Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RFC on Science of Identity Foundation

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 mention Gabbard's association with the Science of Identity Foundation or the SIF community? (Example of press coverage: 1, 2)

Suggestions regarding the wording are welcome, but the key sticking point is whether any mention of Butler is warranted. See previous TP discussion here, and older older BLPN discussion here Nblund ^talk 14:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Include some mention of Butler. Her ties to the group have been the primary focus of two feature length articles in respected sources(The New Yorker,New York Mag) and are consistently mentioned in profiles of her campaign (Miami Herald, The Guardian, New York Times, Telegraph). The Hawaiian press has been covering her families ties to Butler since she entered politics (Star Advertiser, Honolulu Civil Beat). And Butler's anti-gay views are thought to have influenced Tulsi and Mike Gabbard's anti-gay organizing in the early 2000s. If this detail is not due for inclusion, I really don't know how anything in the article could be considered WP:DUE Nblund ^talk 14:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• No... though it could mention her association with the SIF community. The problem is the unwarranted use of the word "affiliated". Suggest redrafting, Nblund. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

okay, I've changed affiliated to "associated". Again, the core question is whether or not we can mention SIF here. Nblund ^talk 14:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Include, but treat her association with a community she grew up in and then later out of respectfully, i.e. without assuming she is brainwashed by A Man who has some sort of secret mission to make us all repeatedly watch youtube videos of her wedding while chanting "go team blue". 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I have decided to remove my vote for the time being, as I am convinced that this will be treated inappropriately. I do not wish to give Gabbard's opponents carte blanche to smear her for someone else's opinions. It's amazing that one cannot speak of the community someone grew up in without people trying to insinuate that the community controls the person. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Include some mention of this community There are good examples to follow in the better sources, especially the New Yorker piece. I'll reexamine all the potential sources and comment about them later. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• No The RfC is too vague. You need to say what you actually want the article to say. ust saying she has connections with the group without saying what they are is tendentious. TFD (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I asked about the framing of this RfC, and you ignored the question. I also asked you directly to offer any version of a wording that you would support, and you said you thought it just wasn't due for inclusion. Why do you care about the specificity of the proposal if you're going to oppose it no matter what? Nblund ^talk 16:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not up to me to write what you propose to add, nor would I reject something before I read it. In any case you should have some idea about what information you intend to add before holding an RfC about it. Regardless of how you think I will respond, there are other editors who will come to contribute. TFD (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

If there's some version of this that you would support, feel free to propose it below. Nblund ^talk 17:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Include, between family connections, obvious influences on her own previous, and possibly some current, policy positions, her own naming of him as an influence, the links to her education, etc it more than warrants mention. JamesG5 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• No This remains an invalid RfC. What does 'some mention' mean? What does 'association' mean? The devil is in the details here. The sticking point is not "whether any mention of Butler is warranted" but what specifically is being proposed for inclusion so it can be assessed. Would it be mention of 'Chris Butler' or of 'Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa'? If you will present proposed text, rationale, and proposed evidence, then there will be something to comment on. It may turn out to be appropriate to have a whole section on this. So voting on whether there should be 'some mention' is vacuous. As it stands, this RfC amounts to WP:CANVAS to open the door to vague insinuation on a BLP. Humanengr (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund, Can you please append "if the material and sources relied upon satisfies policy" to the first sentence of the RfC (prior to the question mark?) Humanengr (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to continue editing the wording of the RFC given how many people have already participated, but any text we add would need to conform to existing policies. Nblund ^talk 17:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take that as included by reference. Humanengr (talk)

• Include per Nblund's arguments and the two excellent feature articles that discuss this at length. Contrary to what a couple of users claim, this is a perfectly valid RfC.- MrX 🖋 22:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

17:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Include. Plenty of source material to draw from on this issue. If our sources talk it about then we know it's important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Include Excellent sources with outstanding reputations for accuracy and fact checking have reported on her long term connections with this group. It should be discussed neutrally in her biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude It smells like innuendo. Please see quote below from a reputable source. -- Ingyhere (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment @Ingyhere: Except a) that source also details that basically everyone on her staff and in a relationship with her is part of the group and are devotees, and b) it ignores the whole "private school run by Butler's group" documented elsewhere herein, this quote "“No,” she said. 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.”" from a reliable source (and it's on video anyway), etc. JamesG5 (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude: Because what is this? The 1980's? Are we seriously engaging in this narrow minded, moral panic? Grow up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.24.194.62 (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)— 35.24.194.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Include and here is my proposal:

  Tulsi Gabbard and her family have long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation religious community, led by the controversial socially conservative guru Chris Butler. Gabbard has said that Butler's work is an influence on her; in 2015 she referred to him as her "guru dev" (“spiritual master”). Her familial ties to the organization and Butler include her parents, who served on the board of the Science of Identity Foundation when she grew up, and her current husband, who has worked for Butler's wife. Localemediamonitor (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

References

• Include It has been reported by legitimate sources and could further provide more insights regarding her Hindu beliefs. Darwin Naz (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Include Well referenced and goes into her beliefs. As a public political figure in national news its more than fitting on their Wikipedia page. ContentEditman (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• No because of policy. Gabbard is the victim of various character assassination attempts (e.g. NYT's accusations against Gabbard of being a "Russian asset", a "Trojan horse", a "white nationalist idol", and so on), and this attempt of using Gabbard's religion teacher for "tieing" Gabbard to a "cult" also only serves the same purpose via creating a guilt by association. Wikipedia prohibits this via WP:V and WP:LIBEL: "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." Civil Beat found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is a Butler devotee.[1] It is also prohibited via WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging victimization (being victim of another's actions, e.g. libel)." None of the people Civil Beat has interviewed, or even the Gabbard skeptics on the Cult Education forum, can point to any nefarious plot being concocted by Butler or offer an articulate explanation as to why Gabbard’s constituents should be alarmed by Butler’s potential influence on the congresswoman. But that hasn’t stopped them from looking for evidence of a secret agenda. Some have been arguing that the whole idea of examining Butler’s influence reeks of religious bigotry. The minority faiths of politicians have at times been singled out and met with bigoted backlash. Gabbard experienced this in the 2012 campaign.[2] and in 2016: Some of Gabbard's political opponents called her a "devil worshipper" and her faith "incompatible with the constitution".[3] It's obvious Gabbard's religion gets abused as political weapon by her opponents.

Chris Butler was Gabbard's religion teacher during her childhood. Some people (especially Gabbard's political opponents) claim that Chris Butler is "bad" (labeled "controversial") because he has "bad behavior" (e.g. labeled "guru" or "master" or "authoritarian") or teaches "bad religion" (e.g. labeled "cult"). They draw this painting of the "bad Chris Butler" to use it to copy his "badness" onto Gabbard via guilt by association. A child has no control over the religious teaching it receives or the behavior of it's teacher, therefore a person must never be disparaged or accused for this teaching or the behavior of the teacher. Wikipedia policy prohibits this via WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging victimization." Anything "bad" Butler may have said or done to anyone while Gabbard was a child is not admissible for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is why only quotes by the article subject about their religious views during adulthood are admissible. WP:GUILT defines: "Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties." A child cannot prevent the conduct of it's teacher or the teaching it receives, therefore everything related to Gabbard's religious teaching or her teacher during her childhood is off limits.

The main "bad religion/behavior" Butler has been accused of is an anti gay marriage stance. Even that is outdated: Nowadays, Butler seems to have deëmphasized homosexuality: there is no mention of homosexuality on his foundation’s Web site, or in his recent teachings.[4], which means attempting to justify Butler's inclusion for this anti gay marriage stance violates the WP:OUTDATED policy. Also, Gabbard has a 100% pro-LGBTQ voting record in Congress. Elaborating on Gabbard's outdated gay marriage stance in the lead and the "policies" section already gives this topic WP:UNDUE weight. Additionally, Gabbard's Catholic father Mike was an anti-gay marriage activist which very well may have shaped Tulsi Gabbard's anti gay marriage stance in her youth up to 23 years (in 2004). Claiming that it was not her father but Butler who shaped her early anti gay marriage stance is therefore also just a claim.

