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."

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

References

  1. ^ "Tulsi Gabbard: Did British daily call Hinduism or ISKCON an 'obscure cult'?". The Times of India. November 21, 2024. 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.
See WP:TOI and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --Hipal (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 []
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)[reply]
Sorry, but that's a POV violation. --Hipal (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is disruptive. Please retract. --Hipal (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was only using argument that you provided, but I am okay to retract for now. RogerYg (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[2] --Hipal (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
distanced herself? here's a tweet of her openly declaring her support & "love" for Chris Butler:
https://x.com/brucewilson/status/1875198795295965350
also this was covered in the New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe
its an open secret: https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/12/senators-urged-to-examine-gabbards-deep-and-intense-ties-to-hawaii-sect/
here are several videos of Tulsi Gabbard speaking at ISKCC events:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXmz3n-gVRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVFADzwYc5E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1voyCPjJXcw 2A00:23C5:EDB1:1:3CC1:AC1F:50A7:204C (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One video of calling Butler a guru (or pastor) in 2015, does not mean they have not distanced themselves as of 2025. All videos after 2015 have no mention of Butler and are general ISKCON event videos.
Also, as per Wikipedia policy WP:RS, we have to use Reliable sources, not random tweets, unverified YouTube videos, or X messages, and potentially libelous claims based on unreliable content are violatation of WP:BLP. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Butler opposes gay marriage, while Gabbard has changed her position and publically supported gay marriage in Congress after 2015. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and yet I don't see wiki editors researching into this any further, just roundabout debates that go nowhere. the links I provided are more than enough, if you wanna scrutinize them, fine but at least provide something to this conversation. 2A00:23C5:EDB1:1:9CCB:283:B224:144A (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Looking for better is no excuse to not use TOI (and other sources) now. Str1977 (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP says otherwise, enforceable by sanctions. --Hipal (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also as part of BLP, we have Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE, which is applicable. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

The AfD lists some as well:

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

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)[reply]

And we're not saying that Gabbard was a devotee, so there's no problem. --Hipal (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm sorry, but working from assumptions is disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then please stop it. Str1977 (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is disruptive. Please stop. --Hipal (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
How so? Please provide diffs or retract. --Hipal (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
What's disruptive is your behavior.
The proposed change in article content appears UNDUE, and appears to be coming from editor assumptions [3] and biases rather than a proper assessment of the sources. --Hipal (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you label anything contradicting your view as "undue". This is unacceptable and disruptive. Str1977 (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My view is to follow our policies and guidelines. Assuming anything else is disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are new publications that put this into question, some claiming there has been a campaign to mask the relationship between Gabbard and SIF. --Hipal (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Association to living person

By straight headcounting, five editors supported B, two supported A, none supported C, and one supported something else which was not entirely decipherable. Two of the "B" !votes were WP:VAGUEWAVEs and their relative weight was considered significantly less.
The "separation statement" camp cited NPOV and BLP but without clearly explaining how those policies would be violated by failure to include since -- in the view of the disinclude camp -- sourcing was inadequate. RogerYg cited our need for WP:BLPBALANCE treatment as to why a distancing statement should be included and and pointed to sources, however, whether those sources could be accurately represented with such a statement was disputed.

To the question of whether there should be any type of section, 5 editors believe there should be (after discounting two of the vaguest of waves -- so vague, in fact, that even after they were invited to expand on their reasoning they remained silent) and none oppose. There is a consensus that some kind of section akin to that which is described should be included. (Note, however, there is no consensus as to what the specific title of that section should be, as some !voters parsed their opinions in the expanded discussion on this point.)

To the question of whether a separation statement should be included, two editors support and three do not (after discounting two of the vaguest of waves -- so vague, in fact, that even after they were invited to expand on their reasoning they remained silent). On this point there is WP:NOCON and the section that is ultimately incorporated should represent content that was in the last stable version of the article prior to the RfC. I believe (but am not 100% sure) that the last stable version did not include a separation statement. If that is the case, it means it should also be omitted here until a consensus forms to include it at some point in the future.

The essence of this in compact form is: (a) there is a consensus for the section described, (b) there is no consensus for what that section should be titled, (c) there is no consensus as to whether to include a "separation" or "distancing" statement in the section, however, the practical result may be that this should be omitted pending some future consensus since (it appears) omission was the stable version of the article.

Chetsford (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

Survey

  • A or C : "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.
    "C" can be a compromise solution along with a balanced paragraph within the history section, as was added by Theodore Christopher, instead of separate section for which consensus seems difficult in view of WP:BLPBALANCE requirements. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B - Regarding the section: We can't meet POV if the weight of the majority of the references are being ignored...[4] 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. [5]
    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)[reply]
While editors claim there are POV/ATTACK problems with B, editors are unable to give any policy-based specifics as to how, and instead appear to just want to include content regardless of the relevant policies. --Hipal (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • B per Cambial. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B , I agree with Hipal. Sorry for adding a paragraph without checking the talk page. I don't know of any explicit disavowal on Tulsi's part (although the Trump team has allegedly done as much, according to Honolulu Civil Beat). SIF arguably only meets notability because of the ink spilled over the Gabbards' relationship to the organization. Theodore Christopher (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Theodore Christopher (talk) thanks for your additions that Gabbard's dont identify as members of SIF and latest 2024 statement by Trump transition team has clarified that Gabbard has "no affiliation" with SIF.
    I think chronologically, 2024 clarification should get priority over a brief mention in 2015 video.
    Therefore, your added paragraph was balanced and more in line with A and not B in my humble view, and I will support its inclusion instead of adding a separate section on Gabbard, for which consensus may be unlikely.
    We can add a balanced paragraph per WP:BLPBALANCE with the following from Reliable sources, WaPo & Honolulu Civil beat
    While neither Gabbard identifies as a member of the organization, Tulsi called Butler, who likened her to a star pupil in a 2017 interview, her "guru dev", or "spiritual master", in a 2015 video.
    A statement from the Trump transition team stated that Gabbard has "no affiliation" with SIF.
    Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I stand with my preference for B--it is important to note that the denial of association was released by the Trump transition team, not Gabbard personally, therefore B. But the italicized section is fine for me (well, at least partially because I wrote it!). Theodore Christopher (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, no problem. I was only looking for possible consensus options. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the above. (≠ C: No to both)
As others have mentioned or alluded to, this page exists only because of Tulsi; to present — as 'encyclopedic' — criticisms of Butler; and to associate those criticisms with Tulsi for purposes of attack.
Contra Hipal's new § below, these issues cannot be separated
The page should be reduced to a stub until these issues are integrally resolved.
Humanengr (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my humble view, if you have to choose only among A, B, C , you are preferring C. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My words mean exactly what they mean. I invite other comments. Humanengr (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, point taken. I was only looking for possible consensus options. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
B per reasonings given by other editors in favor of B. Theofunny (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Theofunny (talk), it would be appreciated if you could participate in the discussion below and give some of your own reasonings. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (@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))[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you.
Can you clearly identify what viewpoints you see as needing balancing? --Hipal (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the last version was unbalanced because it gave a one-sided narrative that Gabbard was closely associated with SIF and Butler in terms of her religious beliefs. ( since association with SIF is mainly about religious beliefs)
Per Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE and WP:RS, we need to add relevant information from highly reliable sources that give a balanced view of her religious views and relationship with Butler.
I think adding the following 3 reliably sourced information about religious beliefs will bring balance per Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE and WP:RS
Even if we argue about WP:BLPBALANCE, there is no reasonable argument against adding relevant content in the article body from highly reliable sources per WP:RS about her religious views and relationship with Butler.
The Washington Post (since the article mentions that Butler's devotees treat him almost akin to God)
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
The New York Times (relationship with Butler)
Gabbard described that SIF's leader, Mr. Butler, was like a guide and "essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor" to her.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-race.html
Politico (since the article mentions that SIF followers are against LGBTQ people)
Gabbard apologized for her past comments about LGBT issues.. and said she has since changed her views (on LGBTQ) and has repeatedly voted in Congress to protect gay rights.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/17/tulsi-gabbard-apology-lgbt-comments-1109541
Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WaPost and Politico pieces doesn't mention Butler nor SIF.
The NYTimes piece says, "They had met years before as part of the tight-knit community around the controversial socially conservative guru Chris Butler." and "She was raised in part on the teachings of Mr. Butler, who founded The Science of Identity Foundation, and whose work she said still guides her." yet we have nothing like that in the article, nor in the content under discussion.
since association with SIF is mainly about religious beliefs That's the assumption some editors are working from, but it's not from any reference, and multiple sources contradict it, even the NYTimes piece.
We shouldn't be attempting to "balance" content that doesn't exist and is contradicted by the references we have. --Hipal (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You once again suggest the same Washington Post piece as a source for this article. The addition of a source which makes no mention of, nor allusion to, the article subject would not bring balance to the article. It would just be irrelevant and inappropriate. The same applies to a Politico article with no mention of the article subject.
The New York Times piece seems like an appropriate source: content closely based on what it says is appropriate to this article. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SIF is about a religion and religious beliefs as mentioned in its lede and its sections:
The Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) is a new religious movement
Theology section includes criticism of religious teachings and beliefs of SIF such as
Butler's teachings included condemnation of homosexuality
Multiple ex-members of SIF have described it as a "cult"; Butler was "akin to a God"
Therefore when we add a section saying that Gabbard was associated with SIF, it becomes relevant to address the associated criticism , such as "condemnation of homosexuality" per Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE and Eventualism before adding such section
Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE
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.
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.
Since the article includes criticsm that SIF followers treat Butler's akin to God
the NY Times and WaPo content give relevant religious beliefs
The Washington Post (since the article mentions that Butler's devotees treat him almost akin to God)
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
The New York Times (relationship with Butler)
She was raised in part on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler, who founded The Science of Identity Foundation, and whose work she said still guides her. “Muslims have imams, Christians have pastors, Hindus have gurus, so he’s essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor,” Ms. Gabbard said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-race.html
Since the article includes crticism that SIF followers condemn homosexuality,
the Politco article gives relevant religious beliefs
Politico
Gabbard apologized for her past comments about LGBT issues.. and said she has since changed her views (on LGBTQ) and has repeatedly voted in Congress to protect gay rights.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/17/tulsi-gabbard-apology-lgbt-comments-1109541
Therefore, I would strongly argue that these 3 WP:RS information pieces should be added per WP:BLPBALANCE and Eventualism to address the criticism in the article.
Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you didn't address my concerns at all.
It appears that editors are ignoring the non-religious context provided in the sources. --Hipal (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gabbard's other religious beliefs are not relevant to this article. Religious beliefs are not mutually exclusive.
The statements about theology including condemnation of homosexuality does not include any criticism. It simply states the facts about the theology: "Butler's teachings included condemnation of homosexuality, hostility towards Islam, and skepticism of science. The New Yorker notes that Butler's teachings from the 1980s assert that engaging in bisexual relations would lead to pedophilia and bestiality." There is no criticism in those two sentences.
The lines from BLPBALANCE that you quote are about inclusion of opinions - criticism and praise - of third parties. They are not about statements of fact about the article subject. It remains the case that articles irrelevant to the article subject are not appropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Humanengr:, you wrote: and to associate those criticisms with Tulsi for purposes of attack. Are you saying that it is the purpose of the sources to attack Tulsi, the purpose of editors, or something else? --Hipal (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per POSIWID: The purpose of a system is what it does. Per WP:ATTACK: Do not create pages which serve no purpose beyond disparaging or threatening their subjects.
You were correct to note that the majority of cites are re Tulsi. This page has, from the beginning, associated Tulsi with criticisms of this organization. Humanengr (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how anyone with basic knowledge our Wikipedia's policies and guidelines would consider this article to be an attack page, without or without the content at dispute in this RfC. Using that argument as rationale for deletion or "balance" appears to be a POV violation and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Hipal (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balancing implications of article content

