Talk:Science of Identity Foundation

Recent edits (BI + Independent)

• I am yet to know of any policy that guides us on determining an otherwise-reliable source as an "attack piece on Gabbard", and characterize it as an unreliable source.
• In a similar vein, I am yet to know of any policy that allows us to declare an otherwise-no-consensus-on-reliability source as unreliable, because "it draws claims from non-RS sources".

TrangaBellam (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

About the Founder of SIF and the History

A look at the cited website of SIF (https://scienceofidentity.org/about) shows clearly that Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa is the founder of Science of Identity.

Also the info contained at the "History" section is confusing. At this point, it's important to go by the clear "About Info" stated on the SIF website. I am therefore effecting a change both on the lead and the history section to clear the confusions. Please other editors should take note.Padibso (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You should take note that Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources, and not by what an organization says about itself. The Science of Identity website is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, so don't go by it. Bishonen | tålk 09:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC).

Thank you bro for restoring this. I wondered why the other editor removed it. I only discovered that the number 1 source cited claiming that Chris Burtler is the founder of SIF did not mention him. I read about the right founder from the SIF website https://scienceofidentity.org/ that "Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa" is the founder. I guess in such situations where there are no verifiable 3rd party reference, the parent website may suffice. I may be wrong. In any case, it appears there are so many controversies about the SIF. They should be able to know what can be done to settle their issues. Cheers. Padibso (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You may be wrong that the parent website may suffice? You definitely are wrong. Here, there are actually reliable sources, but in a case where there aren't, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia accepts the parent website as a source. It means that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about that organization. I linked the guideline WP:Reliable sources for you above. Did you take a look at it? Bishonen | tålk 11:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC).

Old news

• https://web.archive.org/web/20010221125247/https://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/2000/Dec/17/1217localnews15.html

TrangaBellam (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

NPOVN

To avoid any bias seeping in, I have made a post at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Science of Identity Foundation. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Same old label concerns

Surely those labels should be attributed to "critics" or "writers at the Independent, BI...", etc? And "noted for being homophobic" right at the lead? I don't think that's supportable with a few relatively recent critical pieces attacking the organisation in the context of Tulsi's connection to it. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Really? I have summarized the current state of sourcing in the article (sorted chronologically) —

• Butler's dogma extends to social issues as well. He condemns the pleasure-driven activities of the "hedonist," such as abortion ("a great sin and a great wrong"), homosexuality ("perverted," "against the laws of nature and God," and caused by "activities in a past life") and sex other than for the sole purpose of procreation within marriage ("illicit") ...

  Okay, so maybe [Rick] Reed is a devotee of Butler's. Maybe he does chant Hare Krishna and associate with the Gabbards and others of similar faith. So what? All of these associations could conceivably have nothing to do with Reed's Senate candidacy—if it weren't for the extremely conservative social agenda pushed by Butler and his people, an agenda that is reflected in Reed's politics ...

  Butler preaches that

  society itself is making it so that more and more people are becoming homosexuals. The media is especially guilty of encouraging people who were not homosexuals before to become homosexuals by propagating the idea that it is a normal and acceptable occurrence.

  This winter, Reed proposed legislation that would have denied state funds to any organization or activity that would "tend to promote or glorify homosexuality."
  — Rick Reed's Inner Self, Derek Ferrar, Honolulu Weekly, 12 August 1992, Vol. II (33)

• A Survivor's Story: Rama Das Ranson is his real name ... He said the group's homophobic views were a deciding factor in making him want to leave.
  — Tulsi Gabbard’s ties to secretive cult may explain her perplexing political journey, Bevan Hurley, Stuff.co, 16 May 2015

• In the nineteen-eighties, Butler excoriated same-sex desire; he wrote, for instance, that bisexuality was "sense gratification" run amok, and warned that the logical conclusion of such hedonistic conduct was pedophilia and bestiality. He declared, with striking certainty, that "an increasing number of women in the United States keep dogs for sexual reasons." Reed, Mike Gabbard, and other political candidates associated with him tended to echo these pronouncements.

  Nowadays, Tulsi Gabbard takes a different view, and Butler seems to have deemphasized [note that there is no shift of views; read with the next line] the issue: there is no mention of homosexuality on the foundation’s Web site, or in his recent teachings. Gabbard says that she and Butler have discussed same-sex marriage—"perhaps, a while ago." She says, "It’s something that we don’t agree on."
  — What Does Tulsi Gabbard Believe?, Kelefa Sanneh, The New Yorker, 30 October 2017

• Butler taught vegetarianism, sexual conservatism, mind-body dualism, and disinterest in the material world. He taught a virulent homophobia, skepticism of science, and the dangers of public schools ... Everyone I spoke to who was raised in the group described, as children, hearing Butler call men "faggots" and women "cunts."
  — Tulsi Gabbard Had a Very Strange Childhood, Kerry Howley, New York Magazine, 11 June 2019

• In 1999, as Mike began filming a television show called The Gay Deception, Honolulu Weekly accused him of doing "more to limit gay rights—and impugn homosexuals—than any single Hawai'i citizen." The newspaper attributed Mike's position to Butler, whose website then claimed that people are pushed into "active" homosexuality "if the environment and social situation promotes homosexuality."
  — All in the Family The American Sangh’s affair with Tulsi Gabbard, Pieter Friedrich, The Caravan, 01 August 2019

• Oklahoma woman Robin Marshall, 40, who spent six months at a SIF retreat in Hawaii in the early 2000s, told The Independent recruits were taught to be "highly homophobic". "They told us: 'We don't associate with f**s'," using a homophobic slur ... In 2019, the Iowa Informer published an investigation by freelance journalist Christine Gralow that reviewed Butler's decades of teachings, including the many homophobic references he has made over the years.
  — Tulsi Gabbard’s ties to secretive cult may explain her perplexing political journey, Bevan Hurley, The Independent, 16 October 2022

• Butler taught that homosexuality is evil, using virulent homophobic rhetoric, and that public schools and the outside world were not to be trusted.
  — Tulsi Gabbard's ties to the Science of Identity Foundation, a controversial religious sect that some call an abusive 'cult, Yoonji Han, Business Insider, 19 October 2022

So —

• Sources associating SIF with virulent homophobia had existed before Tulsi Gabbard even entered into politics. It's a pity that the archives of Honolulu magazine are not easily accessible or else, I could have added more references.
• There is atleast one source that covers SIF's homophobic ideology in a completely different context in a different country, without even mentioning either of the Gabbards for a single time.
• Now, if we choose to attribute, we need to attribute about six usually-reliable sources; that seems comical to me and, more importantly, violates WP:FALSEBALANCE.

