Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:08, 4 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Science of Identity Foundation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 November 2019. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hinduism: Krishnaism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Krishnaism (assessed as Low-importance). Hawaii Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Low-importance).

revert re Byline Times

I removed The Byline Times notes him to have branded Islam as a "dog-shit" intolerant religion that was spread through sword — and hence, should not be tolerated by others — in one of his speeches. with edit summary Byline Times not RS for controversial claim (WP:BLP). TrangaBellam reverted with edit summary And why?.

See WP:RSN here, here, in here, and here. Humanengr (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Werleman, C. J. (2019-10-03). "Islamophobic World View of Tulsi Gabbard's Guru Revealed in Unearthed Recordings – Can she Still Run for President?". Byline Times. Retrieved 2024-07-31.

Humanengr (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Humanengr: It seems that there is no consensus on the reliability of the site; okay. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Podcast

By the trio of Walker-Remski-Beres who have been published by Penguin on relevant topics. Do note that this is not a BLP but an article about a CORP. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits (BI + Independent)

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

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

About the Founder of SIF and the History

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

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

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

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

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

Old news

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

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

NPOVN

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

Same old label concerns

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

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

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

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

  Butler preaches that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So —

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

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

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

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

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

@TrangaBellam: in case you missed the above. TryKid  04:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Lead

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

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

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

Avoid libelous claims on Gabbard per WP:BLP

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

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

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

Gabbard identifies as a Vaishnava Hindu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I tackled some more issues:

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

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

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

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

Str1977 12:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New religious movement

@The Anome: can you specify which sources use the phrase "new religious movement" to describe SIF? TryKid  15:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

That sounds like synthesis. But fine. TryKid  18:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of recently added content about Tulsi Gabbard

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

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

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

References

1. Bowles, Nellie (August 2, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard Thinks We're Doomed". The New York Times. Retrieved December 9, 2019. She was raised heavily on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler....'he's essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor'
2. 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.
3. Bowles, Nellie (August 2, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard Thinks We're Doomed". The New York Times. p. A1. Retrieved September 21, 2019. Ms. Gabbard … would be the first female president, the first American Samoan, the first from Hawaii, the first surfer, the first vegan.
4. "US commemorates the inaugural International Yoga Day". economictimes. June 19, 2015.
5. "Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Launches Campaign For Diwali Stamp In US". July 1, 2016. Retrieved March 29, 2024.
6. Sacirbey, Omar (November 2, 2012). "Hawaii Democrat poised to be elected first Hindu in Congress". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 8, 2020. Retrieved December 28, 2019. 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, and his 10 primary incarnations. Her primary scripture is the centuries-old Bhagavad Gita, whose themes include selfless action, spirituality, war, and serving God and humanity.
7. Kumar, Arvind (November 15, 2012). "The first Hindu in US Congress". Indian Weekender. Archived from the original on June 19, 2020. Retrieved October 18, 2019.

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

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

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

You're mistaken.

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

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

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

Tulsi Gabbard distanced herself from SIF and Butler

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

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

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

References

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also in cases of Religion or Religious beliefs, as per Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It also smacks of cherry picking... Please retract. We have admission of cherry picking against using The New Yorker . Claiming the opposite looks very bad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We have admission of cherry picking against using The New Yorker . 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 21:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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. The above is the only one that I can access. --Hipal (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Start-Class Hinduism articles
• Low-importance Hinduism articles
• Start-Class Krishnaism articles
• Low-importance Krishnaism articles
• Start-Class Hawaii articles
• Low-importance Hawaii articles
• WikiProject Hawaii articles
• Start-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• Start-Class New religious movements articles
• Low-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles