Talk:Vandana Shiva/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Publications of Vandana Shiva

I was searching for the origin of text in an event advertisement for Vandana Shiva, which said that she was the author of "more than 500 papers in scientific and technical journals" This is an impressive number of publications, especially for someone who does not have an advanced degree in science. (See discussion above about her Ph.D. in Philosophy) Searches in the Pubmed database as well as the ISI Web of Knowledge turned up very few such publications. After doing a little searching, I found that as early as 2003, she claimed to have written "over 3000 " such publications. Since that was 8 years ago, that means that this is an increase of 25 per year, which is beyond the publication rate of almost any practicing scientist. This claim of 500 publications needs to be substantiated, because not only is it an extraordinary claim in and of itself, but searches of standard publication databases do not support this claim - not even close. Plus, the number keeps going up with no reliable citation. Here is her CV from 2003: Web Archive of 2003 Curriculum Vitae And here is the ISI Web of Knowledge Search. Note: Not every Shiva V. is necessarily Vandana. I will put that there is a citation needed for the 500 paper claim, and discussion should go here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.239.137 (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason I am here is because of the Codex Alimentarius article. Vandana Shiva's association with an organization that was of questioned notability was the primary basis for deciding to keep it as a reference in the Codex article. I updated the links to her two graduate degrees ----FeralOink (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

I'm all for Shiva's work and biodiversity, and I strongly dislike Monsanto-style corporations, but I recently saw a clearly pro-Shiva documentary, that was honest enough to show the people who criticize her (not so much her goals as her techniques and her flamboyant selfpresentation). Should we add a small paragraph on criticism against her?

I agree, but I won't be the one to do it. I will never touch another Shiva book as long as I live. I had to read Water Wars and Stolen Harvest for an economics class (that I should have dropped). Shiva comes off as a conspiracy theorist and a polemic. I'm better at biology than I am at economics and I can safely say after reading Stolen Harvest that, when she writes about genetic engineering and genetically modified foods, she has no idea what she is talking about. Fishyfred 06:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay... take a deep breath. I've calmed down and scanned the article, and the External links section contains several critical links. I think the thing to do is separate those into "Pro-Shiva" and "Anti-Shiva" links.Fishyfred 01:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you really need to relax. I recently saw a documentary on Channel 4 which clearly did not want to take a stand on Genetic engineering. They had a "babe" as the spokeswoman for GE and a rustic boring man against GE. It was pretty obvious what was the hidden agenda. There was a debate between the two(which seemed so artificially civil). The lady was trying to convince us that GE is natural by giving the example of the backyard of the house in which the program was being shot. She goes on to tell us "when our backyard and this landscape is not natural then why are we afraid of GE".
Sounds very convincing(to you maybe) but many don't see that she is comparing the wrong things. She is not supposed to compare a backyard in a city which is landscaped with artificial plants but rather the Amazon rain forest, the Western ghats and Himalayas in India and many other natural vegetations around th world.
GE talks about making tomatoes with more protein and but I have yet to see something beneficial. They are lying on our faces and we are not seeing it. They are holding the carrot in front of us and then feeding us crap. They tell us that GE is capable of ending world hunger or producing fruits and vegetable with more nutrition but all we see is "round-up" resistant soy, seedless fruits. They are saving us from the misery of spitting the seed out when we are eating fruit.
It definitely is a conspiracy. Just because the Holocaust denier and 9/11 truthers out there are lunatics doesn't mean that a conspiracy does not exist at all. There is a conspiracy in producing seedless fruits. It pretty pretty pretty obvious. The farmer has to come back to buy the seeds. He can never be self sufficient. The same way the producer of GE salmon are producing sterile salmon. They are trying to project it as a solutions to these GE salmon escaping farms and mingling with the wild salmon. But the truth which is again obvious is that they would not want the salmon to reproduce or else they would have to close down.
I think Fishyfred is having a biased and ignorant POV on the is whole matter and on Vandana Shiva. So please refrain from editing this section and someone keep a watch. This page could be vandalized(no pun intended) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.24.98 (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dissent is not the same thing as bias. Unsigned user, your comments seem more biased than Fishyfred's. If you're so concerned about protecting Vandana Shiva's reputation from the tarnish of well-founded criticism, then you can go ahead and keep a watch on this page. You may also want to have another look at the standard definition of the word 'conspiracy' before you continue to throw it around so freely. 140.160.11.156 (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

i expanded a little on the criticism of shiva - adding some of the statements made in the press release by the criticizing organization (which seems to be made up by one man?), to add a little context to the award, so it doesn't seem so bogus and absurd. in my opinion, it's still ridiculous and bogus, but at least there's a little more info there instead of it sounding like it was the world summit itself that gave her a "bullshit award".. Andreach (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