(Moved from Survey section --Hipal (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

I think the problem with "B" is in terms of Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE and WP:NPOV as the previous section "Theology" has several criticisms of SIF followers in terms of their views on homosexuality and venerating Butler.
I support "A", because there are WP:RS Reliable sources such as "Washington Post" and "Politico", which mention that Gabbard has moved away from her earlier beliefs on homosexuality, and therefore I think is important and relevant to mention that, but "B" option in my view is opposing any such balanced content. (Also, I am not arguing for inclusion of exact pharse "distanced herself from SIF", but the broader point of distancing from alleged SIF beliefs). Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you see implications in the content. We don't balance implications. That's a POV violation. --Hipal (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is sad that earlier the argument against adding relevant content about Gabbard's evolution of beliefs was mainly about WP:RS Reliablilty of sources when we had widely used but not very high quality sources such as Huff Post and Times of India, and emphasis was on finding better sources.
But, when we found High Quality Reliable sources such as The Washington Post and Politico with similar relevant content about change in Gabbard's beliefs such as on homosexuality per WP:BLPBALANCE, sadly that is also being opposed. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're just continuing to work from assumptions. The fact is that this article isn't about Gabbard's beliefs. Pretending otherwise in order to rationalize the addition of content is a POV violation. --Hipal (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the "Theology" section has content about SIF teachings and beliefs of SIF followers.
For example, Theology sections has strong criticisms of SIF follower's beliefs such as on homosexuality
  • Butler's teachings included condemnation of homosexuality, hostility towards Islam, and skepticism of science.
  • Multiple ex-members of SIF have described it as a cult;
  • Butler's status has been characterised as "akin to a God" and not willing to be questioned.
  • They say Butler regularly mocked his devotees, publicly, calling it "a form of Krishna’s mercy".
If we add a new section, just following Theology section, which is about an alleged SIF follower, Tulsi Gabbard, then I think the beliefs become relevant per WP:BLP and WP:BLPBALANCE. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearly stating your assumptions, but that's all they are, assumptions. They have nothing to do with BLP, POV, or related policies; nothing to do with what the reliable sources that we might use actually say about Gabbard and her relationship with SIF. --Hipal (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal: How do you intend to avoid 'guilt-by-association' with the criticisms voiced regarding Butler and SIF in a § that has 'association' in its title? Humanengr (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree and Hipal: What do you mean by 'association'? Humanengr (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, I just quoted from the disputed content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. As I noted below, given the lack of clarity regarding the proposed §, it might be appropriate to withdraw and reformulate the RfC. Consider this a placeholder re that pending Hipal's response to my cmt. Humanengr (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a valid point raised by Humanengr (talk) that "Association with Tulsi Gabbard" title itself is problematic and likely violates WP:BLP by tarnishing Gabbard's image through "guilt-by-association" given the strong criticisms voiced regarding Butler and SIF in the preceding "Theology" section.
I think this also supports my previous arguments that option B violates WP:BLP and WP:BLPBALANCE as it opposes adding content clarifying Gabbard's beliefs such as on homosexuality, that are discussed in previous "Theology" section.
Since, there is no reasonable consensus on A or B, the default result of this RfC would be C, that is not adding such as section on "Association with Tulsi Gabbard", which is raises multiple unaddressed issues discussed here does not satisfy several of WP:BLP criterion.
A re-formulated RfC may be proposed for discussion on adding a paragraph regarding Gabbard and it's content that satisfies WP:BLPBALANCE within the History section. RogerYg (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You believe there is no reasonable consensus. There are five !votes for B, nearly twice as many as for both other options combined, with reference to the relevant BLP and general content policies. Your use of the phrase "reasonable consensus" appears therefore to be a euphemism for "a consensus that RogerYg agrees with". Cambial — foliar❧ 12:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RogerYg may want to refactor this and their (04:48, 22 January 2025) comment, so that it's clear. --Hipal (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cambial — foliar❧, I hope you are aware that Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers.
Also, many votes for "B" do not give any reasons or explanations, and therefore do not contribute much to the RFC discussion.
The main issues raised against "B" in the below discussion have not been addressed in any reasonable manner. Earlier, you were asking for WP:RS Reliable sources, trying to disregard content from widely used sources such as HuffPost and Times of India.
Subsequently, similar content, such as about Tulsi Gabbard's change of beliefs on homosexuality has been provided from higer quality sources such as The Washington Post and Politico, and there has been no reasonable explanation, why that should not be added to the section per WP:RS and WP:NPOV.
Also, this RFC is different from other non BLP RfCs, because per WP:BLPBALANCE, a section tarnishing a Living person without giving balanced views (such as available in WP:RS sources} should not be put out in hurry, as Eventualism does not apply in content that may tarnish a living person's image, which is the case with this section, which follows the criticisms in the Theology section, as discussed below.
Further, the creator of RfC has also raised some doubts about the title of the section, which needs to be further discussed. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your "Polling is not a substitute" essay, while interesting, is not a policy or guideline. Where an editor continues to rehash the same arguments repeatedly, it is absolutely a useful way to resolve an otherwise endless dispute. In this case, it has served to do so.
For example, you accepted in this comment and this comment that the questionable reliability and bias of HuffPost on political topics made it inappropriate for BLP-related content, which remains the case. Yet once again you rehash the notion of using them, stating I was trying to disregard content from widely used sources such as HuffPost and Times of India. I do disregard content from such unreliable sources for BLP-related content, as questionable sources (WP:HUFFPOLITICS; WP:TIMESOFINDIA) are not appropriate.
You once again use the adjective "reasonable" as a euphemism for one that you, RogerYg, agree with. That isn't a useful or appropriate standard. The explanations - that the article needs to retain a focus on the article subject, not discuss at length someone's other religious beliefs, and that sources for the article need to discuss the article subject - are indeed both reasonable and logical. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re "guilt-by-association": We've discussed this ad nauseum. The description is misleading, the suggested edits based upon these assumptions and implications are policy-violations.