The notorious [5] NPR interview [6] [7] has Gabbard explaining the media situation and her religious views: "What I would love to do is for our conversation to be focused on me, not my parents. ... Ask me about what I have said and done." ... "Vaishnava Hinduism, the practice that I follow, is a monotheistic branch of Hinduism that is centered around love. Love for god and love for others, and how we can be best pleasing to god through the practice of Karma yoga which means taking action to serve others, to protect our planet, and to develop my own personal loving relationship with god." There are several other interviews where Gabbard explains her religious views in much more detail like [8] and [9] There are also speeches from Gabbard at Hinduism conferences where she explains her religion even more detailed and a lot of other videos where Gabbard explains her religion and philosophy.[10] How about writing about Gabbard's inter-religious stances with Catholics[11], Muslims[12] and Jews[13]? Somehow nobody has been interest to use these hours of material on her actual current religious views for her article, but only her alleged "ties" with the "controversial cult leader" seem of interest to some people. Xenagoras (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Honolulu Civil Beat is a poor source. It seems like your argument rests on trusting its reporting far more than the reliable reporting from national news publications. New York Magazine refers to "Gabbards’ known involvement with the Science of Identity". There are many sources that establish Gabbard's parents' involvement with SIF. Although WP:GUILT is not actually a policy, it correctly states that "At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties." There are sources that firmly establish Mike Gabbard as the nexus of Tulsi Gabbard's involvement with her father's anti-LGBT organization, and her parents involvement in another anti-LGBT organization that was co-counded by SIF. In other words, her family and her guru are how she is associated. Since the RfC merely proposes that we "mention Gabbard's association with the Science of Identity Foundation" we are good, because we no one is proposing that we speak of her guilt (assuming there is any).- MrX 🖋 13:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrX, Re WP:GUILT: Are you saying Tulsi "could have prevented" her parents or anybody else from espousing “controversial socially conservative views”? Humanengr (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr: No, I'm not saying that.- MrX 🖋 11:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrX, Re: "how she is associated": Guilt by association is precisely what is prohibited, not what one is trying to establish. Merely asserting an association (however phrased) with the sinister and titillating designation "controversial socially conservative guru" is a canonical example of the prohibited practice.

Contentious appellations, like fact-free allegations about a 'cult' from a few individuals with questionable motives, are not appropriate for inclusion in WP in any event. (Per WP:BLP, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid". Per WP:BLPBALANCE, "the views of small minorities should not be included at all.") But even if it passed those tests, what would the nexus be that would justify including such language in Tulsi Gabbard's BLP? A 'nexus' is not merely an 'association': it is a causal connection in a chain of events, or in the WP policy language you quote above, "a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject". Humanengr (talk) 07:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, I did not assert that she is guilty of anything, nor does this proposal. If we simply reflect what the sources say, then we are in good shape. HaeB covers this in their comment of October 10 on this page.- MrX 🖋 11:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrX, You wrote: ‘If we simply reflect what the sources say, then we are in good shape.’ This statement is false and a shocking abrogation of editorial responsibility under WP policies. The New Yorker, NY Mag and NYT may generally be considered reliable sources because of their reputations for ‘fact-checking’ news stories. But this merely sets up a rebuttable presumption of reliability, and there is ample evidence that these articles do not warrant ‘reliable source’ treatment. For one thing, they are all ‘human interest’ stories, and WP:NEWSORG advises that "human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting”. From this caution alone, editors lose the ability to claim that 'simply reflecting what the sources say' is adequate.