• That said, if you find sources profiling SIF but not mentioning their homophobic preachings or, even better, rejecting such a characterization, please bring them to my attention. Do note though that many journalists allege the organization to maintain a shadowy presence and non-trivial coverage of SIF is very rare; further, SIF often threatens local media with defamation suits and journalists are usually disinclined to cover their activities.

• I am not yet aware of any policy that asks us to be skeptical about "critical pieces attacking the organisation in the context of Tulsi's connection".

Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It could be reworded to avoid the value-laden terms: so something like "his sermons contained rhetoric against homosexuality, Islam..." or "his teachings included the idea that homosexuality is evil..." or whatever factual descriptions of the teachings themselves the sources contain. The current use of labels in wikivoice certainly doesn't seem in line with the guidelines. The lead, aside from having the same label issue, also fails to proportionally summarise the body, a seemingly random factoid from the body is thrown directly after the introductory sentence. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: in case you missed the above. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

So, we can state — in Wikivoice — that "Butler's teaching included the idea that homosexuality is evil" but not that "Butler's preachings were homophobic". That seems silly to me but I will make the changes; will incorporate some of his quotes, too. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, @TryKid be bold and make the changes you wish to see. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead

This sentence “Its teachings on homosexuality and Islam have been criticised in the media.” is awkward. It sounds like the teachings are about the relationship between homosexuality and Islam or something. I think maybe instead say “Its teachings have been criticised as homophobic/Islamophobic/discriminatory”, or instead note that it’s been criticised as a cult, whatever has better sourcing. I also think there should probably be mention of Vaishnavism in the lead. 24.146.49.39 (talk) 24.146.49.39 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you — except on the Vaishnavism aspect; neither I nor sources see how Butler's teachings share much with Gaudiya Vaishnav theology — but see the above discussion. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I made it more specific. --Hipal (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Avoid libelous claims on Gabbard per WP:BLP

There is no recent Reliable reference where Tulsi Gabbard has mentioned being a current adherant of SIF. She was briefly associated with SIF during childhood, when she was a minor. She has said in NY Times that Chris Butler was like a guide during her high-school years, and she considered him like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor. However, she is no longer associated with SIF.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-race.html

In multiple WP:RS reliable refernces, Gabbard has mentioned Bhagavad Gita as her spritual guide. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-race.html

Gabbard identifies as a Vaishnava Hindu

In multiple WP:RS reliable references, Gabbard has mentioned that she follows Vaishnava tradition of the Hindu faith.

• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/us-commemorates-the-inaugural-international-yoga-day/articleshow/47736962.cms

• https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/hindu-lawmaker-introduces-resolution-in-us-congress-to-celebrate-international-yoga-day-1715866
• http://www.indoamerican-news.com/?p=12109
• https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/tulsi-gabbard-hawaii-democrat-hindu-in-congress_n_2062358.htm

Still Calling her a current adherant of SIF may be a serious violation of WP:BLP and several other policies on Minor & childhood claims, and may be reported for Administrative action, as appropriate. Thanks . RogerYg (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to address the issue [1], while retaining the reliably sourced information that's appears to be the primary reason SIF has received press coverage, perhaps even notability.

I'm not sure how the description of Gabbard should be updated. --Hipal (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Certainly not by wrongly claiming that Gabbard is an adherent of SIF, which none of the sources can confirm. Sources only mention that she was associated with SIF during her childhood and school years. At the minimum, the section should be renmaed to Coverage in Media. RogerYg (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Renamed section and included clarification by Tulsi Gabbard, and her identifying as Hindu with WP:RS references with quotes RogerYg (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Certainly not by wrongly claiming But we're not doing that, nor I think even suggesting it.

I've renamed the section to properly identify what it is about, given the expansion about Gabbard.

I don't see how the expansion is DUE, but I agree on the added emphasis that this is about Gabbard and her upbringing, not "adherents" in general, nor "coverage in media" in general. --Hipal (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I take it that this is the section referred to by Hipal in his recent edit summary. Hence I will place my comment here.

The article has a section that includes Tulsi Gabbard. However, the section is not merely about her but about the SIF's association with several members of the Gabbard family, including her father and her mother. As pointed out above in the discussion and in the section as well, TG is no longer associated with SIF. Hence, it makes no sense to name this section entire after her. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I tackled some more issues:

I removed the ultimate weasel word "claim", which can only serve to cast her statement into doubt, and replaced it by the utterly neutral "state".

The occurence of said weasel word is even more absurd given that it was followed by a sentence beginning "the fact that", introducing a couple of facts that may or may not be true but ending in a insunuation of dishonesty ("Gabbard has been less than forthcoming about her continued close ties to Butler")

None of these statements support this. Her school attendence back then certainly doesn't say anything about her "continued close ties", while the other items, as vaguely as they were worded ("her campaign FEC records and choice of political employees") cannot support anything without further details. Hence, they only serve to smear her.

In any case, all three statements are without source. The sentence was followed by two references - the first to the Washington Post, the second to www.indianweekender.co.nz - but neither contained anything about a boarding school, FEC records or "choice of employees", let alone the conclusion from these. Given, that the statement about the boarding school is the most solid of the three, I retained it, albeit with the call for citation. The other two, more vague and hence more slanderous statements, I removed entirely.

Str1977 ^(talk) 12:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

We'll need an RfC. We can't meet POV if the weight of the majority of the references are being ignored, while other perspectives are being highlighted to the point of being UNDUE.

I doubt if we'd have this article if not for Tulsi Gabbard's relationship to SIF. Most of the references are about her, yet she's not mentioned in the lede, and editors dispute that the section about her should be presented as so. --Hipal (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

On this issue, I disagree with -Hipal (talk) and mostly agree with Str1977 ^(talk)

Mike Gabbard is a public figure in his own standing, and Chris Butler had much coverage even before 2020, so SIF article can very much stand independant of Tulsi Gabbard. There is no need to make this article solely as a hit piece to malign Tulsi Gabbard.

