Ford Innovation Nation with Mo Rocca. CBS. [4] Ayyadurai, V.A. Shiva (July 7, 2014). "V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai on the Future of Email: It Gets Better - Email's Inventor Says Future Systems Will Have Artificial Intelligence to Help You Manage the Flood". The Wall Street Journal. [5] Kolawole, Emi (17 February 2012). "Smithsonian acquires documents from inventor of 'EMAIL' program". Washington Post. Retrieved 11 June 2012. incorrectly referred to V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai as the inventor of electronic messaging [6] Masnick, Mike (2014-09-08). "Huffington Post Finally Removes Most Articles About Fake Email Inventor; Meanwhile, Ayyadurai Threatens To Sue His Critics". Techdirt. Retrieved 8 September 2014. [7] "Statement from the National Museum of American History: Collection of Materials from V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai" (Press release). National Museum of American History. 23 February 2012. Retrieved 19 February 2013. Exchanging messages through computer systems, what most people call 'email,' predates the work of Ayyadurai." Deonikar (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Deonikar

Organized Effort to Deny Facts of Ayyadurai's Invention of Email

Ayyadurai filed a lawsuit for the atrocious and defamatory content posted by reporters posing to be journalists. The Shiva Ayyadurai page appears to be controlled by a vocal minority dedicated to providing a one-sided narrative with people who are not qualified and not aware of what occurred in Newark, NJ. I suspect a number of people on this page are friends/colleagues/supporters of the ARPANET/GIZMODO/TECHDIRT revisionist narrative, and disinformation campaign. I will be presenting facts with citations per WP Policy. All of the material here can be used in litigation. And, any and all of you can be deposed.YatesByron (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

MEATPUPPETRY EVIDENCE #1 - After I posted Ayyadurai is an "inventor," Barte has removed my addition that Ayyadurai is an "inventor" moments ago. This is unethical. However, he and others feel it absolutely okay to denigrate this man with 4 degrees from MIT and pioneering work in email to be reduced to be notable for a claim?!?!?! Do I need to add the fact he has multiple patents, was an MIT Lemelson-Award Finalist for innovation? Let me remind everyone that the Lemelson MIT Award is one of the most prestigious awards in inventorship. Why has Barte removed this? Answer, he is prejudiced. I want everyone to investigate his posts/edits/removals. I'm putting it back with links to Ayyadurai's patents and references to other publications which refer to him as an inventor. Removal of such references demands an investigation of Barte and any others who dos.YatesByron (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I've reported the apparent legal threat above to ANI. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to report to ANI that you AND Barte and are not following WP Policy, removing factual statements with the intent to defame Ayyadurai? He has three major US Patents which have been cited 168 times. He went to MIT (I believe its a well known tech school -- which many of you could likely not get into). I believe his an inventor or do you want to deny that. Please do so and expose your nonsense. Please, do that. All of us minorities are watching you. I'm adding that he is an inventor. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=ayyadurai&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT — Preceding unsigned comment added by YatesByron (talk • contribs) 00:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

YatesByron has been blocked for the above legal threats. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Three suggestions

Deonikar Three suggestions for you:

1. Read and adhere to WP:ASG. You might find a subsection, WP:AOBF, particularly useful.
2. Start editing in the body of the article, not the intro. The first section is a summary. It can't summarize what has not been established. For example, if you want to establish that Ayyadurai is an inventor, begin by adding the material on his patents and the Lemelson award to a relevant area of the article.
3. Your arguments that Ayyadurai invented email and that he is best known for something other than that claim are best made calmly and collaboratively here on the Talk page. See #1.

Thanks for your consideration. Barte (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleting Factual Cited Information

I added factual cited information to this article, which was done specifically to provide a contextual timeline, and it was deleted immediately. I cite the following: "Initial reporting on that claim by organizations such as The Washington Post, The Huffington Post, and the Smithsonian Institution were followed by public retractions or removals after objections by historians and internet pioneers. [2][4]" This statement is inaccurate and omits factual information, as it does not provide any context indicating that it was the donation to the Smithsonian, which the news organizations reported on, that the spurred the retractions/corrections the sentence I am highlighting refers to. The initial reporting on Ayyadurai's claim to inventing well email predates 2012. This can be verified by, at a minimum, by taking into consideration that historians/Internet pioneers did not dispute the Time article from November 15, 2011, “The Man Who Invented Email” or Internet pioneers. Purposely omitting the Smithsonian information, after it had been added to the article, seriously compromises the accuracy and integrity of the article. Newark Latina (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Altering the article lead so that it appears that Shiva is notable for inventing email, rather than notable for his stupid claim to be the inventor of email, tends to mark you as, I dunno, Shiva probably. Whatever, we're not buying it. The "accuracy and integrity of the article" is not improved by treating a patently bogus claim as being worthy of anything but derision. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