I have a criticism of Shiva which is easily verifiable- take a look at her Navdanya website under the "course fees" section. http://www.navdanya.org/bija/course-fees.htm. She charges 14,000 rupees to Indian citizens for a two week course! This (at the time of writing) is greater than US$400 and is more than the average annual salary for all but middle-class or wealthy Indians. Last year my fiance (a former Buddhist monk and acquaintance of Venerable Samdhong Rinpoche) and I were interested in attending her courses on Gandhi and Globalization, but could not afford such outrageous fees (our monthly rent at the time was only $30!). I wrote to her organization asking if there was some way that the fees could be reduced or ameliorated, and was told that the fees were non-negotiable. If she were really interested in "provid[ing] direction and support to environmental activism," (as is stated on her website) I believe she would have been more compassionate and willing to compromise. I agree wholeheartedly with many of Shiva's sentiments, and support her role in environmental activism. But after this experience, I no longer respect her or her organization. 75.105.128.36 (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Amanda S. Hubbard (December 31, 2008)

Thought I would plop this here, she spoke during the civil disobedience act held against the capitol hill coal power plant. I would put this in the article but I have no idea how. http://www.flickr.com/photos/capitolclimateaction/3324073241/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.73.136 (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

About criticism, not sure what happened to the article but look, now most of it is presenting criticism of her views even before (and omitting!) to explain her reasons. Even out of the criticism section! so, I'm not sure how we should see this, but this article denigrates her without presenting anymore her toughts. That's a pity, considering the honesty of some supporter editors in presenting criticism. Did someone else took over with other intentions? jaromil (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Biography of Vandana Shiva

The reference linking directly to the university's records does not substantiate the subject of her degree. Until more than heresy is available, please only include what is verifiable. Scamper87 (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I added that her PHD was in Philosophy and someone deleted the "Philosophy" part so I re-added it. Her PHD is still in Philosophy. EricMcLeod (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)EM

I would like to see a biography of her. Especially of her academic backround. - Cbddoughboy

-- Me too, I just removed the part claiming she was a physicist since there doesnt seem to be any evidence of her either having a physics related degree, or doing any research involving physics - GordonRoss 09:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

She's actually received a PhD in Quantum Physics from the University of Western Ontario. Gobonobo 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect, V. Shiva has her PhD in Philosophy, awarded by the Philosophy Department. It was on the subject of the philosophy of science as relates to quantum physics, not about physics nor is this a science credential. Her "science" background has been extensively misrepresented (see: Progressive Contrian 2013, Science 2.0, and Forbes 2014). Various editors keep changing this well established correction to Philosophy back to Physics. CinagroErunam (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am interested if she has ever been married, or has any children. Would it be an improvement to have a brief personal life section, similar to what is available for Jane Goodall? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.2.59 (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

V.Shiva was married and has at least one child, Karikey Shiva, who attended Lewis and Clark University in Oregon (Class of 2003)Louis & Clark Class News and who is frequently credited in Shiva materials for his photography of her work and travels Karikey Shiva website. CinagroErunam (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Shiva has a PhD in Philosophy, not in Physics. She worked in the philosophy of physics, which is a subject distinct from physics, and her dissertation was submitted and accepted by the Philosophy Department (Humanities) at the University of Western Ontario. She is not a physicist, but rather a philosopher. This is all a matter of public record. Look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.163.251 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Shiva's PhD is in the philosophy, though her thesis topic is on the philosophy of physics. Her publications from that time are in philosophy journals. She does have training and knowledge of physics, but main focus in here education was the philosophy of science. I have tried to maintain that balance in the changes that I just made to the article. Crumley (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

→ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/541204/Vandana-Shiva —--Macropneuma 01:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

copyright vio?

a lot of the article reads like this undated article. Can someone find out which came first? --Wuerzele (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article came first. The first cache of the non-Wikipedia page is in September 2014, but the edit history for this page shows steady growth from about 2005 onwards. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

How should (living) people be referred to in a WP biography?