This is Wikipedia not a Tabloid please. We need to maintain WP:BLP and not indulge in cheap claims using smear articles in the press. Wiki is Not News WP:NOTNEWS. Weight should not be based on smear articles and sensational claims from anonymous sources being pushed by Unreliable sources such as Newsweek. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Please do not misuse RfC to push a particular POV. Sadly RfC is often misused by well connected Wiki editors, who muster their friends to sway votes. I am not casting aspersion and I hope you will not do that. Instead, lets have a serious discussion based on references and WP:BLP policies with editors who have been working on this article. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Currently there are 14 references, and 37 citations. If I'm counting correctly, 8 of the 37 citations don't mention Tulsi. So, no, we would not have this article, nor anything like it, if not for the coverage on her. --Hipal (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a really irrelevant point to make. If this section is not about Tulsi Gabbard alone - and even then the section could only legitimately be called "Association with TG" - then the title has to reflect that. Why we have this section is irrelevant. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

POV is not irrelevant. We have an overwhelming weight of sources. Ignoring that would be a POV violation. --Hipal (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Str1977 ^(talk) said POV is irrelevant, rather was pointing to some flaws in your argument about this article being mainly about Tulsi.

I mostly agree with Str1977 ^(talk) and I feel you are deleting references that you do not like, even from WP:RS sources from The Washington Post and The New York Times, which might be almost a POV violation.

Again WP:NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia applicable on all editors. Thanks.RogerYg (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

New religious movement

@The Anome: can you specify which sources use the phrase "new religious movement" to describe SIF? TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't need to, it's one by definition: "a religious, ethical, or spiritual group or community" [which it is] "with practices of relatively modern origin" [which it has]. I think your preferred alternative was "spiritual group". If we're talking sources, there are a lot more sources for it being called a "cult" than a "spiritual group", but I still think we should not call it that in Wikivoice. Would you prefer that? — The Anome (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like synthesis. But fine. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of recently added content about Tulsi Gabbard

Hi -Hipal (talk), You deleted entire paragraph of well sourced content along with 7 references, without any reasonable explanation. "Undue" does not seem enough explaination especially in the article body for WP:RS content that does not violate WP:BLP.

Especially, when you did not delete the content that likely violates WP:BLP, such as a strong claim based on a ISCKON video, that is poorly sourced. Please have some balance in your editing. I would request you to self-revert and make smaller edits if justified. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard has since clarified that she considered Butler "essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor" during her school years, when she attended an SIF boarding school in the Philippines. She has stated that as a teenager, she moved away from Butler and SIF and "fully embraced Hinduism", and "follows the Vaishnava branch" that believes in Vishnu as the Supreme Lord. She often participates in Hindu festivals such as Diwali with Hindu-Americans RogerYg (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

References

It's a recent expansion that adds nothing but WP:UNDUE WP:SOAP for Tulsi Gabbard.

Especially, when you did not delete... Please retract and WP:FOC. --Hipal (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

In a decent editing environemnt, there needs to be more discussion on whether this content is WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAP per WP:TALK before deleting 7 references and associated content, while leaving content that likely violates WP:BLP. Thanks for your response. RogerYg (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You're mistaken.

In a decent editing... ...You would have retracted your comments as I requested and discussed your behavior on your talk page after I brought it up with you.

there needs... Only to create the required consensus for the material to be restored per BLP.

while leaving content If such content has been left in, it was left in by you, because I built upon your edits [2]. I've no idea what you're referring to. --Hipal (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard distanced herself from SIF and Butler

Here is another reasonably reliable source that says Tulsi distanced herself from SIF after her teenage years and no longer considers Butler as her guru.

"However, as Gabbard matured, she began to distance herself from SIF. By her teenage years, she embarked on a spiritual journey that led her to fully embrace Hinduism, specifically the Vaishnava tradition. She has publicly stated that she no longer regards Butler as her guru and identifies instead with mainstream Hindu teachings centered on devotion to Krishna, the Supreme Lord in Vaishnavism. Gabbard's participation in Hindu festivals, such as Diwali, and her consistent outreach to Hindu-American communities underscore her alignment with a broader, more inclusive Hindu identity."

RogerYg (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

References

See WP:TOI and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --Hipal (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that TOI should not be used as a single source. This refernce is complimentary, and the relevant part is also on WP:RS NY Times and Washington Post. Thanks for the response. RogerYg (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Then we won't be using it given the general consensus to not use such references and no need to use it as you point out. --Hipal (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking closer, I'm concerned that the narrative in this article and in Tulsi Gabbard ignores what the most prominent source in the article, the New Yorker ref, says about her relationship with SIF: "Gabbard’s life would be unrecognizable without Butler’s influence." "But there is, in fact, a teacher who has played a central role in her life—a teacher whom Gabbard referred to, in a 2015 video, as her “guru dev,” which means, roughly, “spiritual master.” His name is Chris Butler." --Hipal (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The narrative in the New Yorker is pushing a negative POV, and is not supported and even contradicted by articles from several other WP:RS relliable sources such The Washington Post and The New York Times. Therefore, a single narrative should not pushed per WP:NPOV, especially in articles where WP:BLP applies

For example, The Washington Post article and in several other articles, Gabbard mentions little or no association with SIF, having fully embraced Hinduism.

"Gabbard, whose first name refers to a tree sacred to Hindus, fully embraced Hinduism as a teenager, and follows the Vaishnava branch that believes in the Supreme Lord Vishnu"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/hawaii-democrat-poised-to-be-elected-first-hindu-in-congress/2012/11/01/65d66cac-245c-11e2-92f8-7f9c4daf276a_story.html

Also in cases of Religion or Religious beliefs, as per Wikipedia policies, we have to careful about

Guilt by association [edit source]

A variant of an ad hominem attack, also known as a "bad apples excuse" that makes the error of condemning an entire religion or belief due to the actions of one person, or a small group of people.

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a POV violation. --Hipal (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, don't understand your point. What POV violation here, when we are trying to decently discussing WP:NPOV?

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies

the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view RogerYg (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

1) Yes, you don't understand. Dismissing a reference because you personally do not like what it says (calling it a "negative POV") is a POV violation.