As I've remarked elsewhere, I'm uncomfortable with this article taking a stand either way. We should leave that verdict to readers. Perhaps we should pare down the lead section:

VA Shiva Ayyadurai is an Indian-born American scientist and entrepreneur. He holds four degrees from MIT, including a Ph.D. in biological engineering, and is a Fulbright Scholar.[1]

Ayyadurai claims to be the "inventor of email" based on the system he wrote as a high school student in the late 1970s, which he called "EMAIL".[2][3] He is also known for two controversial reports: the first questioning the working conditions of India's largest scientific agency; the second questioning the safety of genetically modified soybeans.

Barte (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Leaving his bogus claim in the lead, absent any indication of the scorn with which it has been met, ill-reflects the RS. This man is famous only for the bogosity of his claim, and the lead should reflect that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Especially as this is a WP:BLP please take a WP:NPOV here. Barte (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I am being neutral when I say that it is a bogus claim. I'm not about to get suckered by some false notion of balance. The evidence that email existed prior to his work is abundent, and no amount of trying to constrain the definiton of "EMAIL" to be only that which he contructed will wash. He is notable for making an absurd claim which has been widely refuted. We should say this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Barte: I totally disagree. This isn't about taking sides or making a stand. It is about notability. The subject of this article is notable for the controversy over his claims; nothing else. If we were to reach a consensus that the controversy shouldn't be in the lede, I would argue for article deletion, because the guy isn't notable ... richi (hello) 20:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Richi: I pretty much agree with your take on notability, but want to avoid as much as possible trying to try the case in the lead. How about: "Ayyadurai is notable for his controversial claim to be the 'inventor of email' based on the system he wrote as a high school student in the late 1970s, which he called "EMAIL".[2][3] (BTW, I enjoyed your template: {{yo|foo}}) Barte (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Barte: That reads better than the rather clunky edit I made; thanks! BTW, the template isn't mine. I believe it was written by User:Kaldari, as Reply to, and User:Jeff G. added the Yo redirect ... richi (hello) 20:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Richi and Barte: Thank you both. RFC 524 by J. White of SRI-ARC on 13 June 1973 was the initial documented proposal of what became current email.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk)

That was later revealed to be James E. White. RFC 524 referred to earlier work, but not specifically. I have read the article and this talk page completely, and concluded that this article should be deleted if it does not mention the subject's infamy in the lede (supported by RS in the body).   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Are we reaching the point where we need to remind User:Newark Latina of the policy described at WP:LISTEN? ... richi (hello) 22:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, this is the second account within a short period to do battle over the lead section on the first day of that account's creation. Barte (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

As I review the discussions on this talk page and the meatpuppetry and ganging up on the Newark Latina, it reminds me of the abuse I have experienced from the meatpuppetry on this page. Multiple times I have posted facts with citations per WP policy and they have been deleted with lightning speed, arbitrarily and with prejudice. A vocal minority simply repeating louder that Ayyadurai did not invent email is not going to take away the fact that he did invent email, based on the following three indisputable facts: 1) he was the first to replicate the interoffice mail paper based system in electronic form; 2) he was the first to call it “email,” a term he created to name the system; and, 3) he received the first U.S. copyright at a time when copyright was the only way to protect software.

The real issue is not whether he invented the email or not, the issue is why there is ANY controversy at all?