Just a minor issue, but I have noticed that throughout the article V. Shiva is referred to both as 'Shiva' and 'Dr. Shiva'; the second strikes me as unnecessarily formal, and maybe more suited to, say, a conference presentation bio, than an encyclopedia entry, and other PhD biographies in WP don't refer to their subjects as 'Dr' or anything else. May I remove all the Drs from the article? darwinbot 11:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes titles are commonly omitted when refering to living or dead people in WP article, that is we normally write Hawking rather than professor Hawkings and Obama rather than president Obama.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vandana Shiva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please remove POV material from this article

I have been researching Vandana Shiva and find the Wikipedia page to be both inaccurate and filled with subjective information.

1)The introductory paragraph fails to mention Dr. Shiva's MSc Degree in Physics (listed in Early Life and Education), but emphasises her PhD as a Philosophy degree. This academic representation right at the outset of the page frames her life and work in the context of philosophy, not science, which is misleading, since Dr. Shiva is a scientist.

Having a degree in science is a necessary precondition to being called a scientist, but another requirement for this title is ongoing supervised practice as a scientist, which she has not done for over 40 years, since receiving her MSc in the early 70's.70.74.172.74 (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)kali99
That is factually inaccurate, as her PhD is in theoretical physics. And as far as I'm aware, Richard Dawkins hasn't done any such "ongoing supervised practice" as a scientist for a similarly long time, yet his ability to be referred to as a scientist is not being attacked in a similar manner. This appears indeed to be another POV attack on the subject of the biographical material.

2)In Early Life and Education, the article states that Dr. Shiva received her PhD in Philosophy. In reality, Dr. Shiva's received her PhD as a part of an interdisciplinary programme entitled Colloquium on Quantum Physics housed in the University of Western Ontario's Philosophy Department. Her PhD supervisor was quantum physicist Jeffrey Bub, and the title of her thesis was 'Hidden Variables and Non-Locality in Quantum Theory'.

3)The bulk of the problems fall under the heading 'For Biodiversity'. Apart from the first paragraph that highlights Dr. Shiva's own work on biodiversity, this section has been used as a space for rebutting and undermining Dr. Shiva's arguments, positions and words, and in particular, her work against seed and food agribusiness Monsanto. These include the following:

- The sentence on the arson at Michigan State University is entirely irrelevant to Dr. Shiva's work on biodiversity. This should be removed since it does not add to her work on biodiversity.

- Dr. Shiva's criticism of Mark Lynas, a pro-Monsanto activist and writer, and a proponent of GM crops is random. This again is irrelevant to Dr. Shiva's own work and should be removed.

- The sub-section 'Golden Rice' refutes Dr. Shiva's arguments on the harms of Golden Rice without listing these arguments, so this is lopsided. [The reader won't understand what is her critique of Golden Rice.] If this section remains, it must be more balanced and provide Dr.Shiva's own ideas. However, the larger point is that Golden Rice is just one of many biofortified foods and plants that Dr. Shiva has spoken against, so selecting it for the article seems random.

- Again, the section 'GM, India and Suicides' gives little space to Dr. Shiva's own work around Bt Cotton (a Monsanto product) and farmers suicides in India. Rather, it is used as a space to discredit Dr. Shiva and support proponents of Bt Cotton. Either this material should be removed or the sections should be balanced.

"Balance" is only necessary when the dispute is rhetorical (ie: opinion-based). In cases of fact, balance is not required: truth is. In the case of farmer suicides, reliable research has determined that other factors were the most likely reasons for farmer suicides, including local banking and lending practices. Dr. Shiva claimed farmer suicides were the direct result of Bt Cotton, and this was disproved. As a further note, the article does not over emphasize her loss of that argument, and simply presents the facts.70.74.172.74 (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)kali99
There is an ongoing debate, and you are simply taking one side of that debate and using it to attack the subject. This is classic problematic POV material.