Re "association": If wordsmithing is needed, we can do so. If we're straying from the quality sources, we'll need to change the wording.

Withdraw an RfC after the fact because it didn't go your way? That seems a blatant policy violation. --Hipal (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of 'distanced herself from SIF'

@ToBeFree: Does 'Tulsi Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF' cover "Tulsi Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF teachings?" Thx, Humanengr (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ToBeFree: I agree with Humanengr (talk) that this will be an important clarification.
    Given the WP:BLP implications, I would suggest that even if exact pharse 'Tulsi Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF' may be excluded, but the relevant WP:RS content regarding "Tulsi Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF teachings" should be included in the proposed section, which would be a clarification for options "A", "B" and "C"
    Here are my arguments why we need to include reliably sourced content that relates with: Tulsi Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF teachings
    The Theology sections has strong criticisms of SIF teachings and SIF follower's beliefs such as on homosexuality
    • Butler's teachings included condemnation of homosexuality, hostility towards Islam, and skepticism of science.
    • Multiple ex-members of SIF have described it as a cult;
    • Butler's status has been characterised as "akin to a God" and not willing to be questioned.
    • They say Butler regularly mocked his devotees, publicly, calling it "a form of Krishna’s mercy".
    Per Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE and WP:RS, if available, we need to add relevant information that addresses the criticisms and provides a balanced view. Thanks.
    Also per Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE: 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.
    Further, 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
    In order to address the criticisms in the preceding Theology section, we have relevant content from WP:RS sources as below:Therefore, I have argued that these 3 WP:RS information pieces should be added when we remove the phrase "distanced herself from SIF" to provide a balanced view per WP:BLPBALANCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerYg (talk • contribs) 20:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of this huge comment seems to be a copy of a comment made at #Gabbard_masking_ties_to_SIF below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the topic of discussion, I felt this information was relevant and important to be brought into general discussion in this section with multiple editors. Yes, most of it is from #Gabbard_masking_ties_to_SIF, but there it was being discussed with an individual editor, and was likely not to be read by other editors. I will try to reduce repetitions, and be more concise as suggested. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Distanced herself from some SIF teachings", or something similar, appears DUE. "Distanced herself from SIF" isn't clear cut. Either way, it needs to be put in the context of her political posturing.
    We have multiple new sources that we need to take into account that put this narrative in question. --Hipal (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Strikeout. Not clear cut given Florida Parental Rights in Education Act --Hipal (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]
    What do mean by political posturing? Humanengr (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The larger context relevant to this article and Gabbard, as identified in the many references - her political persona. --Hipal (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't something I can define. If you think it does, say so; if others think it does, they should say so, and if you wonder about someone's opinion, ask them. I don't have one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's some evidence that Gabbard has shifted at least one position at least partially back: Florida Parental Rights in Education Act. --Hipal (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further re Clarification

Is "distanced herself from SIF (teachings)" to be understood as "distanced from SIF" or "distanced from Butler? This is relevant on a number of counts. Humanengr (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The entire current section is based on Gabbard's alleged association with Butler, not SIF per se. Therefore the section "Association with Tulsi Gabbard" under SIF article seems to be strong claim, even more so as the main association of Butler in the Gabbard family was with Mike Gabbard, and not Tulsi Gabbard.
I think this content should just be a separate paragraph and not a section.
In case a separate section is needed, I think it will be better to rename the section to something more appropriate. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbard is not and was not 'associated' with the organization

@ToBeFree: Given that no RS indicates Gabbard was ever a 'member of' or ‘officer of' or in any other way ‘associated' with the organization per se, that would seem to render addressing any 'association' of Gabbard with the organization meaningless. I note your response above to the question on the meaning of 'association'. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humanengr, whatever your position in the dispute is – I don't even remember and didn't check – your username currently appears on this page 43 times and I have a feeling you have long made your point and others' voices would be more important than yet another section for yours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ToBeFree, the root problem lies in this being an RfC for inclusion of nebulously defined material rather than workshopping the text prior to decision on inclusion. I do thank you for removing the text from the article while this is under deliberation. And I do thank Hipal for recently starting down what I take to be a workshop path — which, in my view, should precede the close of this (or a suitably redefined) RfC. (As for # of my contributions, you significantly overcounted.) Humanengr (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The material appeared to be clearly defined enough for multiple editors to edit war over it instead of workshopping a text prior to including it in the article. Which is fine as long as it results in a discussion and as long as that discussion isn't dominated by the same voices all the time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with ~ ToBeFree (talk), that the RfC creator cannot be asked to be the arbitrator or judge, and expected to read all the RS sources, and decisions need to be made per WP:CONSENSUS. However, I also understand the need for this section, raising an important concern by Humanengr (talk).
I oppose the rush to close the RfC with "B" option that would remove a critical balancing element of the section "Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF", without discussing neutral and balanced content of the section.
This RfC should not be closed in a hurry, as this involves serious WP:BLP issues that still need to be discussed.
If closure of RfC involves removal of "Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF", we would need to discuss some replacement content to keep the section balanced per WP:BLPBALANCE, because the immidiate previous section, "Theology" has serious criticisms that will become associated to the a living person, Gabbard in this case.
I have suggested relevant content, such as Gabbard's changed beliefs on homosexuality and her clarifications regarding belief in God from Reliable sources, the addition of which is being opposed for some vague reasons. We need to discuss that before we move on.
Again, this RfC is different because it involves WP:BLP issues
Eventualism does not apply for BLP content, which has potential to adversely impact a Living person's lives. Thanks. 04:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps

I requested closure last week [6], but we have no response yet.

Since at least two contentious topic areas apply here, we should be cautious on how we proceed.

