Talk:Shiva Ayyadurai

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


 * Any specific part you wish to highlight?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence "After the election, he promoted claims of election fraud that were shown to be false by fact checkers." lacks a source. 73.227.29.77 (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sourcing can be found in the body of the article. I repeated one of those cites in the lead. MrOllie (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The (currently broken) linked Reuters article refers to a government official's statement (representing the commonwealth of MA) and the opinion of two legal scholars.
 * Fact checking implies an investigation to uncover objective facts (ideally conducted by third parties), not what amounts to the opinions of three people, one of whom was running PR for an entity that would lose face (or worse) if wrongdoing or negligence were found.
 * This is gross misrepresentation.
 * Nothing was "shown to be false". The article was an editorial with (two) legal opinions and PR that called itself "fact checking". The author didn't even bother to contact the person making the allegations, so it isn't even useful as a point-counterpoint article. Regardless, calling the (poor) display of one perspective of a contentious matter "fact checking" makes a mockery of real fact checking. 98.35.116.223 (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, we follow the reliable sources. That you personally disagree with the source is immaterial here. MrOllie (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah, the mocking began before he took up politics. —Tamfang (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based off of reliable sources, sometimes they are biased in a particular direction. If you have any reliable sources which lean in his favour then please provide them as I've been totally unable to find any.
 * It looks to me like Wikipedia is not biased against Dr Shiva, reality is. 2.30.180.212 (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How interesting that Wikipedia has not updated its stance on Dr Shiva’s “allegations” regarding his entire view on Covid 19! Dr Fauci has been found involved with the origins of Covid 19 cover up and listening to Dr Shiva’s talk in April 2020, he was right on the money with how the pandemic would be handled. I owe my life and members of my family’s health to this man’s advice, yet your description of him still smears Dr Shiva as a conspiracy theorist.
 * Wikipedia seems no longer to be the reliable source of info that it was just a few years ago. What a shame 2601:14B:4980:3CD7:484E:8747:DC3E:9B2F (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay so Wikipedia is being biased, but you want an entire article to be rewritten based on your personal opinion of the man? If you have sources and want something changed, say what you want changed or change it. Smurr7 (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)