It is clear that it is racist and is a form of segregation to enforce a disgusting narrative that innovation could never occur by a dark skin Indian boy from Newark, NJ. As an Indian, I am disgusted by this behavior and will not allow it continue. The facts are black and white. It is no coincidence that the other person demanding that the facts be shared is likely a Hispanic woman. Finally, beyond the racism on this page, it is obvious that anyone black or white, who rationally wants to share the facts of Ayyadurai’s contribution in inventing the email is either tormented, blocked, ridiculed or ganged up on. Those of you who continue this abuse and racism, which is what you are precisely doing, will be made accountable for. I will be adding the facts with references per WP policy of other organizations and publications who refer to Ayyadurai as the inventor of email. If those are deleted, then I will in parallel delete those statements who claim he is not the inventor of email. This is not a threat, but this behavior is setting the editors on this page up for potential law suits as it is clearly defamatory libelous and done with malice to destroy an individual’s character.Deonikar (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Deonikar

@Deonikar: I shall ignore your policy-violating accusations of racism for now, but I urge you not to repeat them, for fear of being blocked from Wikipedia. Let's imagine for one moment that Ayyadurai did in fact invent email. If you expect an encyclopedia—any encyclopedia—to repeat that claim, it needs to be backed up by verifiable references from reliable sources. We have an absurd number of sources to show that email existed prior to 1978. We have precisely zero sources that back up Ayyadurai's claim. Do you understand yet? ... richi (hello) 20:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Deonikar:This entry does not, at this writing, take a stance on whether Ayyadurai did or did not invent email. It just attempts to lay out a history, and if you believe that history is incomplete, then add more to the body of the article (as my note to you above suggests) using reliable sources. If you believe meatpuppetry is going on here, please file a formal complaint. But as richi (talk · contribs) has said, you cannot keep making unfounded personal attacks on editors and continue to edit Wikipedia. Civility is a requirement here and it will be enforced. Barte (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Barte: you meant me, right? ;-) ... richi (hello) 21:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops--note to self: try to think straight. (Post corrected) Barte (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I won't ignore the accusation; it makes no sense. You can check my contributions, or those of any other editor on this page. Do you find us sticking our oar in at, say, Srinivasa Ramanujan to diminish his accomplishments? No, you do not. What is special about Ayyadurai is not that he is Indian but that he claims to have invented in 1978 something that existed in or before 1973. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Enjoy your block for making a legal threat.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

All that said, I'm still fine with condensing the lead section down to its essance:

VA Shiva Ayyadurai is an Indian-born American scientist and entrepreneur. He holds four degrees from MIT, including a Ph.D. in biological engineering, and is a Fulbright Scholar. Ayyadurai is notable for his controversial claim as the "inventor of email". His claim is based on the email software he wrote as a high school student in the late 1970s, which he called "EMAIL". He is also known for two controversial reports: the first questioning the working conditions of India's largest scientific agency; the second questioning the safety of genetically modified soybeans.

Doesn't even need footnotes. (The summary section usually doesn't.) Barte (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest, if we have to make any modification at all: "notable for his controversial and widely refuted claim as the "inventor of email"". It is by any standards a bogus claim and we should be upfront about that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think what we have now is pretty clear that the claim is not generally accepted. We might eg say "after objections by historians and internet pioneers, specifically to the effect that email already existed in the early 1970s". That would make the impossibility of the claim quite clear. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• It's a shame that bogus and delusional aren't considered appropriate for articles, since they capture the situation well. EEng 06:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

White flag waved on my proposal:I know unanimous disagreement when I see it. Barte (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Did Ayyadurai invent marriage too?

His claim to have "married" Fran Drescher seems bogus. People for thousands of years have held spiritual ceremonies with family to celebrate their friendship with another person; they call those weddings. Just because he had such ceremony in 2014 doesn't mean he invented marriage or weddings. Especially since his now-former relationship seems to have had little or no influence over what we now know as "marriage". Anyone who doubts my words must be suffering from racism, or from refraining from suing newspapers for printing the truth. WP:PN is the rule, as usual. Gnuish (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear what you think is wrong in the article - the infobox arguably aside, and infoboxes are always prone to oversimplification. The actual section on Personal Life says that they _claimed_ to have been married and the event was widely reported as such, but Ayyadurai later stated there was no formal marriage ceremony. That isn't patent nonsense, it's the bald truth.

There, of course, have been contexts where "married" is used colloquially for states that are not per se marriage. The "separate but equal" civil partnerships in the UK for same-sex couples were widely (and quite sensibly IMHO) referred to as marriages. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox "known for"

Ayyadurai is known for claiming to have invented email, a claim which has been widely disputed and debunked. I have tried to add this to the infobox that he is known for being the "self-proclaimed inventor of email". This exact phrase has actually been used by many news sources, as a Google search indicates. Is there a better way to phrase this? 2601:644:2:B64B:FD86:BBD7:44ED:79D3 (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think, as edit summaries may suggest (and I do recommend you read them), that it is best to leave it out of the infobox. The lead paragraphs of the article already describe the issue clearly and coherently. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Birthplace?