  1. In the time since this RfC was started, multiple reliable sources have been published directly on the topic.[7]
  2. We have clear consensus to include a section on Tulsi Gabbard's relationship with SIF.
  3. Editors have differing opinions on whether or not there is consensus for including specifically, "Tulsi Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF". Given the discussions below, there is no consensus to include the content. --Hipal (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is any of this disputed? --Hipal (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are several issues still being discussed regarding the RfC under the section "Clarification of 'distanced herself from SIF'", therefore I do not think RfC should be closed, unless we can agree to some reasonable balanced content that replaces "Tulsi "Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF", which is likely to be removed, given that I have detailed the issues involving WP:BLP and WP:BLPBALANCE.
Also, this RfC is different from non-BLP related RfC's, because I would strongly argue that an unbalanced section should not be published without reasonable consensus as Eventualism does not apply on content (such as this section) that can cause significant damage to a Living person's reputation.
My Apologies, but it needs to be repeated: 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. 08:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can move on then. --Hipal (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See preceding § Humanengr (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's #3 above. Yes, we should continue working on that as well. --Hipal (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe so. Does -any- RS say she ever was a member of SIF? If she was never a member, the issue of 'distancing herself from SIF' is irrelevant. Humanengr (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we have consensus to not include the content? --Hipal (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If by that you mean option C, yes, I believe that makes the most sense as she can't 'distance herself' from an organization no RS indicates she was a member of. Humanengr (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Eventualism was probably misunderstood to move on. As I highlighted now, Eventualism does not apply for BLP content, which has potential to adversly impact a Living person's lives. In this case, associating Gabbard with SIF, with previous section mentioning SIF's condemnation of homosexuality, and hostility towards Islam, would qualify as adversly impacting Gabbard's life and reputation. Per WP:BLPBALANCE, we should include the content which mentions her changed views on homosexuality. Also, probably we need to include content where she has mentioned that she has no hostility to Islam, but only opposes radical Islamist terrorism. I will provide Reliable sources mentioing this soon. I do not think we need to hurry, unless we go for option C.
Meanwhile, I am okay with option C, of not having the section, if others agree on it. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So there's no consensus to include the content identified in item #3. Looks like we can move on. --Hipal (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hipal:It seems, unfortunately, we talk past each other. The RfC is ill-formed. To say "distanced from SIF" makes no sense if she was -never- a member of that organization. 20:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC) Humanengr (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was content under dispute, and the RfC was created to resolve the dispute. It appears resolved, as there's no consensus for its inclusion. Whether or not it made any sense is irrelevant. --Hipal (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not that point is relevant to the second q ("distanced herself from SIF"), it is relevant to the first ("Association to Tulsi Gabbard …”). Apparently, no RS indicates she was a 'member' or ‘officer' or in any other way ‘associated' with the ‘organization’, and no amount of wordsmithing will fix that, which renders the whole RfC meaningless. Humanengr (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can move on yet, because this section involves WP:BLPBALANCE issues if we remove "Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF", because the previous section on Theology has serious criticisms that will become associated to the a living person, Gabbard in this case. Therefore, we need to decide on the proposed replacement content to "Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF" to keep the section balanced per WP:BLPBALANCE. I have suggested relevant content, such as Gabbard's changed beliefs on homosexuality and her clarifications regarding belief in God from Reliable sources, the addition of which is being opposed for some vague reasons. We need to discuss that before we move on.

Again, this RfC is different because it involves WP:BLP issues Eventualism does not apply for BLP content, which has potential to adversely impact a Living person's lives.

Another clarification: Are we okay with including the factual content from HuffPost: A 2015 Honolulu Civil Beat review of records, internet postings, and interviews has found "no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is or ever was a Butler devotee". Thanks. 09:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extent of coverage by Civil Beat, using it only for this seems POV-violating cherry picking. As I've indicated below, best to first focus on the better sources.
If someone wants to start a list of all the relevant Civil Beat articles, that would be helpful. I wouldn't be surprised if there are dozens. --Hipal (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Pray tell how WP:SOAP and WP:ABOUTSELF apply. Kindly provide quotes from those. Humanengr (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [self-published source] tags? Thx.
Humanengr (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Modifying to suit, I trust, and posting here:
Butler's teachings had included condemnation of homosexuality,[1][2] 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."[1] 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".[3] 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."[4]
Butler's teachings also included …
Would you want to include a [better source needed] for the two Medium pieces? Thx. Humanengr (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
Like this?
Butler's teachings once condemned homosexuality, but he has since deemphasized this, with no recent mention on the foundation's site.[1] 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.[3][4]
Humanengr (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Did you ping the wrong person? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Misdialed, Thx …
@Hipal: pls see above Humanengr (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."[1]
Humanengr (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

To be clear, what we have at this point is New Yorker's Sanneh saying in 2017:

"In the nineteen-eighties, Butler excoriated same-sex desire …. Butler seems to have deemphasized the issue: there is no mention of homosexuality on the foundation’s Web site, or in his recent teachings."[New Yorker]

or some paraphrase of that like

In the 1980s, Butler criticized same-sex desire, but more recently, he has deemphasized the topic. Neither the foundation's website nor his recent teachings mention homosexuality.[New Yorker]

Humanengr (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In the 1980s, Butler criticized same-sex desire" but that doesn't begin to summarize what all the references have to say on the matter, and does a poor job of summarizing what this one reference says, so a POV problem. --Hipal (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you mean material on the order of what Sanneh wrote re bisexuality, "sense gratification", pedophilia, and bestiality. Is that appropriate per P&G re a living person? Humanengr (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIR (haven't looked recently) what else is out there would be more inflammatory re gay sex. Is that appropriate for inclusion? Also, what would the rationale, from a P&G perspective, be for including such given that the article already says 'illicit sex' is not allowed? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hipal: wrt my questions above, I need some help gauging what's appropriate for a BLP. Thx, Humanengr (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the issues of the RfC above is what is implied by the content in dispute. That applies here as well, hence my concerns. The secrecy of SIF gives us so little to go on that the very best reference we currently have on the topic is rather poor. I'd leave it out. The New Yorker's attempts to shed some light on the matter gives us too little information and context. Placing it in other contexts or generalizing on it appears too problematic. --Hipal (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would this not conform to P&G?

Butler's teachings on homosexuality have evolved; by 2017, The New Yorker noted 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.'[1] Butler himself confirmed this shift in 2019, stating in a self-published post that his views had changed regarding the topic.[4]

This would seem to comport with ABOUTSELF as the New Yorker's report indicates Butler's statement is not controversial. Humanengr (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how we could summarize that rambling statement. He seems to still believe that homosexuality is sinful but that it's not good business to make a big deal of it. I don't know we should put too much weight on this WP:ABOUTSELF statement. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re I'm not sure how we could summarize that rambling statement, to pare it down as support for the proposed (or some other suitable) text:

I can’t try to change scripture regarding what’s sinful and what’s not sinful, and what’s right and wrong. … However, … [s]criptural teachings and injunctions regarding what’s sinful and what’s not sinful and what’s pleasing and not pleasing are secondary to the primary message of the Vedic scriptures and yoga — as well as Christian scripture. … In the past, … my approach, was more combative. … When I became aware that some of my own students were struggling with homosexual tendencies, … [i]t helped me realize that my speaking had been like hitting people over the head with a hammer …. I want to share the message of God’s love …. At this point in my life, I’m no longer involved in the battles on … [w]hether our desires are of a heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual nature."

Re your He seems to still believe that homosexuality is sinful, how is that relevant to inclusion of the proposed text?
I disagree with the characterization that Butler's shift in focus is about not good business to make a big deal of it. Butler's own words — When I became aware that some of my own students were struggling with homosexual tendencies, it became more personal to me. Seeing their challenge and struggle made me more empathetic towards all the other people in the world who are dealing with the same personal challenges. — emphasize empathy and a change in his teaching approach, not business considerations. I don't see it as our place to speculate on or ascribe motivations without clear evidence from reliable sources.
The statement is what it is. It supports what the New Yorker said.
Your feedback prompts an elaborated last sentence as an alternative to the prior proposal:

Butler's teachings on homosexuality have evolved; by 2017, The New Yorker noted 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.'[1] Butler himself confirmed this shift in 2019, stating in a self-published post that, rather than focus on sexual morality, he has chosen to focus on God's unconditional love for all.[4]

Humanengr (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal: I left the existing text as is and appended the proposed text. Humanengr

@Hipal: On the issue of OR/SYN, is the concern re "Butler himself confirmed this shift in 2019"? If so, then:

… In 2019, Butler stated in a self-published post that, rather than focus on sexual morality, he has chosen to focus on God's unconditional love for all.

For reference, his self-pub says: I made the decision a long time ago not to put so much emphasis on sexual morality, and rather focus on God’s unconditional love for all of us, regardless of our sexuality, our tendencies, desires, faults, flaws, or sins.
Or is it something else? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to come up with suitable content and failed: It seems either we give the topic too much weight in an effort to provide proper context, or we have so little context that there are SYN/OR problems. The independent sources simply don't give us enough to work from. --Hipal (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that including only this text: In 2017, The New Yorker noted that "Butler seems to have deemphasized the issue of homosexuality: there is no mention on the foundation's Web site, or in his recent teachings."[1] would still be problematic? Would this not be an independent source providing enough support for this specific point? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. UNDUE, while ignoring the larger context. --Hipal (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f Sanneh, Kelefa (October 30, 2017). "What Does Tulsi Gabbard Believe?". New Yorker. Archived from the original on June 7, 2020. Retrieved January 13, 2019. Cite error: The named reference "Sanneh" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ Han, Yoonji (2022-10-18). "Tulsi Gabbard's ties to the Science of Identity Foundation, a controversial religious sect that some call an abusive 'cult'". Insider. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
  3. ^ a b "Science of Identity Foundation's Statement Regarding Past Controversial Lectures". Medium. Science of Identity Foundation. 2019-09-23. Retrieved 2024-12-17.
  4. ^ a b c "Q & A with Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda — Part 5". Medium. Science of Identity Foundation. 2020-01-02. Retrieved 2024-12-17.

Recent expansion - Gabbard 2024

In 2024, Tulsi Gabbard's ties to the organization became the subject of scrutiny following her selection by Donald Trump to become Director of National Intelligence in his second administration.[1][2][3] Gabbard's father, Mike, has longstanding ties to SIF. While neither Gabbard identifies as a member of the organization, Tulsi called Butler, who likened her to a star pupil in a 2017 interview, her "guru dev", or "spiritual master", in a 2015 video.[4] A statement from the Trump transition team stated that Gabbard has "no affiliation" with SIF.[3]

This should be reviewed after the RfC closes, though the Esquire and Newsweek refs appear too poor for BLP use. --Hipal (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the paragraph by Theodore Christopher (talk) was quite balanced, and addition of a balanced paragraph may be a better solution than adding a separate section per WP:BLP. I agree we should only include Reliable sources, so Esquire and Newsweek should be used as references per WP:BLP, especially if they make any derogatory claims.
Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gentle Reminder that WP:BLP will apply to the proposed new section and/or any paragraph on Gabbard
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources.
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.
Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we have the RfC above on the very topic, and which is why the Newsweek and Esquire refs should not be used.
There's nothing "balanced" about this new content at all, at least not in that it follows WP:NPOV], as it completely ignores the other sources and cherry-picks content from what sources it does use. --Hipal (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal: re your This should be reviewed after the RfC closes, I beg to differ. ToBeFree, the proposer of the RfC, responded to my What do you mean by 'association'? by saying I have no idea. Whether one calls it 'ties' (as above) or whatever, there are guilt-by-association and weasel issues that cannot be left unaddressed and postponed until the camel's nose is under the tent (which is effectively already the case with the overwhelming use of sources that lay suspicion on Gabbard.) IMO, this is the higher priority. At this point, I suggest the RfC be withdrawn and, if possible, reformulated to either separately address or incorporate said issue. Humanengr (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop the stick. You don't appear to be working from policy, rather trying to work against it. --Hipal (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Tulsi Gabbard's Association with the Science of Identity Foundation Sure Seems Weird!". Esquire. 2024-12-16. Retrieved 2025-01-05.
  2. ^ Reporter, Monica Sager Live News (2024-11-14). "Tulsi Gabbard has lauded religious leader accused of running 'abusive' cult". Newsweek. Retrieved 2025-01-05.
  3. ^ a b Grube, Nick (2024-12-10). "Senators Urged To Examine Gabbard's 'Deep and Intense' Ties To Hawaiʻi Sect". Honolulu Civil Beat. Retrieved 2025-01-05.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Sanneh was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Gabbard masking ties to SIF

https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-gabbard-pictured-at-altar-dedicated-to-her-wacky-anti-gay-guru-chris-butler/

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/tulsi-gabbard-science-of-identity-qi-group-ed51c890 Theofunny (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if daily beast is not a RS, it does provide some context. Theofunny (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those. The WSJ certainly should be used. --Hipal (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Picked up by The Independent: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/tulsi-gabbard-senate-hearing-sect-b2688454.html --Hipal (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Damning report by The Atlantic
What Everyone Gets Wrong About Tulsi Gabbard
Other than raw ambition, only one through line is perceptible in a switchbacking political career : Chris Butler. Theofunny (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Theofunny (talk), Thanks for your inputs and references that further the point "Gabbard masking ties to SIF," which is fine. In my humble view, I think it may have been more helpful if we discussed with references that have more WP:NPOV content.
Meanwhile, I would like to update you that the scope of the discussion has extented beyond the narrow issue of inclusion or exclusion of phrase "distanced herself from SIF".
I also agree that the exact phrase "distanced herself from SIF " can be excluded.
I have raised concerns on "B" per Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE.
The Theology sections has strong criticisms of SIF follower's beliefs such as on homosexuality
  • Butler's teachings included condemnation of homosexuality, hostility towards Islam, and skepticism of science.
  • Multiple ex-members of SIF have described it as a cult;
  • Butler's status has been characterised as "akin to a God" and not willing to be questioned.
  • They say Butler regularly mocked his devotees, publicly, calling it "a form of Krishna’s mercy".
Per Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE and WP:RS, if available, we need to add relevant information that addresses the criticisms and provides a balanced view. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also per Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE: 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.
Further, 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 RogerYg (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In order to address the criticisms in the preceding Theology section, we have relevant content from WP:RS sources as below:
  • Since, there is criticism that SIF followers treat Butler's akin to God
The NY Times and WaPo content give relevant religious beliefs on Gabbard
The Washington Post
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
The New York Times (relationship with Butler)
She was raised in part on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler, who founded The Science of Identity Foundation, and whose work she said still guides her. “Muslims have imams, Christians have pastors, Hindus have gurus, so he’s essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor,” Ms. Gabbard said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-race.html
  • Since the article includes criticism that SIF followers condemn homosexuality,
Politico article gives relevant content addressing this criticism
Gabbard apologized for her past comments about LGBT issues.. and said she has since changed her views (on LGBTQ) and has repeatedly voted in Congress to protect gay rights.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/17/tulsi-gabbard-apology-lgbt-comments-1109541
Therefore, I have argued that these 3 WP:RS information pieces should be added when we remove the phrase "distanced herself from SIF" to provide a balanced view per WP:BLPBALANCE
Thanks again for your contribution to the discussion. RogerYg (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Tulsi Gabbard says that she began learning the spiritual principles of Vaishnava Hinduism as a kid, and that she grew up largely among fellow-disciples, some of whom would gather on the beach for kirtan, the practice of singing or chanting sacred songs."
Tulsi's claim which was paraphrased by WaPo and NYT earlier.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe
NYT now says:
"In Hawaii, colleagues, friends and critics debate whether the spiritual movement Ms. Gabbard grew up in — the Science of Identity Foundation, a secretive offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement vehemently opposed to same-sex relationships and abortion, and deeply suspicious of Islam — was a motivation for her policy stances. In Washington, some colleagues say she was more influenced by a military deployment to Iraq during one of the most brutal periods of the insurgency. Others attribute her ideological arc to ambition."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/27/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-trump-national-intelligence.html Theofunny (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Gabbard removed for RfC

From [8]:

Association to Tulsi Gabbard and her family

SIF received a great deal of media coverage when some columnists found that Tulsi Gabbard had been associated with the SIF.[1][2][failed verification] During her childhood, Tulsi Gabbard was influenced by SIF and considered Butler as her mentor.[3] In 2015, she acknowledged Butler as her guru in a video statement for an ISKCON anniversary event.[1][4] Her father, Mike Gabbard, a Hawaii State Senator, has also been associated with SIF[1][5][6] and his wife, Carol Gabbard, was the treasurer of the SIF.[5] Tulsi Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF.[7][2] While she called Butler her guru in a 2015 video statement for an ISKCON event,[1][4] she commented, in 2017: “I’ve had many different spiritual teachers” and called Butler "essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor".[8] A 2015 Honolulu Civil Beat review of records, internet postings and interviews has found "no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee".[9]

[4][5][1]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Sanneh, Kelefa (October 30, 2017). "What Does Tulsi Gabbard Believe?". New Yorker. Archived from the original on June 7, 2020. Retrieved January 13, 2019.
  2. ^ a b Bowles, Nellie (August 2, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard Thinks We're Doomed". The New York Times. p. A1. Archived from the original on September 26, 2019. Retrieved September 21, 2019.
  3. ^ Grube, Nick (2024-12-10). "Senators Urged To Examine Gabbard's 'Deep and Intense' Ties To Hawaiʻi Sect". Honolulu Civil Beat. Retrieved 2024-12-12.
  4. ^ a b c Hurley, Bevan (2022-10-16). "Tulsi Gabbard's ties to secretive cult may explain her perplexing political journey". The Independent. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
  5. ^ a b c Bolante, Ronna (2004-08-01). "Who is Mike Gabbard?". Honolulu Magazine. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
  6. ^ Issenberg, Sasha (2021). The Engagement: America's Quarter-Century Struggle Over Same-Sex Marriage. Knopf Doubleday. pp. 112–114. ISBN 9781984898517.
  7. ^ "Tulsi Gabbard: Did British daily call Hinduism or ISKCON an 'obscure cult'?". The Times of India. November 21, 2024. 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.
  8. ^ McCarthy, Tom (March 19, 2019). "Who is Tulsi Gabbard? The progressive 2020 hopeful praised by Bannon and the right". TheGuardian.com. Archived from the original on May 20, 2019. Retrieved December 16, 2019.
  9. ^ Kaneya, Rui (March 16, 2015). "Tulsi Gabbard Still Dogged By Krishna Cult Rumors". Huffington Post. Retrieved December 14, 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

I see seven high-quality refs above to consider for use. I'm unclear how to treat the local coverage in Hawaii, such as that from Honolulu Civil Beat, though there have been some discussions about them:

--Hipal (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing these sources below, I think it's clear that we should completely rewrite what we include about Gabbard. --Hipal (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant quotes from the seven potential refs

  • Lerer(2019), in NYTimes, has one paragraph:
Extended content
She is likely to get harsher treatment back in Hawaii, where a cottage industry of researchers, former opponents and Democratic strategists has sprung up to track her connections and background and ties to the teachings of the guru Chris Butler, who founded The Science of Identity Foundation, and whose work she said still guides her. Ms. Gabbard has said the focus on her relationship with Mr. Butler and her faith was fueled by anti-Hindu bigotry.

I don't expect we'll use it given the lack of depth. --Hipal (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"...whose work she said still guides her." --Hipal (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


  • Godfrey(2025), in The Atlantic, begins:
Extended content

Long before Donald Trump rewarded Tulsi Gabbard’s loyalty with a nomination to be the next director of national intelligence, before her friendliness with Tucker Carlson, and before her association with the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, she was loyal to another charismatic leader. A man who remains mostly unknown outside Hawaii but is reputed to have a powerful hold over his followers.

That leader is Chris Butler, the founder of an offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement in Hinduism, called the Science of Identity Foundation. Butler’s followers know him as Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, and Gabbard, who identifies as Hindu, has called him her “guru-dev,” or spiritual master. According to its website, the foundation promotes yoga meditation to achieve spiritual and physical enlightenment, but Butler, well known for his fervent and graphic sermons about the evils of gay sex, does not appear to tolerate dissent from his followers. Some former devotees have called the secretive group a cult.

Other than raw ambition, Gabbard’s adherence to Butler’s foundation has been the only perceptible through line in her switchbacking, two-decade political career. First there was an astonishingly quick leap from enigmatic state lawmaker to national Democratic Party leader; then came Gabbard’s almost-as-quick falling-out with the party establishment; there followed an inscrutable congressional record, including a seemingly inexplicable visit with a Middle East dictator; after that was Gabbard’s stint as a Fox News media darling, and finally her rebirth as a MAGA Republican, nominated to be America’s next spymaster.

Later it says:

The Gabbard family was—and, according to several Hawaii residents and people familiar with the group, still is—devoted to Butler and his foundation. “The belief system was [Butler’s] interpretation of the Hare Krishna belief system, plus Buddhism, Christianity, and whatever else,” Lalita Mann, a former disciple of Butler’s, told me. Fraternizing with outsiders was frowned upon, Mann said; complete obedience was expected: “To offend him would be offending God.” Gabbard’s own aunt once described the group as “the alt-right of the Hare Krishna movement.”

Butler had an appetite for temporal as well as spiritual power. Gabbard, a smart, good-looking girl from a political family, always appealed to him, Mann and Anita Van Duyn, another defector from the group, told me. Butler described Gabbard as a stellar pupil of his teaching. In her teens, Gabbard reportedly attended a school run by Butler’s followers in the Philippines. “He always wanted someone to be high up in the federal government” to direct the culture toward godliness, Van Duyn told me. Trump’s team rejected this characterization. “This is a targeted hit on her faith, fomenting Hinduphobia,” Alexa Henning, a spokesperson for the Trump transition, told me. “The repeated attacks that she has sustained from the media and Democrats about her faith and her loyalty to our country are not only false smears; they are bigoted as well.” (Gabbard herself did not respond to requests for comment for this story.)

Later:

Others pointed to deeper forces. “I think something happened around 2013,” Gabbard’s campaign colleague from Hawaii told me, pointing out that, at the time, several of her original congressional staffers resigned, and Gabbard replaced them with people affiliated with the Science of Identity Foundation. In 2015, Gabbard married Abraham Williams, the son of her office manager, both of whom, the colleague told me, were involved in the group. The couple’s Oahu wedding was attended by several members of Congress, including then–House Whip Steny Hoyer, as well as a representative from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu-nationalist party. It seemed as though Butler’s group had reeled her back in, the campaign colleague said. He remembers thinking, “I don’t know who the hell you are anymore.”

Near the end:

Gabbard’s instincts are those of a “moth to a flame of power,” Wasserman Schultz told me. And Trump’s flame is burning brightly again. But in Gabbard’s dogged pursuit of power, or at least of proximity to power, others see the influence not of a new guru, but of the old one: Butler. “She’s his loyal servant,” Van Duyn, the Science of Identity Foundation defector, said, and Gabbard regards him as “possessing infallible authority.” Van Duyn also told me that she has sent letters to several Democratic lawmakers, asking them to vote against Gabbard’s confirmation as DNI because she fears that sensitive intelligence “can and will be communicated to her guru.”

Each of the current and former Democratic lawmakers I spoke with for this story had concerns about the Gabbard-Butler relationship. “There are some very tough questions that need to be asked,” Representative Jill Tokuda, Democrat of Hawaii, told me. “Who’s really calling the shots when it comes to what Tulsi Gabbard believes?”

Butler, who is now in his late 70s and reportedly living in a beachfront home in Kailua, did not respond to a request for comment. But in a statement, Jeannie Bishop, the foundation’s president, disputed the accounts of people whom the group considers to be “propagating misconceptions,” and accused the media of “fomenting” Hinduphobia. (Butler’s foundation, along with a collection of 50 Hindu groups, sent out a press release last week blasting recent media coverage as “Hinduphobic.”)

Lots to draw upon here. --Hipal (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The Gabbard family was—and, according to several Hawaii residents and people familiar with the group, still is—devoted to Butler and his foundation." "Butler described Gabbard as a stellar pupil of his teaching. In her teens, Gabbard reportedly attended a school run by Butler’s followers in the Philippines." "...Gabbard replaced them with people affiliated with the Science of Identity Foundation." --Hipal (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Other than raw ambition, Gabbard’s adherence to Butler’s foundation has been the only perceptible through line in her switchbacking, two-decade political career." --Hipal (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Williamson and Homans(2025), in NYTimes, introduce their article with
Extended content

Ms. Gabbard grew up in a secretive offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement and has made a dizzying journey from conservative to liberal darling to Trump ally.

A couple of paragraphs later:

Ms. Gabbard, who grew up in a fringe spiritual movement and was a darling of the left during her early years in Congress, has ricocheted across nearly the entire ideological spectrum of American politics, fueling questions about what she stands for and truly believes. Ms. Gabbard, 43, is now the president’s choice to oversee the nation’s 18 spy agencies as the director of national intelligence.