Dr. Shiva is well known for her work on biodiversity, including organic farming, supporting farmers' movements worldwide, and critiquing the corporate control of food (including GM crops). The section on biodiversity should therefore foreground these arguments in a balanced manner that gives space to Dr. Shiva's own work, not simply arguments against her. Scamper87 (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll not comment on most of this, but just on the PhD front: the lead mentioning her highest academic qualification is fairly natural. There's nothing disreputable or shameful about having a PhD in philosophy. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be unaware that many science PhD are regularly referred to as "Doctor of Philosophy." You can look at her thesis here and it is CLEARLY a physics paper, and has been pointed out to you she earned it under a Physics professor: https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:15003750
If she has a PhD "in philosophy" then why does the lead say "She was trained as a philosopher and received her Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in physics"? Brec (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is when mentioning the PhD in philosophy without any context, the natural assumption for reader (at least without looking at the details of the thesis) a primary association with humanities rather the sciences. There is indeed no shame that, however in her case it is simple wrong, so possibly shame for WP for providing a potentially misleading description.
Why is that wrong? Because when looking at all her degrees (including the 2 originally missing physics degrees from Panjab university) and related details (subjects, department, thesis content and advisors), she clearly started out or was educated as (nuclear) physicist/scientist, who then moved towards theoretical physics and the philosphy of science.
Why does all of that matter aside from the minor issue of the missing detail of her first degrees? Because one popular (and somewhat questionable) attack of (some of) her critics is to doubt her scientific credentials or to insinuate a lack thereof (crudely speaking along the line "she is just philosopher who started to talking about scientific subjects without having any formal training in the sciences"). WP needs to be careful not to echo such stuff.
Completely independet of that, is the question whether some of her opinions, convictions, statements on a particular topic may lack scintific justification. Such a criticism may be fair, but let's keep in mind almost every scientist says unscientific stuff at times.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vandana Shiva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

This article was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandana Shiva. The decision was speedy keep.

The article shouldn't be deleted and she is one of the most known people in the field. Many may disagree with her view, but notability guidelines fit her (42.106.30.58 (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC))

GMO rice section

This is Shiva's bio and not an article to discuss GMOs at great length. For example, one example of many, Sanders is against NAFTA but we don't get into the pros and cons of his position. Gandydancer (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

NAFTA doesn't particularly fall into WP:PSCI issues. Shiva on the other hand, is well known as a WP:FRINGEBLP on the subject of GMOs. In a similar vein, if a politician said something that conflicted with mainstream science such as climate change being fake or GMOs being unsafe, WP:GEVAL would apply and the idea of that person would need to be put in proper context if it cannot be reasonably omitted from an article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, those statements are clearly a polemic against the biographical subject by an author with bias against her. No serious encyclopedia would contain such material, especially not word in that manner. It doesn't belong there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankster (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Kingofaces43, has wikipedia decided that Shiva is fringe or is that just something that you have decided? Gandydancer (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Neither. Shiva is described by sources as a luddite peddling pseudoscientific ideas. Wikipedia doesn't decide that, and it's rather silly to ask that I decided that when talk pages are supposed to be about content discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I rarely participate on talk pages or get involved in controversial topics, but it is normal to use the talk page to derisively insult the subject of a biographical entry via name-calling, and simultaneously post threatening messages to the home page of any users who suggest that the POV of the page as it stands is clearly off? Dankster (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I also now note, Kingofaces43, that your page suggests that you work in the very field which Shiva critiques. Would it be too much to assume that in your career you have received funding from groups that profit off of GMOs, the very groups that Dr. Shiva has criticized? And if so, wouldn't it be accurate to say that you indeed do have a COI on this topic? Your language does sound like someone who might have a COI here.Dankster (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Nope, please follow WP:TPNO and the discretionary sanctions you were already notified of. This is not a WP:FORUM. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Issues tags can be removed now?

I've cleaned up one small section, and believe that combined with a large number of other edits in recent days, this takes care of the problematic issues that had been tagged earlier. The article is now generally well-cited and covers both Shiva's positions as well as appropriate criticism fairly. Anyone who would object to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankster (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Fringe question

I have been reminded that this editor has a Wikipedia:FRINGEBLP label that I have violated. I was not aware that she is considered fringe. Where can I find that decision? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

As you're well aware from our previous discussions in GMOs, anti-GMO arguments are generally WP:FRINGE, as is advocacy for that. You only have to read the article for examples of that. Anti-GMO activists is even one of the categories this page is housed under. Whether it's the sections on golden rice, farmer suicides, etc. it's pretty common sense that someone putting out that many myths is going fall under FRINGEBLP. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Scientist?

I would question if Dr. Shiva deserves to be described as a scientist - professionally she doesn't hold or work in a science or research field (that I can see) and her education in science stops at MSc. which is good but is it good enough? She doesn't seem to have followed anything physics related for a good number of years. She's critical of Kavin Senapathy (https://web.archive.org/web/20151104045154/http://vandanashiva.com/?p=321) for not being a scientist (and yet defending what is good science) and cites people who are known to be "bad" or potentially disgraced scientists like Seralini.81.97.100.208 (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article is she mentioned as a scientist - so why is she listed as a scientist in the categories? Sgerbic (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

ENGVAR?

Coming here from recent changes, I saw this article has an Indian English banner but is written in American English, with recent reverts citing ENGVAR as an explanation. Can anyone make any sense of this? Vanamonde (Talk) 05:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@KoA and GhostInTheMachine: I'm rather surprised to see you both continuing the edit-war after I initiated this discussion. Please engage here. Personally, I'm not seeing a reason to ignore MOS:TIES here. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this talk conversation (looks like sigmabot masked it on the watchlist), but please avoid making accusations towards me on an article talk page for trying to deal with editors edit warring and clearly not using the talk page to gain consensus for their changes. The expectation is that editors who want the change need to get consensus here if they feel strongly and felt the edit summaries were not clear.
Either way, this article has consistently been using American English since 2002, so that was a pretty standard enforcement of MOS:RETAIN. If this article were about a specific location or terminology that was impacted by language, then MOS:TIES might have more weight here. That said, nothing really comes across as needing Indian English for clarity, and Shiva has further reaching fringe characteristics than just India with anti-GMO activism. KoA (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Saying other editors were edit-warring is hardly a tenable position, especially given that you're the only one who has made two reverts here. You ought to have raised the issue here before the second instance, or at the very least, adjusted the ENGVAR banner. Regardless: MOS:TIES does not refer solely to situations where a certain variety is necessary for clarity; it has to do with the variety of English most readers would expect, plain and simple. As such this is a messy situation, and a discussion ought to occur, even while we preserve the status quo. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, please follow WP:FOC policy as that kind of sniping is not appropriate, especially on an article talk page.
If there's a strong WP:PAG-based reason for why it should be changed, I'm all ears. However, I haven't seen anything that would necessitate the change come up on this talk page, which is where the actual burden lies for those wanting to make the change instead of reinserting it. MOS:RETAIN is very clear When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another. That is what has been guiding my actions at least so far.
While Shiva does have plenty of activism in India, the global effects of her pseudoscience are tackled by other sources, namely American, but also some European, etc. As you allude to, it's pretty diverse in trying to declare one variety rules the roost here, so that's generally the type of case where we stick to whatever was used first. I could see an argument for national ties if much of the content referred to a lot of proper nouns, geography, etc. that made Indian English more pertinent to the article, but nothing particularly sticks out in that regard in the last diff either. KoA (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Not clear that my one edit constitutes an edit-war. The article has a {{Use Indian English}} template, but much of the text uses American English. There are two ways to fix this
    1 — change the {{Use Indian English}} template to a {{Use American English}} template
    2 — Change the text to be Indian English.
    The subject of the article was born in India and still has Indian nationality so MOS:TIES leads to option 2.
    I speak only British English, so I will leave others to resolve this — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 18:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Since it was causing confusion, I at least went ahead and removed the template since that conflicted with actual usage in the article. KoA (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Ecofeminism

The ecofeminism section reads like an advertisement for the concept rather than a dispassionate explanation.

Gandalf 1892 (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking it over, most of it lacks independent sourcing, and the only independent sources are criticism. I don't have time right now to take a stab at it, but it could be significantly reduced beyond that little bit I just removed. KoA (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Her ecofeminism plunged a whole country into a deep economic crisis. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

criticism? not more?

is there really not more substantial criticism of the solution for the world's nutritional and climatic 'problems' (not to say: destasters) she suggests than mentioned in the passage on "criticism"?? is there no conventional scientific author saying for instance that one can not feed the future world population with organic farming alone (not to talk of romantic "permaculture")?? or a similar fundamental criticism? if not, she must be basically right... HilmarHansWerner (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@HilmarHansWerner: Now there is. She seems to get the most hated person in a certain country... For her own safety, she should never set foot again in Sri Lanka. Nicolae Ceaușescu thought the working class loves him, and when he got close to them without heavy guards, they were getting ready to lynch him. I do not advocate for lynching, but it is not hard to guess why it is not prudent for her to face angry mobs. Millions of angry people are seeking a scapegoat. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
She is a crackpot. I will try expanding the criticism section. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: Agree. If she gets into hot water, she should plead insanity. Like Alex Jones pleaded that he was psychotic. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vandana_Shiva/Archive_1&oldid=1109472617"