There's still edit warring over his birthplace. The trouble is that the Bombay claim is only sourced from two primary sources, from Ayyadurai himself, and I don't consider Ayyadurai to meet WP:RS for anything, let alone his birthplace. Can we find something more clearly objective? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't regard Ayyadurai as a RS for any self-serving claim, but does anyone care where he was born? If he gains no advantage by claiming to have been born in Bombay, then we should believe him. The other side of the edit war has (correct me if I am wrong) no cites whatsoever. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Supposed Senate run

So, his supposed Senate bid has been put in, taken out, and put back in again. I'm inclined to agree with NeilN that it doesn't count until someone other than Ayyadurai reports on it. I could tweet tomorrow that I'm running for President and it wouldn't make it so. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. Wikipedia articles are not soapboxes for subjects. We don't just mirror what they tweet/blog about. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

+1 for me on that. I've looked for RS coverage about it and not found anything. SmartSE (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree ... richi (hello) 08:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree, but I would point out that he is listed as a candidate inside United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2018, that article uses Gateway Pundit and something called "UniversalHub" as sources, here they are: [1] [2] --Krelnik (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Gateway Pundit "is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes" (well cited) which seems consistent with that slightly froth-spattered link. I dunno who Universal Hub are although at least it doesn't all read like it's in ALL CAPS.

Can we perhaps wait a couple of days until a proper newspaper prints this? It shouldn't be long. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree again, that's why I just put the links here rather than boldly putting it in the article. I don't like either source. --Krelnik (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I also agree. A RS should report it. Barte (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

RS?: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2017/03/02/curt-schilling-shiva-ayyadurai-elizabeth-warren/ Barte (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Boston Globe report:https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/02/28/cambridge-man-who-says-he-invented-email-says-he-will-challenge-elizabeth-warren-in-2018 Barte (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Could be added to the body. Not important enough for lead just yet, IMO. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. (I'm traveling with just a cellphone and don't want to attempt.) Barte (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

So far, the coverage has been entirely based on tweets. When a RS does independent coverage, preferably including an interview with the candidate, I think it then belong in the summary lead. Barte (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering where they're getting Fulbright scholar from (see section below)? Confirmation from Fulbright or just lazy reporting? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I added this Ars Technica article which includes links to his filing papers and a radio interview. That's mainstream enough for me, and I'd like to add a mention to the intro. Barte (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

And I see you have. Thanks; seems fine. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

" The Establishment creates and funds groups like Antifa, KKK and Black Lives Matter "

Seems he's pushing quite the conspiracy theory now.Jim O’Sullivan (14 August 2017). "US Senate candidate plans to address 'free-speech' rally on Common". Boston Globe. Is this a long-standing view he's held, or recent? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A cynic would say it will be no more long-standing than his Senate bid.

More seriously, I wonder if his appearance at the rally merits inclusion. "Politician addresses crowd of 50" would result in an awful lot of entries on the average politician's page. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Is his claim "controversial" or "false"?

There has been a minor edit war over whether Ayyadurai's claim to have invented email is "controversial", as currently described in the page, or "false", as several editors have revised it. This suggested improvement was possibly triggered by the recent election of Donald Trump, who has been known throughout his campaign to make claims that are easily documented to be false. As a cautionary tale, these editors seem to be suggesting that to call a false claim "controversial" is to dignify it with a claim to truth that it does not actually possess (stating "Since fraudulent & false claims are now merely 'controversial', it needs to be noted that these claims are false. This is controversial like the moon landings being fake are."). One reverting editor said, "Make your case in Talk before adding here." This section is an attempt to do so. (I am not one of the above editors.)

The traditional media is famous for digging up somebody who'll take the other side of a claim, giving them a minor mention, and thus claiming to present a "balanced" point of view. Wikipedia aspires to a higher standard of the neutral point of view WP:NPOV that mentions the major schools of thought, with proper perspective on each, and leaves out the minor schools of thought as unworthy of an encyclopedia article.