Later:

In Hawaii, colleagues, friends and critics debate whether the spiritual movement Ms. Gabbard grew up in — the Science of Identity Foundation, a secretive offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement vehemently opposed to same-sex relationships and abortion, and deeply suspicious of Islam — was a motivation for her policy stances. In Washington, some colleagues say she was more influenced by a military deployment to Iraq during one of the most brutal periods of the insurgency. Others attribute her ideological arc to ambition.

Later there is a section headed, "A Science of Identity Childhood" that begins:

Ms. Gabbard was born in American Samoa and raised in Hawaii, where she was home-schooled by her parents, who were longtime Science of Identity disciples and teachers.

There's much we can draw from in this twelve paragraph section.

There's a great deal here. I'll fill in more. --Hipal (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Ms. Gabbard grew up in a secretive offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement..." "Ms. Gabbard, who grew up in a fringe spiritual movement..." "Ms. Gabbard was born in American Samoa and raised in Hawaii, where she was home-schooled by her parents, who were longtime Science of Identity disciples and teachers." "Ms. Gabbard attended a school run by Science of Identity disciples in the Philippines for a time, worked in her youth in one of the group’s health food stores, married a fellow disciple and has employed several in her political operation." "...Abraham Williams, a fellow Science of Identity disciple..." --Hipal (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


  • Feng, Forrest, and Ostroff(2025), in WSJ. Highlighting the most relevant info, starting with the second paragraph:
Extended content

Gabbard, a former House member who is now President Trump’s nominee for director of national intelligence, was raised in the Science of Identity Foundation, a sect tied to a direct-marketing firm accused of running a pyramid scheme in several countries. Neither Gabbard, the sect nor the firm, QI Group, wanted the relationships scrutinized.

The subsequent paragraphs have relevant information as well.

Later:

Gabbard’s parents are followers of Butler, a former Hare Krishna disciple who founded Science of Identity Foundation in Hawaii in the 1970s. They raised Gabbard in the group, said former followers, who described Butler’s demands of fealty. Some adherents mixed Butler’s toenail clippings into their meals, two former followers said, as a sign of devotion. Others used his shoes as prayer totems, they said.

There are also details about SIF that might be useful.

Later:

As Gabbard’s political profile grew in 2017, and she contemplated a 2020 presidential bid, public scrutiny of her roots in Science of Identity intensified. Gabbard’s campaign, Tulsi for Hawaii, hired Potomac Square Group, paying the firm $19,400 in October 2017, FEC records show.  Under Khemaney’s direction, Potomac worked to obscure longstanding connections between Gabbard and Butler, as well as between QI and Science of Identity, according to documents reviewed by the Journal and a person familiar with the matter. Potomac targeted journalists who had conducted research into the groups, for instance, writing an email to a magazine editor questioning the credentials of a reporter working on a related article.

The article ends:

Gabbard has rarely addressed her ties to Science of Identity Foundation and its leader Chris Butler.

  “I can speak to my own personal experience and, frankly, my gratitude to him,” she said in a 2017 magazine profile, “for the gift of this wonderful spiritual practice that he has given to me, and to so many people.”

Some of the QNet info should be considered for incorporation in other parts of this article. --Hipal (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Gabbard...was raised in the Science of Identity Foundation..." "Neither Gabbard, the sect nor the firm, QI Group, wanted the relationships scrutinized." "Gabbard’s parents are followers of Butler, a former Hare Krishna disciple who founded Science of Identity Foundation in Hawaii in the 1970s." "Gabbard has rarely addressed her ties to Science of Identity Foundation and its leader Chris Butler." --Hipal (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


  • Heer(2025), in The Nation, second paragraph:
Extended content

Former Hawaii governor Neil Abercrombie, a disillusioned former supporter, describes Gabbard as a “shapeshifter.” Abercrombie, a Democrat, was quoted in a New York Times profile that documented Gabbard’s wild dance across the political spectrum. She was born into the Science of Identity sect, described by the New York Times as “a secretive offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement vehemently opposed to same-sex relationships and abortion, and deeply suspicious of Islam.” Although she now says she is not associated with the Science of Identity Foundation and simply identifies as Hindu, the movement has been instrumental in supporting her throughout her career. Notably, when she was first elected to the Hawaii statehouse in 2002, she shared the Science of Identity’s opposition to abortion and marriage equality. Later on, when running for Congress as a Democrat, she disavowed those positions, although she has held steadfast in her Islamophobia, one of the few consistent commitments in her volatile political career.

There's little else. --Hipal (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"She was born into the Science of Identity sect", "...the movement has been instrumental in supporting her throughout her career." --Hipal (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


  • Sanneh(2025), in The New Yorker, ends with:
Extended content

When I profiled Gabbard for this magazine, in 2017, I found that it was hard to make sense of Gabbard’s world view without understanding the faith tradition that has nurtured and shaped her. She has a longstanding association with a group that is now known as the Science of Identity Foundation, and its leader, a teacher named Chris Butler, who is also known as Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, and whom Gabbard has called her “guru dev”—meaning, roughly, “spiritual master.” (Butler has identified himself with the Vaishnava Hindu tradition; his own spiritual teacher was A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder of the Hare Krishna movement.) Gabbard grew up largely among fellow-disciples, and spent part of her girlhood in the Philippines, studying with followers of Butler. In Hawaii, people associated with Butler’s group have been involved in politics since the nineteen-seventies. And a recent report in the Wall Street Journal described links between the group and an “alleged pyramid scheme” with international ties. Throughout the hearing, Gabbard promised to bring “transparency” to the national intelligence community, even though she has not been particularly transparent about this part of her life. A spokesperson for Gabbard recently told the Times that “she has never and doesn’t have affiliation” with the Science of Identity Foundation. And when I was reporting on Gabbard, I asked about her spiritual teacher, and she told me that she had no spiritual teacher who was more important than the others. It is clear, though, that Butler’s teaching has played a central role in her life. And in October, 2017, I spoke with Butler himself, who helped me to understand Gabbard’s spiritual path. He seemed to regard her with fatherly pride, speaking of himself as the spiritual equivalent of a music teacher. “He’s taught one of his students cello,” Butler told me. “And he sees that, oh, this student of mine is now playing cello in the philharmonic orchestra. And it’s beautiful.” Little of this was discussed at the hearing, although in her opening statement Gabbard acknowledged her spiritual life, as well as the accusation that she is too sympathetic to foreign leaders such as Narendra Modi and Vladimir Putin. “Those who oppose my nomination imply that I am loyal to something or someone other than God, my own conscience, and the Constitution of the United States—accusing me of being Trump’s puppet, Putin’s puppet, Assad’s puppet, a guru’s puppet, Modi’s puppet,” she said. “Not recognizing the absurdity of simultaneously being the puppet of five different puppet masters.”

There's not much to work from here. --Hipal (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"She has a longstanding association with a group that is now known as the Science of Identity Foundation, and its leader...", "Gabbard grew up largely among fellow-disciples, and spent part of her girlhood in the Philippines, studying with followers of Butler." "It is clear, though, that Butler’s teaching has played a central role in her life." "He seemed to regard her with fatherly pride..." --Hipal (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant content from Tulsi Gabbard article

  • ...two years at a girls' school in the Philippines.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "5 things to know about Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's choice for director of national intelligence". PBS. November 14, 2024. Retrieved November 29, 2024. raised in Hawaii and spent a year of her childhood in the Philippines.
  2. ^ "How the American Sangh built up Tulsi Gabbard | The Caravan". 2024-09-19. Archived from the original on September 19, 2024. Retrieved 2024-11-18.
  3. ^ Bowles, Nellie (August 2, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard Thinks We're Doomed". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 2, 2019. Retrieved December 16, 2019.
  4. ^ a b Hurley, Bevan (August 4, 2019). "Meet the guitar-strumming Kiwi surfer dude who's become US presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard's secret weapon". Archived from the original on March 12, 2020. Retrieved December 9, 2019.
  5. ^ Howley, Kerry (June 11, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard Had a Very Strange Childhood". New York Magazine. Archived from the original on February 13, 2020. Retrieved January 13, 2019.
  6. ^ a b c Sanneh, Kelefa (October 30, 2017). "What Does Tulsi Gabbard Believe?". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on June 7, 2020. Retrieved January 13, 2019.
  7. ^ Christensen, John (November 23, 1982). "Chris Butler: About this guru business". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. p. B-1.
  8. ^ a b Bowles, Nellie (August 2, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard Thinks We're Doomed". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 2, 2019. Retrieved December 9, 2019. She was raised in part on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler....'he's essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor'
  9. ^ McCarthy, Tom (March 19, 2019). "Who is Tulsi Gabbard? The progressive 2020 hopeful praised by Bannon and the right". The Guardian. Archived from the original on May 20, 2019. Retrieved December 16, 2019.
  10. ^ Grube, Nick (2024-12-10). "Senators Urged To Examine Gabbard's 'Deep and Intense' Ties To Hawaiʻi Sect". Honolulu Civil Beat. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  11. ^ a b Bolante, Ronna (August 1, 2004). "Who is Mike Gabbard?". Honolulu Magazine. Archived from the original on May 6, 2020. Retrieved November 1, 2019.