Even as human interest stories, however, one is struck by their snide, bigoted tone and weak sourcing. Each of these pieces apparently relied on the last and so they were infected from one to the next to spread innuendo and rumor in a Grapevine fashion. The first two are particularly rife with inflammatory and misleading language, asserting easily rebuttable false – and sometimes defamatory – statements. They mainly rely on fact-free allegations from anonymous or no sources other than the opinions of the writers, which hardly rise to the level of material appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. One of the likely anonymous sources for the New Yorker is an individual in the NY Mag piece who is not only on record making contradictory, outrageous and defamatory claims about the subject of his ‘testimony’, but who is under an injunction not to continue that behavior. Some minimal degree of journalistic integrity would have led these authors (and their editors, if there indeed were editors involved who cared about ‘fact-checking’) to reject such sources for their sensationalistic and bigoted essays. WP editors who are actually functioning as editors under the policies certainly should reject them. There should not only be no material added to Tulsi Gabbard’s BLP that would draw attention to them and their smear campaigns, but they should be excluded from the reference section altogether. Humanengr (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It is worth noting the savvy melting of the Russian Red Republican Red background into Gabbard's clothes in the photo illustrating the article in the Intelligencer (NY Mag) when evaluating its neuterality. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

MrX, Honolulu Civil Beat is a reliable source, it is an investigative news website that practices watchdog journalism: fact-checking, interviewing, beat reporting and investigative journalism. Honolulu Civil Beat has been awarded best news site in Hawaii by the Society of Professional Journalists each year since 2011. Please do not dispute the reliability of apparently good sources. You have a habit of doing that, e.g against Glenn Greenwald's writing in The Intercept if that writing is non-hostile towards Gabbard or Russia ("Greenwald was simply not objective in his reporting", "We're not obligated to print his misinformation", Localemediamonitor:"That's pure disinfo from Russian apologist Greenwald." MrX:"I agree."). You claimed a widespread perception that Gabbard were trading favors with Russia ("The viewpoint of the apparent Russia-Gabbard quid pro quo is contemporary with her campaign, so it's very relevant") 5 months before Gabbard's opponents (Clinton et.al.) began making a similar claim by defaming her as "Russian asset" [14] and 4 months before the same rhetoric of "quid pro quo" was used to justify impeachment inquiry against Trump.[15] Your most blatant disregard for the neutral point of view policy regarding sources for Gabbard-articles can be read here: "(Sources that talk about a DNC/media campaign to marginalize Gabbard) are not reliable sources." You are judging the reliability of sources by how well they support your desired viewpoint and reject sources if their writing is non-hostile towards Gabbard (or Russia). This constitutes a pattern of systematic neutral point of view policy violation towards a BLP. Also, do not argue about the number of citations by the sources as you did there:[16].

Localemediamonitor also disparages reliable sources if they write non-hostile towards Gabbard or Russia "That's pure disinfo from Russian apologist Greenwald." and he conducted severe WP:BLP violations regarding Gabbard [17] [18], which I explained.[19]

My arguments rest on policies and guidelines and for this article especially on policies for biographies of living persons. When choosing and quoting sources, beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or promotional content. Sources may use words to be avoided or even loaded language to invoke an emotional response and/or exploit stereotypes in the audience (e.g bigotry), which must be especially guarded against in BLPs. The NYMag article uses weasel words like "known involvement" without giving any explanation what the "involvement" is (innuendo to elicit bigotry) or evidence for why it is "known" (fallacy of proof by assertion). There is much more to criticize about that NYMag article. A Wiki article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject. Besides being inadmissible because of WP:GUILT and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, events/persons during Gabbard's childhood are clearly such a minor aspect of Gabbard's BLP. Additionally, Chris Butler is a low-profile individual who has been avoiding public attention, interviews and photographs since several decades.[20] Butler and his Science of Identity Foundation both have zero news coverage outside the context of Gabbard's political career. This means both Butler and his Foundation are not notable enough to have an article. Both are abused exclusively to attack Gabbard's reputation.[21] [22] Wikipedia prohibits Scandal mongering. Every sentence that argues with "...Gabbard is associated / affiliated with bad person/group X..." is violating policy because it comprises guilt by association. WP:GUILT states, "...At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject." This means the minimum requirement to begin considering inclusion of negative information about another person is that the article subject had the same negative conduct as the other person and their conduct was directly related (e.g. they acted together or in support of each other). Negative information about Gabbard's father is already part of the article via the sentence, "In 1998, at age 17, she campaigned for an anti-gay rights organization founded by her father", although this violates WP:AVOIDVICTIM because at age 17 she was a minor that lived dependent and under the authority of her parents and therefore she could not act independently from her father. Xenagoras (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

This editor is a single-purpose account created two months ago who near-exclusively edits pages that relate to Gabbard and her presidential campaign. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, 70% of my article edits are about other topics than Gabbard. Please refrain from calling me a "single-purpose account". You used an ad hominem argument against my vote, which constitutes the fallacy of attacking the author (me) instead of refuting the arguments. I feel belittled by your comment and ask you to strike through your comment. Xenagoras (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You're a two-month old account who has only edited pages related to Gabbard and her controversies (this includes Hindu nationalism and 2020 primary polling). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs) 23:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The motivation for the WP:SPA suggestion is to ensure that policies for balanced and neutral treatment of material appropriate for an encyclopedia are followed. Where can you point to a specific instance where Xenagoras has done anything other than maintain the highest standards of scholarship? Humanengr (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, you have ignored my petition for striking out your unwarranted SPA-comment I feel belittled by, and instead repeated that comment. Additionally you uttered an unwarranted and false suspicion about me having a conflict of interest.[23] These two things serve an attempt to damage my reputation. My impression is that you are attempting to bait me into retaliating with aggression. This constitutes uncivil behavior on your part. Please be civil. Xenagoras (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Include I agree with SashiRolls. It should be included, but context should be given toward the association if she is no longer associated with the group. Pedestrianswimmer (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

For info, I've changed my vote. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that is an interesting point. Thinking about it from the perspective of Tulsi Gabbard herself and the perspective of anyone in this type of scenario the community you are raised in doesn't always create lasting impacts on someone's entire life. I maintain my vote, but emphasize the fact that the context needs to be taken into consideration. Pedestrianswimmer (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude - not inclined to give carte blanche to undefined edits, particularly when it looks a bit tabloidish, and actually this feels UNDUE. BLP guidanece is towards restraint, suggest this is something to restrain. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Except all of this information comes from reliable, reputable sources rather than tabloidsSamp4ngeles (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Include. Reliably sourced and DUE. Basic bio info. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Include. As to what exactly, anything that's reliably sourced and DUE, per Snooganssnoogans --В²C ☎ 00:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• Include some mention of it, given the coverage in reliable sources. (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Include Multiple excellent RS mention it and the absence of information on this article is a noticeable gap. v.THREE below appears to have consensus, but Localemediamonitor's version above is similar and would also work. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Include - agree with the above RockingGeo (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Include - It's verifiable. Why wouldn't we add it? NickCT (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude - as tabloidish. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Except all of this information comes from reliable, reputable sources rather than tabloidsSamp4ngeles (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Include - It's an aspect that has received widespread coverage. Since it has received widespread coverage, it should be included. Personal opinions about relevance or tastefulness are irrelevant; the article should reflect what reliable sources have to say about the subject. --Vassyana (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

This RfC is malformed and would be best withdrawn and rewritten. An RfC is not a place for working on potential versions. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Please suggest an alternative. To reiterate what I said above: the question whether any mention of the SIF is warranted. There's no point in discussing potential versions as long as there's no consensus regarding any mention at all. Nblund ^talk 15:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the potential version. That works. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:The Four Deuces & User:Humanengr: I proposed this RfC framing in the discussion section above, and neither of you offered any objection to it. Multiple editors have offered a variety of potential wordings ([24], [25] [26], [27], [28]). You have rejected every suggested wording, and neither of you have offered any alternate proposals, or even given a hint as to what sort of text you might support, despite repeated requests. If you're opposed to any mention of Butler, then this RfC is warranted. If you support some mention of Butler then simply vote "yes" and then suggest a wording or give some indication as to what you want to see. Nblund ^talk 20:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)   

I am not at all opposed to text that is focused on and supported by evidence of, e.g., Tulsi’s -personal- membership in SIF as an adult, but such has not been proposed. The text I have seen *ignores* rather than addresses the substantive issues of policy violations that have been raised. Another policy violation: using ‘Chris Butler’ rather than Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa is a clear example of deadnaming, intended to shame and ridicule the subject. Even if there was evidence of Gabbard’s adult membership in SIF that would in fact be relevant to her BLP, ‘Chris Butler’ as an individual has privacy rights protected by WP policies. The New Yorker piece which is the supposed ‘reliable source’ for the cult accusations engages in deadnaming over 50 times, while the NY Mag article that relies on it has over 30 instances. There is a serious question of whether those articles should be cited in a BLP at all. You seem to be attempting to make WP a conduit for material intended to harm that incites racism and religious bigotry. Do you really want to continue down this path of dragging WP through the mud? Humanengr (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr: IMO that's a misuse of the deadnaming policy. And from some of the reading I've done since I stumbled on this mess 2 weeks ago the guy uses multiple different names but "Chris Butler" is still his legal name AND he still uses it on official documents. Comparing that to someone who's transitioned is borderline insulting. Not saying you meant it maliciously, but you might want to reconsider that comparison. Most importantly, the SIF's OWN SITE uses his name as seen here so this is a dead end argument. No violations. JamesG5 (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is some pretty creative free association; but Humanengr does have a point, we can blue-link from the full name she actually said in her recording, that's fine. It's respectful, and it's how you find his section at the ISKCON guru system page on en.wp. That said, reading the secondary sources, titles & deeds still seem to be in Butler's boring old dead-name. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: Fair, altho like I said his own website uses both names interchangably, including in the header of his bio page so it's hardly a deadname. JamesG5 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

"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." -- Ingyhere (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

References

@Ingyhere: The story you're citing is 2015, BTW. The same publication, cited below, in 2019 acknowledges the closer ties AND includes the quote from 2015, again on video, of her calling Butler her Dev Guru. So the whole "no ties" thing has been debunked since the 2015 article. JamesG5 (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You may have noticed I suggested we include this sentence in the bio. Cf. infra and supra.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard grew up surrounded by Butler's sect, her parents were on the board and speak highly of Butler's sect, Gabbard's husband works for Butler's businesses, and Gabbard herself refers to Butler as her guru. But somehow none of this can be put into Gabbard's wiki page. Bizarre.Localemediamonitor (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

She actually referred to Butler as "my gurudev." What facts are presented in articles and the depth of coverage is not based on what we consider important, but on the degree of coverage in reliable sources relative to the subject. For example, Barack Obama was an active member of Rev. Jeremiah ("God damn America") Wright's church for 20 years and had a close personal relationship before Obama threw him under the bus 2008. That has been distilled into, "Obama met Trinity United Church of Christ pastor Jeremiah Wright in October 1987 and became a member of Trinity in 1992. During Obama's first presidential campaign in May 2008, he resigned from Trinity after some of Wright's statements were criticized."

While I shouldn't have to defend policy, the advantage of having extensive coverage would be that we would understand what Gabbard meant, we would have her response and then informed opinion. As it is all we have is a sound clip.

I am confused about Mike Gabbard's relationship with Butler because Mr. Gabbard is a lector at a Catholic church and a member of the Catholic Knights of Columbus, where he won a Lifetime Achievement Award. (Tulsi Gabbard has also been attacked for having a father with extreme Catholic views, particularly on same sex marriage. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh came under attack for his membership in the Knights of Columbus.) One cannot be a member of a Hindu sect and an officer of the Catholic church at the same time.