2) Using a reference written before the date of an event in an attempt to dismiss that event is a POV violation.

3) Using references with far less detail and investigation to dismiss a superior reference is a POV violation. --Hipal (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I was not dismissing any reference, neither have I deleted WP:RS references such as you did. I wanted to

achieve neutrality, which is a key principle of WP:NPOV.

"carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias."

Strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another.

As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view

As per WP:NPOV "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice."

Infact, you have explained how you have violated POV by dismissing and deleting WP:RS references, which you did not like, such as from The Washington Post and The New York Times.

It is important to follow WP:NPOV. RogerYg (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This is disruptive. Please retract. --Hipal (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I was only using argument that you provided, but I am okay to retract for now. RogerYg (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

To move forward, it might help if you asked questions about my three points, which I've now numbered.

To clarify, I pointed out content from the New Yorker article that indicates an important pov is being overlooked or worse.

I also have claimed that the New Yorker piece may be the best reference we currently have about SIF and Gabbard's relationship with SIF.

Citing a 2012 ref to dismiss something that Gabbard did in 2015 is a mistake, I hope. --Hipal (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I was not dismissing any point with WAPO 2012 short article, but trying to provide a supplementary view, which is important as that was the view when she first got elected.

Also the The New York Times article is from 2019, and is a very well researched long article, and with more recent information, so there should not be any reasonable ground to dismiss it.

It's an important and relevant quote: "She was raised in part on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler....'he's essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor'"

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-race.html

RogerYg (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

So you think we should provide a "supplementary view" from an inferior reference. That's the problem exactly.

The NYTimes article is in no way comparable to the one from the New Yorker in the areas that are relevant to this article: information about SIF and information about Gabbard's relationship with SIF. Acting as if it's otherwise is a serious problem. --Hipal (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as superior refs, inferior refs or the most prominent ref expect in the mind of an editor. Hence, this cannot be used as an argument. The NewYorker is certainly not more prominent or superior to the NewYorkTimes. It also smacks of cherry picking to remove a whole chunk of details from this article but to revive one (the 2015 video) and tag it unto the end to bolster one's own POV. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:RS, and the general consensus about sources say that there definitely are superior references. Trying to make progress otherwise would be incompatible with improving this encyclopedia article.

It also smacks of cherry picking... Please retract. We haveThere is an admission of cherry picking against using The New Yorker [3]. Claiming the opposite looks very bad.

Shall we discuss the merits of the two refs in more detail, the NYTimes and New Yorker pieces? --Hipal (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I wrote what I wrote because I think it is true. Why should I retract it? The idea is preposterous.

Why should the New Yorker reference be superior to any other refs. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

If you're unable to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you'll have great difficulty working on topics under sanctions.

Why should I retract it? Besides violating behavioral policies and guidelines, it make it appear that you are trying to uphold clear POV violations, and undercuts your credibility.

Why should the... I wrote, The NYTimes article is in no way comparable to the one from the New Yorker in the areas that are relevant to this article: information about SIF and information about Gabbard's relationship with SIF. What you would like clarification on? --Hipal (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

And what "behavioral policies and guidelines" would that be? I, for my part, follow NPOV and RS.

You cannot argue for reducing the passage to a minimum and at the same time re-add details (that they fit your POV is of course coincidence).

"We have admission of cherry picking against using The New Yorker [3]. Claiming the opposite looks very bad."

Who is we and who admitted that cherry picking? Actually, it was me who used that phrase and you react by throwing it at me. So it appears "claiming the opposite" is actually what you do. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. You don't appear to understand NPOV. I appreciate your not restoring the manoanow reference twice, so I'm not seeing any disagreement between us on RS.

The behavioral policies/guidelines include WP:FOC, WP:TALK, WP:BATTLE.

I provided a diff of clear cherry picking. Please don't continue to ignore it.

they fit your POV Speculation on your part, again violating behavioral policies and guidelines. --Hipal (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You did provide a "diff" but that this was cherry picking is simply your view of it (nothing clear about it) and in the usual style you used the term only after I used it. You also went back and changed your comment after I responded to it. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hipal is absolutely correct that if the great majority of sources refer to a topic in regards to the article subject, the article - including its lead - should reflect that. And of course some sources are better - more reliable - than others. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Your comments here actually don't seem to fit the issue at hand. Hipal wants to favour one lone source over others.

Note to others: this seems to be some revenge editing on Cambial's part, who has a conflict with me on a totally different issue elsewhere. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Hipal supports using a more reliable source over other poorer quality sources, as do our RS policies - you should check them out. I haven't made any edits - this is the talk page. What's "revenge editing"? Did you create this term to name an activity in which you often engage, or just as a puerile way to disparage comments you dislike? Cambial — foliar❧ 22:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hipal wants to favour one lone source over others. You've made a poor assumption after ignoring my suggestion that you ask about the source further. I'm trying to give it DUE weight, and undo the POV violations that have been clearly expressed on this talk page. To do so will probably mean we use the New Yorker more. To accuse me of wanting to use it over others is pure speculation. Please stop with the assumptions and speculation. --Hipal (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cambial — foliar❧

To the best of my knowledge, you have not contributed to this article earlier, at least not for a long time. It seems a bit strange that you come here and do not make any contribution or suggestions but simply oppose Str1977 ^(talk).

I would like to assume good faith, but it raises doubts.

You may go through the previous discussion and address the broader issue of deletion of WP:RS references from The Washington Post and The New York Times and their content.

As per WP:RS sources, WAPO and NYT are also Reliable sources, as is the NewYorker. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Can any one editor decide which reference is superior and delete other references from WP:RS sources without broader discussion and consensus? These were some of the issues being discussed. Meanwhile, I think some balance has been restored in the article. (I will likely be taking a break from this page for some time per WP:DISENGAGE). Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to assume good faith... If that's the case, you need to WP:FOC and follow WP:TALK.

Can any one editor... No one is doing that, so let's not disrupt this talk page by making such comments.