Simply following from what's at Tulsi Gabbard, focusing on her relationship with SIF, and drawing upon the other sources we currently use or have been reviewed above:

  • She was raised in a SIF community.
  • Her parents were long-time followers of Chris Butler and members of SIF.
  • Gabbard was mostly home schooled, but attended a SIF girls' school in the Philippines.
  • (Include Gabbard's description of her relationship with Butler, and Butler's description of his relationship with her.)
  • Gabbard continued to have strong ties to the SIF community through her life.
  • Gabbard has worked to hide her relationship with SIF.

I expect there are some main points missing, and it appears we have to qualify at least some of the information occurring after she started obscuring her relationship with SIF. --Hipal (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain what we should use to introduce the section on Gabbard. Butler's description maybe, or her family ties to SIF and how she's worked to hide them. The latter would be more consistent with the Tulsi Gabbard article, and a much more prominent topic in the references. --Hipal (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secretive group and Butler's position

Going over the seven potential refs discussed above, there appear to be some aspects of SIF that deserve higher prominence: the secretiveness of the group, and Butler's position in the group as a figure of adoration and extremely high authority. Some indication of their business relationships seems DUE as well. --Hipal (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previously mentioned that should also be added to this article: QNet should be mentioned. --Hipal (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from select current sources

Quickly digging through the better sources from the disputed content:

  • Sennah(2017), in The New Yorker:
Extended content

When the Gabbards moved to Hawaii, in 1983, they joined the circle of disciples around Butler.

Gabbard pursued a spiritual education: as a girl, she spent two years in the Philippines, at informal schools run by followers of Butler.

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.

There's a great deal to draw from here. --Hipal (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bowles(2019), in NYTimes:
Extended content

She was raised in part on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler, who founded The Science of Identity Foundation, and whose work she said still guides her.

Not much here. --Hipal (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association with Tulsi Gabbard - Section content

The RfC mentions that sectioin content be reverted to the version before the RfC, except for the deletion of Tulsi Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF.

I saved the last version as below:

From [9]:

Association to Tulsi Gabbard and her family

SIF received a great deal of media coverage when some columnists found that Tulsi Gabbard had been associated with the SIF.[1][2][failed verification] During her childhood, Tulsi Gabbard was influenced by SIF and considered Butler as her mentor.[3] In 2015, she acknowledged Butler as her guru in a video statement for an ISKCON anniversary event.[1][4] Her father, Mike Gabbard, a Hawaii State Senator, has also been associated with SIF[1][5][6] and his wife, Carol Gabbard, was the treasurer of the SIF.[5] Tulsi Gabbard has since distanced herself from SIF.[7][2] While she called Butler her guru in a 2015 video statement for an ISKCON event,[1][4] she commented, in 2017: “I’ve had many different spiritual teachers” and called Butler "essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor".[8] A 2015 Honolulu Civil Beat review of records, internet postings and interviews has found "no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee".[9]

[4][5][1]


Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Humanengr (talk), I think we may update the section per WP:NPOV and WP:BLPBALANCE, after the RfC has been closed with vague guidance. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to take up the dispute that resulted in the RfC? I suggest you rethink your approach. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am only following the guidance provide in RfC closure, and not disputing the RfC outcome. I accept the outcome, which is to remove the phrase that "Tulsi Gabbard distanced herself from SIF". Thanks. RogerYg (talk) RogerYg (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the RfC closure report below:
The essence of this in compact form is: (a) there is a consensus for the section described, (b) there is no consensus for what that section should be titled, (c) there is no consensus as to whether to include a "separation" or "distancing" statement in the section, however, the practical result may be that this should be omitted pending some future consensus since (it appears) omission was the stable version of the article.
The RfC closure guidance encourages future discussion to gain a future consensus on this issue. So, I am following the RfC guidance for developing a consensus on these issues. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring subsequent discussion, and duplicating portions of it is disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Sanneh, Kelefa (October 30, 2017). "What Does Tulsi Gabbard Believe?". New Yorker. Archived from the original on June 7, 2020. Retrieved January 13, 2019.
  2. ^ a b Bowles, Nellie (August 2, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard Thinks We're Doomed". The New York Times. p. A1. Archived from the original on September 26, 2019. Retrieved September 21, 2019.
  3. ^ Grube, Nick (2024-12-10). "Senators Urged To Examine Gabbard's 'Deep and Intense' Ties To Hawaiʻi Sect". Honolulu Civil Beat. Retrieved 2024-12-12.
  4. ^ a b c Hurley, Bevan (2022-10-16). "Tulsi Gabbard's ties to secretive cult may explain her perplexing political journey". The Independent. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
  5. ^ a b c Bolante, Ronna (2004-08-01). "Who is Mike Gabbard?". Honolulu Magazine. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
  6. ^ Issenberg, Sasha (2021). The Engagement: America's Quarter-Century Struggle Over Same-Sex Marriage. Knopf Doubleday. pp. 112–114. ISBN 9781984898517.
  7. ^ "Tulsi Gabbard: Did British daily call Hinduism or ISKCON an 'obscure cult'?". The Times of India. November 21, 2024. 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.
  8. ^ McCarthy, Tom (March 19, 2019). "Who is Tulsi Gabbard? The progressive 2020 hopeful praised by Bannon and the right". TheGuardian.com. Archived from the original on May 20, 2019. Retrieved December 16, 2019.
  9. ^ Kaneya, Rui (March 16, 2015). "Tulsi Gabbard Still Dogged By Krishna Cult Rumors". Huffington Post. Retrieved December 14, 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Association with Gabbard family

The closed RfC notes that there is no consensus on title of the Section. I would suggest that the title be changed

from Association with Tulsi Gabbard

to Association with Gabbard family

since the main association of Butler was with Mike Gabbard, and Tulsi was mostly a minor during much of her mentioned association, which is over her schooling years, and early teenage years. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also per WP:BLP, it seems unfair to target Tulsi Gabbard in the section title, while it has been noted in the RfC that there is no consensus for Section title "Association with Tulsi Gabbard" .

Mike Gabbard had a longer association with SIF than Tulsi. Further, I think much of Tulsi's association may be debatable and with contradictions from different sources. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of section headings is to help readers find relevant information about the topic. This section - and the numerous sources on which it is based - exist because Tulsi Gabbard is now a highly prominent individual. The significant number of sources has not arisen because her family are the directors of national intelligence: it is because Tulsi Gabbard is. Her association with the article subject is why this section exists at all. Thus its appropriate, and most helpful to readers, to include her name in the title. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this previously. SIF is notable because of the coverage of Tulsi Gabbard. Taking up the dispute once again to violate POV by indicating otherwise is disruptive. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note point b of the RfC closure report below:
(b) there is no consensus for what that section should be titled
The RfC closure guidance encourages future discussion to gain a future consensus on relvant issues. So, I am following the RfC guidance for developing a consensus on these issues. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring policy, past discussion, and references is disruptive and counter to consensus-building. --Hipal (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Science_of_Identity_Foundation
No tags for this post.