I agree that in general it's socially dangerous to allow false claimants to be represented as merely controversial. Doing so encourages many more people to tell self-aggrandizing lies which, when accepted as "one side of the story", confuse a portion of the public into believing these lies, to their detriment. It also muddles the historical record, particularly at a time when the actual participants are still alive and able to confirm the truth. Later generations should be told the difference between a widely accepted truth; versus a matter on which there is room for argument and no clear consensus; versus a false claim. This is particularly true in an encyclopedia.

The claim that Ayyadurai invented email is easily documented to be false, by many sources, both from before his invention of a program for electronic messaging, and after he made the public claim to have "invented email" many years later. These sources are already well represented in the article. The sources that originally reprinted Ayyadurai's claim to have invented email (almost all of which have since retracted the claim) are also well represented. Is the neutral result of all those sources that Ayyadurai's claim is "false", or merely "controversial"?

Having personally lived through the 1970s, having personally used an email system in 1973 before Mr. Ayyadurai created his email system, and having revised and maintained pre-existing email software in 1975-6, I personally believe that it is "false". But personal experience is not enough for an encyclopedia article. I also believe that the collection of sources referenced in the article support the statement that the claim is false rather than merely controversial. For these reasons, I support changing the word "controversial" to "false" in the lede paragraph of the article, and in the lede paragraph of the "'EMAIL' invention controversy" section of the article. Gnuish (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking this to Talk, and I respectively disagree. I don't think it's our place as Wikipedia editors or Wikpedia's place as an encylopedia to resolve this question, especially in a WP:BLP. As long as Ayyadurai is making the claim, some news sources have not retracted their stories, and some technologists appear to be in Ayyadurai's court, I think we should error on the side of caution. News sources include Time, whose original Techland story was never retracted and CBS. Technologists include retired MIT professor Deborah J. Nightingale. These and others are listed in Ayyadurai's Techdirt complaint. Are you persuaded? Am I? It doesn't matter. As editors, we should stay as neutral as possible here and trust our readers to come to their own conclusions. Barte (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear from the second paragraph of the lead that the claim is necessarily false; I don't see there is any risk of a reader being confused on the subject. It is also a controversial claim (and I see nothing wrong with documenting that); some false claims are controversial ("the moon landings were faked") and some are not ("the moon is made of green cheese"). As far as I can see this has absolutely nothing to do with that bozo Trump and I have no idea why you bring him up. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I bring up Trump because he has succeeded (in being elected) despite being caught in many lies (or some would say because he has the cojones to lie with impunity). His success may embolden many others to also lie for their own benefit. I believe that Mr. Ayyadurai may be one such person. His ridiculous claim to have invented email when it clearly predated him by at least a decade is like Christopher Columbus' claim to have "discovered" America in 1492 when there were already people living there (a claim that Wikipedia does not make, saying instead that he "initiated the European colonization of the New World", but perhaps the apologists for Columbus have all died off). Wikipedia should not be a support system for such lies. If Wikipedia was a work of fiction, it would be fine to have it filled with entertaining lies. But it purports to be factual, and should not treat obvious lies like facts, even if some minority of sources are taken in by those lies. Gnuish (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ayyadurai made this claim long before Trump's candidacy was even mooted, let alone taken seriously. In fact, exactly the same objection in regard to causality disqualifies both the claim and the idea that Ayyadura was somehow inspired to make it by Trump's candidacy. (Additionally, of course, Trump hardly came up with the idea of telling whoppers, even if he has demonstrated an exceptional talent for it).

As far as I can see the article does not treat Ayyadurai's claim like a fact. It explains very clearly, early on, why the claim is impossible. So, as with your screed above about his relationship with Drescher, I don't really see that your complaint makes much sense.

Columbus seems to be another one of these curious and dubious digressions you make. If I say I "discovered" a charming pub in the back streets, I don't expect anyone to object on the grounds that doubtless the locals knew it was there already. The issue with Columbus's legacy seems to me to be the horrifically murderous tyranny he oversaw, not what verb one uses for finding something which almost no-one in Europe had any idea was there. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to propose a third solution. Simply state that he makes the claim, that is verifiable fact. Then in the next sentence mention the reliable sources that say this is not true. This means every statement follows WP:V & WP:RS and avoids the words "false" conflicts with WP:TRUTH and "controversial" which is a word that has almost no meaning. Ashmoo (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks "controversial" implies "in doubt" or "in need of better proof" or "false but tenaciously believed" rather than "true"? -- Naaman Brown (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that. But I do think similar things about Ayyadurai's claim. I don't see his claim as having any controversy left to it, it's simply a tendentious redefining of "EMAIL" in order to scrape up some residual glory for him. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Per my post above, I still think "controversial" is better than "false. I'd also be fine removing the adjective entirely: "...is notable for his claim". Barte (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