Thank you for considering to DISENGAGE. --Hipal (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

"No one is doing that" - yes, you are. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Please retract. It is an entirely baseless attack. This is disruptive and violates behavioral policies and guidelines. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not an attack. It is an assertion (just like you assert things about others). I already told you that I won't retract anything I believe to be true. Telling me to do so is not the way to convince me otherwise. But you can demonstrate and thus persuade me. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hipal, how can the sentence "Tulsi Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF and "fully embraced Hinduism", and "follows the Vaishnava branch"." (referenced by [15] and [16]") be "undue weight" when the entire claim of her being "associated with the SIF" is "due weight"? How can one side of an issue be "due weight", including details like that 2015 video, but by now single opposing sentence, is "undue". Riddle me this! Until then, I'll tag the clause about the video as "undue" as well. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Drop the BATTLE mentality. It appears you want to tag well-referenced content out of spite. Continuing in this manner can result in a ban or block. --Hipal (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it rather YOU who goes into this as into a battle with your constant highminded "retract this", nor assumed powers to decided which sources are superior and your selective removal/tagging of passages.

You might want to beging to specify and explain what you think "misleading and directly contradicted by some refs"

TBH, the the video detail you like so much is much less relevant than the point that TG has distanced herself from SIF. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

[4] --Hipal (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Basic content policies

What references verify that she's distanced herself from SIF and Butler? In what context is the "distancing" being made? I continue to be concerned that there are V, SYN, and POV problems with the statement. Let's start with verification.

Note that Times of India should not be used per WP:TOI, nor WP:NEWSWEEK . --Hipal (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

While I would like to avoid getting into arguments per WP:DISENGAGE, however, I would occasionally try to add some factual notes.

WP:TOI does not say that it should not be used in Wikipedia articles, it only asks to use with some caution like many other sources used on Wiki: "Additional considerations apply to articles published in The Times of India (TOI) after 1950. TOI has sometimes had a poor reputation for fact-checking and its use should be evaluated with caution."

"Paid advertorials may be of particular concern in topics such as entertainment."

The referenced article is not from the Entertainment section, so a paid advertorial should not be of particular concern.

To best of my knowledge, TOI is often used as a reference on Wikipedia, and there is no consensus not to use WP:TOI. In my humble view, it may be used as a supplementary reference, but not as a stand-alone reference. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree per WP:NEWSWEEK, Newsweek articles should not be used as references as it is much more clearly stated that

"Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable".

Therefore, in my view, Newsweek articles should not be used, especially on WP:BLP topics. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You'd like to use a TOI. Since it is a poor source per WP:TOI, we should look for better, as WP:BLP requires. --Hipal (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking for better is no excuse to not use TOI (and other sources) now. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

BLP says otherwise, enforceable by sanctions. --Hipal (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

BLP is a set if policies to prevent living persons of being slandered, not an instrument to effect such slander. BLP doesn't say that the source in question cannot be used. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Str1977 ^(talk) on this issue that BLP is mainly to prevent questionable "potentially libelious claims". It sets higher standards for sources used in BLP article to avoid controversial slandering claims. The TOI ref is not making any slandering claim, rather it helps to counter such claims. Also, we are not using TOI as a stand alone ref, rather as supporting other WP:RS refs, so its use can be justified. Further, it helps and to bring NPOV balance. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You're both wrong. BLP states, Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Instead of arguing, we can quote the relevant sections from WP:BLP and related policies, that we are referring to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

It says to be firm about all three NPOV, Verifiability, and NOR

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability (V)
• No original research (NOR)

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Also as part of BLP, we have Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE, which is applicable. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.

The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

Thanks. 03:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I can agree to removing the TOI ref, but we should include the balancing content from Washington Post, NY Times and Huff Post per WP:BLPBALANCE. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree not to use the TOI ref.

We don't agree what how to address POV issues. The POV concerns I'm seeing, like this, are actually POV violations.

I'm still focusing on basic V and RS at this point.

I didn't see how SIF received a great deal of media coverage when some columnists found that Tulsi Gabbard had been associated with the SIF was verified when I first reviewed the refs. I'll take another look. --Hipal (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Potential refs

Previously removed: Farrar, Derek (August 12, 1992). "Rick Reed's Inner Self". Honolulu Weekly. p. 1. Retrieved November 26, 2019.

There are a number of local references that have been removed over the years. --Hipal (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Honolulu Civil Beat has published a number of relevant articles, recently https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/11/gabbards-past-could-complicate-us-senate-confirmation/ . It appears reliable per (RSN discussion). --Hipal (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Young, Robin (September 25, 2019). "2020 Hopeful Tulsi Gabbard: The U.S. Needs To 'Stop Acting As The World's Police'". www.wbur.org.
• Kaneya, Rui (March 16, 2015). "Krishna Cult Rumors Still Dog Tulsi Gabbard". Honolulu Civil Beat.
• "Science of Identity Foundation business information on the website of Hawaii State Department of Commerce & Consumer Affairs". Hawaii State Department of Commerce & Consumer Affairs, Business Registration Division. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
• Wolf, Alice (July 28, 1970). "One man rules Haiku Krishnaites". The Honolulu Advertiser. p. A-1. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
• "Krishna Group to Get Hearing on Feb. 25". The Honolulu Star-Bulletin. February 2, 1971. p. A-6.
• Scott, Nadine (December 17, 1977). "Siddha decries recent tales of Krishnas' 'lawbreaking'". The Honolulu Star-Bulletin. p. A-4.
• Wright, Walter (April 26, 1980). "Beamer says Nishiki failed to 'play by the rules'". The Honolulu Advertiser. p. A-3.
• "Science of Identity one of founders". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. July 1, 1991. p. A-4. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
• Wright, Walter (August 29, 1977). "The secret spiritual base of a new political force". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. p. A-1. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
• Wright, Walter (August 22, 1977). "Hawaii's 'other' Krishnas". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. p. A-1. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
• Bolante, Ronna (August 1, 2004). "Who is Mike Gabbard?". Honolulu Magazine. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
• Christensen, John (November 23, 1982). "Chris Butler: About this guru business". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. p. B-1.
• Ronck, Ronn (December 9, 1983). "Arts Scene". Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
• Reflections on Hindu Demographics in America: An Initial Report on the First American Hindu Census. J. Gordon Melton & Constance A. Jones. A paper presented at the Association for the Study of Religion, Economics & Culture meeting in Washington, D.C., April 7–10, 2011. p. 14.
• Swami B. A. Paramadvaiti (1999). Our Family — the Gaudiya Math. A study of the expansion of Gaudiya Vaisnavism and the many branches developing around the Gaudiya Math. VRINDA The Vrindavan Institute for Vaisnava Culture and Studies. p. 58. ISBN 3-927745-90-1.

