Jump to content

Talk:Shiva Ayyadurai

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jpgs (talk | contribs) at 07:19, 28 February 2012 (EMAIL as a word). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography: Science and Academia Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
WikiProject iconArticles for creation C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Note icon
This article was accepted on 2 October 2011 by reviewer Mabdul (talk · contribs).
WikiProject iconInternet Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cleanup

Removed cleanup tag, because the article appears to have sectionsTheHappiestCritic (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 15:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]


Notability?

Why is this guy notable? He wrote an early email program called EMAIL, but there were many email clients using databases for years on the ARPANET, other public networks, and corporate enterprise networks such as IBM VNET. The other aspect in the bio are not particularly notable either. Jpgs (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the profile of, at best, a run-of-the-mill visiting lecturer and self-promoter. There is a whole paragraph on a paper he once presented on Biomimetics to an audience of people in the Hospitality Industry. If you've been to grad school, you'll know why it's not wikipedia-worthy to mention a paper you once presented, let alone a paper in a non-peer-reviewed conference, to a group of people outside your domain of expertise. Could someone please explain why this whole page is not just a vanity project? [unsigned 67.255.1.24 20:04, February 19, 2012 (UTC)]

Maybe he also invented Astroturfing... Alan Davies (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: I see no notability here; neither does the text argue why he is notable. ... richi (hello) 19:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further coverage on Techdirt and Gizmodo. Various technical email lists (including the ex-BBN list on which I participate) have been abuzz with what hogwash this claim is. I strongly support deletion of this page. Jpgs (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might be notable for his audacity and ability to perpetrate a fraud. Getting Time Magazine and the Washington Post to cite you as the creator of email is at least notable for hutzpah and self-promotion capabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.134.212 (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that he is the subject of scrutiny around the world on his inventor of email claim, unfortunately, he became notable and we should remove the non-notable tag. Also the email section has been cleaned up with added info on critics, I think it is fair to keep this article. Z22 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bordering on fraud

This guy has apparently convinced a few reporters that he invented e-mail.

The claim is, on the face, false based on dates alone: e-mail was in widespread use well before the 1978 date claimed by Mr. Ayyadurai; see for example the E-mail Wikipedia page.

JMForbes (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Discussion

Keep this article. Only because I think it is important to keep a record of and clarify that this individual did NOT invent the concept of email or even the first implementation. It seems that there is some confusion which exists about this because he continues to suggest that he did invent it and some media outlets have picked it up. Keeping this article will provide a way to debunk these claims and ensure that media fact checkers can see what's going on. --BenFranske (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with that outcome, although it would reduce the article to a discussion (and debunking) of his email claims, and only those other statements that can be reliably sourced. As it stands, the articles claims far too much apart from email, and we cannot have adequate confidence in this additional material to let much of it stand. Although our standards for objectivity should apply equally to all BLP articles, in this case we have a pressing need to actually enforce these standards, which means checking out claims and sources for reliability. As discussed already, too much of what's here now is either trivial, or not supported by a source that we can really trust.
Or we could just take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been so much analysis around the world on his claim (some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]). He has become himself the main subject, we cannot just say that he is not notable.Z22 (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable due to exaggerated claims appearing in WP and Time. Scanlyze (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Should the discussion whether to delete or keep go here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shiva_Ayyadurai instead? Z22 (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sections to be included

Someone removed all other sections than the Email claims section. I think, instead of removing everything else, we just need to rewrite his bio a bit in the format that reads better than the one before the removal. I will try to put together the new Early life, and Career sections. Definitely, CSIR controversy should be included (perhaps in the Career section). Anything else we should have? Also we should keep note to ourselves that when creating an article about a person, not all parts of the article must be all from notable events. Not very often that notable people will have their Early life section with full of notable events. Also, regardless of how we personally feel about the person, we should keep it objective and try the best to put a full article with interesting details about the person once the notability has been established. In this case, the notability is there, we just need to clean up and make a nice article to read. Z22 (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings too. I've made an effort. Snori (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was much better than the original article. I added some wording changes and added info on additional claims. Z22 (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting much better, but why is the Traditional Medicine section there? Many academics talk at international conferences (I'm at one right now and do several a year), but this doesn't deserve a section. In fact, it is not notable unless he has been invited to a long list of prestigious conferences. Jpgs (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EMAIL as a word

May 1981 on USENET group fa.human-nets. [5], [6]

Do you find any reference to Teletext itself that there was something called EMAIL (again they really like the all capital names, don't they?). All we know right now, the document that Ayyadurai submitted to the Westinghouse's committee which had many references to the word EMAIL was before January 1981. Z22 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial or False Claim?

The article leads with He is best known for his controversial claims to have 'invented' email (or EMAIL). This claim is obviously false, as supported by the increasing list of references. Therefore shouldn't it say false claim? And his use of EMAIL (in all caps) is already discussed in the article, so I propose this text: He is best known for his false claim to have invented email (without the quotes around email). Jpgs (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]