How about "largely-discredited claim" instead of "controversial claim"? That particular wording is well-supported by the sourced info within the main body of the article. Shearonink (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we should leave it be (especially if "controversial" does imply something rather than "true", as you say). The current wording is not bad, the claim clearly did cause controversy, and the lead makes it pretty clear that the claim is impossible. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that "controversial claim" should be left as is. That implies by omission that there are some or many that agree with his claim, but the reverse can be verifiably referenced...that is, his claim has been discredited and held by the large majority of experts to be false. (Has anyone seen even one recent reliable source that states unequivocally that Ayyadura did indeed invent what we now call "e-mail"?) I agree with Ashmoo's post above and think the best way forward is to craft the first two sentences into something like the following:

V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai is an Indian-born American scientist and entrepreneur known for his claim to be the "inventor of email". Ayyadura's assertion is based on electronic mail software he wrote as a New Jersey high school student in the late 1970s, which he called EMAIL.

Shearonink (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be better to leave it alone but I could live with that, and I think most people are in favour of removing "controversial". I notice you have changed the second "claim" to "assertion". Pinkbeast (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph has three "claim"s. An "assertion" would provide some variety. Barte (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Fulbright

Regarding this, I checked the 2007-2008 spreadsheets here and Ayyadurai did not appear in any of them. So while he received some sort of grant, he's not a Fulbright Scholar. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right, he did not receive a "Fulbright Scholar" program grant - but he did receive a US "Fullbright Student grant"[3]

According to[4], paraphrased slightly: "Fulbright U.S. Student" is the preferred terminology, but: "Because the Fulbright Program is a scholarship program, any participant may refer to himself or herself as a "Fulbright scholar," even if that participant did not receive a Fulbright Scholar Program grant."

So, while it's a bit misleading to call him a Fullbright Scholar, the fault is really with Fulbright for allowing this confusion (imho); and I'm sure he's not alone in taking advantage of it. Snori (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Very helpful, Snori. Thanks. I think the existing sentence accurately portrays the situation? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the article text is fine currently, but it's nice to have this clarification recorded here in Talk in case of future confusion. Snori (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the Fulbright Scholars category. It seems inappropriate to me, as it suggests that he is most accurately referred to as a "Fulbright Scholar." I know it's stated less ambiguously in the body of the article, but that context is not provided when looking at the list of names on the category page. It also puts two pieces of information on this page that appear to conflict. The existing sentence is technically accurate, but it probably still leads to many people getting the wrong idea because they're not so familiar with Fulbright as to know that they have several types of scholarships, only one of which is referred to as a "Scholar Grant." The category only adds to that confusion and is, by the most charitable interpretation, misleading, so I removed it. Dscush (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Birthday

We've been here before, of course, but in the most recent round of edits Arbor to SJ has found a source for his birth year. (Doubtless the source trusted Ayyadurai, but that's not our department).

While I reverted an edit with the specific date on the grounds that Ayyadurai is not a reliable source, which he ain't, does he have any reason to lie about his date of birth? I am inclined given the source for the year to accept that December 2 is accurate, assuming there's not some India-specific reason to be skeptical about that (as if, say, Trump claimed to have been born on the 4th of July). Pinkbeast (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to include it. For most BLP's including this one, the primary source is all we've got, and I can't see any reason for him to misstate it. Barte (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Marathi, Tamil, or neither?

Should the first sentence give Ayyadurai's name in Marathi or Tamil: Marathi: "वेल्लियप्पा अय्यदुरई शिव" or "tamil:சிவ அய்யாதுறை"? Or, lacking a source, should it list either one? I see policy guidelines for romanization, but not for the other direction. Barte (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it as unsourced. Barte (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hm. I was going to say, stick both in and see who complains, but let's go with remove and see who complains. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:INDICSCRIPT. Neither. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Also WP:BLPRS. And see who complains. Barte (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't seen WP:INDICSCRIPT. Thank you. I was already happy with how it is now, but that makes it clearly best. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't seen it either. Thanks--I think it's definitive. Barte (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)