--Hipal (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The AfD lists some as well:

• Lerer, Lisa (2019-10-12). "What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
• "Did Tulsi Gabbard's National Ambitions Just Suffer a Political Hit?". www.honolulumagazine.com. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/68483000/disciples-deities-and-development
• https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-krishna-cult-rumors_n_6879588

--Hipal (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

No evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is a Butler devotee: Huff post

A potential reference listed above, the Huffpost notes: (Looks important Str1977 ^(talk) and Hipal)

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-krishna-cult-rumors_n_6879588

Mike Gabbard has long maintained that he’s a Catholic, not Hare Krishna. But, in Honolulu Magazine’s 2004 profile, he acknowledged his ties to Butler: “Although I’m not a member of the Science of Identity Foundation, I’m eternally thankful to Chris Butler … whose teachings of karma yoga (selfless service) and bhakti yoga (devotion to God) have brought me back to my Catholic roots and the fundamental teachings of Christ.”

"Civil Beat found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee. And we could find no record of her ever speaking publicly about it."

She has veered away from her earlier, conservative positions on social issues and voiced support for same-sex marriage — in stark contrast to her father, who still maintains his anti-gay stance, in line with Butler’s teachings.

In 2012, Gabbard told Civil Beat that the changes were part of her “gradual metamorphosis” on social issues brought on by her experience of seeing oppression in the Middle East during her military deployments.

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

And we're not saying that Gabbard was a devotee, so there's no problem. --Hipal (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That has exactly been the implication the whole time, so let's not pretend now that it's otherwise. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but working from assumptions is disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Then please stop it. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

PS. I take it that we can now include this finding into the article and thus make it clear what you said above: "hat Gabbard was NOT a devotee" in 2012. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This is disruptive. Please stop. --Hipal (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Including what you acknowledged just a few days ago is dispruptive? How so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Str1977 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

How so? Please provide diffs or retract. --Hipal (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Here in this very section you first insisted that "we're not saying that Gabbard was a devotee" - when I suggested that we include this into the article (based on the source mentioned) you answered by "This is disruptive. Please stop." Str1977 ^(talk) 18:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

What's disruptive is your behavior.

The proposed change in article content appears UNDUE, and appears to be coming from editor assumptions [5] and biases rather than a proper assessment of the sources. --Hipal (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

It appears you label anything contradicting your view as "undue". This is unacceptable and disruptive. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

My view is to follow our policies and guidelines. Assuming anything else is disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Relevant information from WP:RS refs NYT and WaPo

I think this is relevant information from WP:RS articles

NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-race.html

Ms. Gabbard says the interest in Mr. Butler and her faith has been fueled by Hindu-phobic bigotry.

"he’s essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor,” Ms. Gabbard said.

WAPO article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/hawaii-democrat-poised-to-be-elected-first-hindu-in-congress/2012/11/01/65d66cac-245c-11e2-92f8-7f9c4daf276a_story.html

Gabbard fully embraced Hinduism as a teenager, and follows the Vaishnava branch that believes in the Supreme Lord..

Her primary scripture is the centuries-old Bhagavad Gita. RogerYg (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

In this article, about SIF, I think we should just present information about Tulsi Gabbard's relationship with SIF, as well as that of her parents. This is not a soapbox for Tulsi Gabbard, nor an inquiry into her religious beliefs. --Hipal (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Her link to SIF (or lack thereof) is actually identical to her religious beliefs. If we don't want to talk about that, then we would have to scrap the entire section. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that links to SIF are all about religious beliefs, trying to portray her as a member of fringe religious group or cult, SIF. Even his father is on record, saying he never became a member of SIF, though he was associated with it, and he still identifies as Catholic.

And, we have a Honolulu Civil beat investigation mentioned in Huff Post, that found no evidence of Tulsi being one of the official devotees /members of Butler.

Tulsi identifies herself as mainstream Hindu Vaishnava, and it becomes relevant in the context of SIF. Thanks 06:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

is actually identical to her religious beliefs Says who?

We have reliable, independent sources documenting that her parents were board members of SIF and ran a SIF school. We have very high quality sources documenting her hiring SIF members for top positions in her political campaigns. --Hipal (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

"Says who?" Well, it is obviously so. SIF is a religious group. TG's link to it (or lack thereof) concerns her religious views.

"We have reliable, independent sources documenting that her parents were board members of SIF" - which nobody disputes. The issue is about TG, not her parents. Unless of course you want to imply guilt by association.

"and ran a SIF school." - that's a new claim. Not that it matters much.

"We have very high quality sources" - hyperbole - "documenting her hiring SIF members for top positions in her political campaigns.", which you haven't presented as of yet. And still, TG's non-afiliation is also relevant.

You again seem to be trying to add detail upon detail to insuinate an affiliation now, yet also to remove details that contradict it. (And before you ask - I won't.)

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not obvious, and the sources disagree with your opinions on the matters. We follow the sources. --Hipal (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You follow the sources you like, the sources that support your POV. Anything else you try to erase - radically. THIS is disruptive! Str1977 ^(talk) 10:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I follow reliable sources, you do not. That's well documented here. --Hipal (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You follow reliable source as long as you like them. Everyone can see the number of sources you have rejected and removed under this or that pretext. As long as they put TG in a less then terrible light, in the end you will remove them. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. Please retract. This is disruptive. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Your editing record bears out what I wrote.

Retract your bullying tactics! They are disruptive! NPOV applies! Str1977 ^(talk) 18:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to retract anything that I wrote that's inappropriate. Just let me know on my talk page. --Hipal (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Any of your implied threats are inappropriate. It is also inappropriate to remove anything - literally anything - that doesn't fit your TG is closely linked to Butler and his sect. Your recent edits make that abundantly clear: anything anti-TG you keep, anything that puts distance between the TG and Butler you radically delete. Stop this POV pushing. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, let me know on my talk page. Anything else looks like BATTLE and is disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Association to living person

Should the article about the Science of Identity Foundation contain a section about the "Association to Tulsi Gabbard and her family"?
Should it say that "Tulsi Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF"?

• A: Yes to both
• B: Yes to the first question, no to the second one
• C: No to both

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• (and wouldn't it be an "association with"?) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• A : Yes to both with some suggestions . Firstly about Association to Tulsi Gabbard and her family, a section is needed because many references mention Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Gabbard, sooner or later some editors will add this info, often in biased manner violating Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE and WP:NPOV, so its better to have a section with neutral balanced information.

  Option B will likely violate Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE and WP:NPOV in my view.

  Option C can be a short-term solution only, in my view. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• B - Regarding the section: We can't meet POV if the weight of the majority of the references are being ignored...[6] Briefly, SIF's notability on the national level is due to coverage of Tulsi Gabbard. Reviewing this version in depth, only 9 of the 38 citations were to references that did not mention Tulsi. [7]

Regarding "...has since distanced herself...", we have not been able to find a reliable source for the content, so inclusion would violate BLP and POV. Perhaps we can include something similar in the future if proper references are identified, as RogerYg has started to do. Proper context will almost certainly be needed so the type of distancing is clear. --Hipal (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• B Reviewing RogerYg's summary of what I presume are the best available sources, it's clear that mainstream RS do not support the sentence "Tulsi Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF". It constitutes original research and could not be included in any article. If at some point the sourcing situation changes this could be reviewed. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• A obviously. Roger addressed the argument about WP:DUE. But if we include such a section, then it has abide by WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. It cannot be an opportunity to slander living persons, including Tulsi Gabbard. As for the question "...has since distanced herself...", it is already reliably sourced and any attempt to leave this out - is wrongheaded and unacceptable.
  PS. Before any asks, according to the blocking admin ToBeFree, my block covers only the article page, not the talk page. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• I agree with ~ ToBeFree that it should be "Association with"

  Further, I suggest it should be Association with Gabbard family because Mike Gabbard is a public figure in his own standing, and has references about SIF independent of Tulsi Gabbard. For example

  Bolante, Ronna (August 1, 2004). "Who is Mike Gabbard?". Honolulu Magazine. Retrieved November 1, 2019.

  https://www.honolulumagazine.com/who-is-mike-gabbard/

  Secondly, about Tulsi Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF"? While the exact phrase is mentioned in TOI refrence, the general idea about her distance from SIF is supported by references from Washington Post, Huffington Post and NY Times as below:

  We can change the phrase to reflect Washington Post & Huff Post: After teenage years, Tulsi Gabbard veered away from SIF and Butler's teachings such as his anti-gay positions, and fully embraced Hinduism

  In The Washington Post article, Gabbard mentions little or no association with SIF, having fully embraced Hinduism.

  "Gabbard.. fully embraced Hinduism as a teenager, and follows the Vaishnava branch that believes in the Supreme Lord Vishnu"

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/hawaii-democrat-poised-to-be-elected-first-hindu-in-congress/2012/11/01/65d66cac-245c-11e2-92f8-7f9c4daf276a_story.html

  In the Huff Post article, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-krishna-cult-rumors_n_6879588

  Mike Gabbard clarifies that he is not a member of SIF . “Although I’m not a member of the Science of Identity Foundation, I’m eternally thankful to Chris Butler … whose teachings of karma yoga (selfless service) and bhakti yoga (devotion to God) have brought me back to my Catholic roots and the fundamental teachings of Christ.”

  Further, the Huff Post article says about a Honolulu Civil beat investigation that "Civil Beat found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee. And we could find no record of her ever speaking publicly about it."

  Also, Huff Post article says about Tulsi Gabbard that She has veered away from her earlier, conservative positions on social issues and voiced support for same-sex marriage — in stark contrast to her father, who still maintains his anti-gay stance, in line with Butler’s teachings.

  NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-race.html

  Gabbard mentions that Butler was like a guide or pastor during her schooling years "he’s essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor,” Ms. Gabbard said.

Thanks RogerYg (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Could you indicate exactly one reliable source, and the relevant quote, that supports the sentence "Tulsi Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF" ? Cambial — foliar❧ 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have mentioned 2 reliable sources which support the general idea that Tulsi has distanced or veered away from SIF beliefs.

  We can change the phrase to reflect Washington Post & Huff Post: After teenage years, Tulsi Gabbard veered away from SIF and Butler's teachings such as his anti-gay positions, and fully embraced Hinduism

  In The Washington Post article, Gabbard mentions little or no association with SIF, having fully embraced Hinduism.

  "Gabbard.. fully embraced Hinduism as a teenager, and follows the Vaishnava branch that believes in the Supreme Lord Vishnu"

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/hawaii-democrat-poised-to-be-elected-first-hindu-in-congress/2012/11/01/65d66cac-245c-11e2-92f8-7f9c4daf276a_story.html

  In the Huff Post article, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-krishna-cult-rumors_n_6879588

  Mike Gabbard clarifies that he is not a member of SIF . “Although I’m not a member of the Science of Identity Foundation, I’m eternally thankful to Chris Butler … whose teachings of karma yoga (selfless service) and bhakti yoga (devotion to God) have brought me back to my Catholic roots and the fundamental teachings of Christ.”

  Further, the Huff Post article says about a Honolulu Civil beat investigation that "Civil Beat found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee. And we could find no record of her ever speaking publicly about it."

  Also, HuffPost article says about Tulsi Gabbard that She has veered away from her earlier, conservative positions on social issues and voiced support for same-sex marriage — in stark contrast to her father, who still maintains his anti-gay stance, in line with Butler’s teachings. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  The Washington Post article does not mention the article subject, nor Butler. It does not support any sentence about the article subject nor any person’s relation to it. Huff Post articles on politics are not generally regarded as reliable. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  The reffered HuffPost article is non- political, as it is discussing religious topic, not politics.

  https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-krishna-cult-rumors_n_6879588

  HuffPost (excluding politics) (The Huffington Post) apples, which is considered reliable.

  WP:HUFFPOST 📌

  HuffPost staff writers fairly reliable for factual reporting on non-political topics". Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  This response is almost too comically ridiculous to merit a response, but OK. The category tags used by Huff Post for the article are “Politics” “Tulsi Gabbard” and “Hawaii Politics”. The opening sentence reads “Eleven years ago, U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, now a rising star in the Democratic Party, was a little-known state representative from a West Oahu district. It was her then-Republican father, Mike, who was in the political limelight.” Evidently the authors and editors at Huff Post are able to recognise that this is a piece concerning politics. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I was considering the article topic which was about religious organization. But, yes it's tagged Politics, so that applies.

  Another point is that this article is from 2015, and the non-reliable opinion on HuffPost politics is only based on a 2020 Rfc, so I am not sure if it can be applied retrospectively. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  (@RogerYg and Cambial Yellowing: I've moved your comments to this section to make the RfC easier for editors to to review and join. I hope there's no problem in doing so. --Hipal (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC))

  It mainly applies retrospectively, given that the articles on the HuffPo website prior to that date are the basis on which that view was formed. This leaves us, as noted by Hipal, with no reliable sources for the claim that "Tulsi Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF", meaning it is WP:UNSOURCED, and we are obliged not to include such an unsupported claim. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, that exact phrase "distanced" can be excluded.

  But, per Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE we have to include relevant content from Washington Post and NY Times, giving the context in terms of her embracing Hindusim, and considering Butler like a pastor. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I hope I'm summarizing correctly: We agree that we have no reliable sources for "Tulsi Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF", and some editors are concerned with POV problems if similar content is not included in the article. Anyone disagree? --Hipal (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the exact phrase "distanced herself from SIF " can be excluded.

My concern is per Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE, and I think we should include some relevant content from Washington Post and NY Times, giving the context of the relationship with SIF, in terms of her embracing Hindusim, and considering Butler like a pastor. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

Can you clearly identify what viewpoints you see as needing balancing? --Hipal (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Butler's revised stances

@Hipal: Why did you remove the revised stances? It's mandated per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Humanengr (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It's WP:SOAP. If PUBLICFIGURE applies, then ABOUTSELF applies.

Press releases from an organization to address criticisms generally are not PUBLICFIGURE situations.

Most of the material was OR/SYN to create a POV not in the independent sources. --Hipal (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Pray tell how WP:SOAP and WP:ABOUTSELF apply. Kindly provide quotes from those. Humanengr (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

SOAP - "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising, and showcasing."

ABOUTSELF - "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves..." See WP:MEDIUM. --Hipal (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

So you're asserting that including a change he made almost two decades ago to a position on a topic covered in the article is using WP as a "soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising, and showcasing"? And how is this anything other than a source of information about himself? WP:MEDIUM refers back to ABOUTSELF for uncontroversial statements. Is his statement that he changed his position controversial?

Also, I don't see that PUBLICFIGURE distinguishes by type of statement (press release, essay, interview, etc.). What it does say is If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too. It's more about the content and the public nature of the response. Can you point to something that's supports your view?

Would it sufficiently allay your concerns if we included tags? Thx.

Humanengr (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm asserting we follow content policies. The problem here parallels that of the RfC above: attempting to use a poor source to "balance" all other sources relevant to the content in question. That type of "balancing" is a POV violation. In this case, SOAP as well. --Hipal (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not a matter of 'better' vs 'poorer' sources. Nothing in any source contradicts what he indicates his *revised* positions are. (The accusations are from decades ago.) But most importantly, I don't see anything that allows us to ignore WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Humanengr (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not a matter of 'better' vs 'poorer' sources. It most certainly is. We're not going to ignore policy. --Hipal (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, no sources contradict what he said about his revised positions.

And as for OR/SYN, it's difficult to fathom what about quoting what he said, in sequence, is either of those. But perhaps you could explain that. Humanengr (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you see I cited the Sanneh New Yorker article as support? (He wrote: Butler seems to have deemphasized the issue: there is no mention of homosexuality on the foundation’s Web site, or in his recent teachings.) Can add in body or in footnote. Humanengr (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you make an edit request or something similar (indicate exactly what you want changed, including supporting references) to indicate what you are now proposing vs your previous edits on the matter. --Hipal (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Modifying to suit, I trust, and posting here:

Butler's teachings had included condemnation of homosexuality, but a 2017 New Yorker article notes that "Butler seems to have deemphasized the issue: there is no mention of homosexuality on the foundation’s Web site, or in his recent teachings." In 2019, Butler issued a statement on Medium where he publicly acknowledged that the "language and tone" he had used regarding homosexuality was "inflammatory, combative, and harsh". A few months later, he wrote, also on Medium: "When I became aware that some of my own students were struggling with homosexual tendencies, it became more personal to me. … I want to share the message of God's love with everyone, no matter what their race, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever."

Butler's teachings also included …

Would you want to include a for the two Medium pieces? Thx. Humanengr (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Humanengr (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. My initial impression, as I'm short on time: I'd place the response at the end (keeping all the content in relatively chronical order), definitely use Sanneh as a ref, remove the quotations, remove the dates and qualifiers except for SIF's, and keep it to a sentence or two. --Hipal (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Like this?

Butler's teachings once condemned homosexuality, but he has since deemphasized this, with no recent mention on the foundation's site. In 2019, he admitted on Medium that his past language was harsh and later expressed a message of God's love for all, regardless of sexual orientation.

Humanengr (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: My bad if I mistook your prior response. Did you see my reply above? Humanengr (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you ping the wrong person? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Misdialed, Thx …

@Hipal: pls see above Humanengr (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Chronological order seems important to keep context. My SOAP concerns remain. I'm focusing my currently limited time on the RfC. --Hipal (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying chronology and removing SOAP issues:

Butler's teachings once condemned homosexuality. In 2017, Kalefa Sanneh of The New Yorker noted "Butler seems to have deemphasized the issue: there is no mention of homosexuality on the foundation’s Web site, or in his recent teachings."

Humanengr (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I've been attempting to find wording that would avoid OR and POV problems. The first sentence of your proposal seems to have both problems, as does the last phrase of the second. --Hipal (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Oops. Struck out. Serves me right for trying to address a deep problem when I don't have the time. --Hipal (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence corresponds to Sanneh's 2017 "In the nineteen-eighties, Butler excoriated same-sex desire …". The 2nd sentence is a quote from Sanneh; pardon, but I'm not seeing what is NPOV about it. Humanengr (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

References