TFD (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The Rev. Wright story is brief in Obama's BLP because we have an entire standalone article on it. Mike Gabbard describes himself as an "enigmatic Catholic" who values ancient Yoga scriptures and Christian practices. He says that Butler's teachings brought him closer to God. He's not a "member" of SiF, but he was listed as a teacher for the group and he's open about being influenced by Butler's teachings. Some people just have complex religious beliefs. We don't have to get inside anyone's head in order to report the basic facts. Nblund ^talk 17:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Spinning out part of an article is no reason to remove material that meets weight for inclusion. Note that there are separate articles for Obama's early ife and career, Illinois legislative career, 2004 Senate campaign, Senate career, presidential campaigns and his presidency, but all of those sections reflect the same weight as if the spun out articles did not exist. The reality is that despite intensive coverage of the Wright story, it is like Butler a fairly minor issue except with opponents.

Note too that this article is about Tulsi not Mike Gabbard. And what incidentally was the influence Butler had one him?

TFD (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The issue of religious bigotry used against politicians is not to be treated lightly. If material on this topic is to be inserted, it should be ‘sensitive’, ‘conservative’, ‘neutral’ and ‘balanced’ per policies. A few lines isn’t sufficient to achieve that once innuendo is raised. I’m adding a version 2 below including additional material which can be cut down but should be incorporated for context. Humanengr (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)<

Again, here is my proposed version, which I don't see any problem with. Drawn directly from legit sources:

Tulsi Gabbard and her family have long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation religious community, led by the controversial socially conservative guru Chris Butler. Gabbard has said that Butler's work is an influence on her; in 2015 she referred to him as her "guru dev" (“spiritual master”). Her familial ties to the organization and Butler include her parents, who served on the board of the Science of Identity Foundation when she grew up, and her current husband, who has worked for Butler's wife. Localemediamonitor (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to remove the weasel-wording. British, Canadian and Australian editors have longstanding ties to Elizabeth II, since she is their sovereign and they are her subjects. But using that description would probably give a misleading description. Karl Marx has been an influence on all subsequent economists, but we would normally not use that phrasing. I would like to see too an explanation of the term my gurudev in a reliable source. In this context did it have any special meaning or is it how one refers to Hindu clergyman?

I am having a little trouble with Chris Butler's chronology based on the scant sources available about him, and their general level of reliability. As I understand it, he was born in Texas, lived in Hawaii in the 60s and 70s, then moved to New Zealand, Australia and back to New Zealand, where Alec Neill denounced him in the NZ parliamebt on March 20, 1996. At some point he was apparently residing in the Philipinnes. Tulsi Gabbard was born in 1981. When was she in contact with Butler?

TFD (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

References

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.

Proposed wordings

(Note: The RfC above is only concerned with whether or not some mention of Butler is warranted. Proposals regarding the text to be added are encouraged. )

v.1

Tulsi Gabbard has long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation community. In March 2015, after study of extensive forum postings and the public record, Honolulu Civil Beat "found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee" and "could find no record of her ever speaking publicly about it".

Five months later, Gabbard referred to Siddhaswarupananda Parmahamsa as her guru dev (teacher), in the context of a celebration of Srila Prabhupada's trip to the United States.

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a start, but it seems like it obscures the fact that Siddhaswarupananda Parmahamsa is Butler. Is that unintentional? Also: do you prefer to avoid mentioning the controversy around Butler? From my perspective, it comes off as more sinister to reference the digging from the Civil Beat without explaining why they care. Nblund ^talk 16:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, hm... The name Butler is in the text and I link to the only mention of him I found on en.wp (if you mouseover Siddhaswarupananda Parmahamsa you'll find his name in the first sentence of that section). I think they care because there was a whole lot of forum noise about it generated by opponents. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This will not work. The second sentence is questionably-sourced (see my comments below) and gives WP:UNDUE prominence to their "investigative" findings. Honolulu Civil Beat is not an acceptable source for controversial BLP content anyway. We should also avoid the Hare Krsna TV YouTube video, because it's a primary source. There are plenty of high-quality secondary sources available. - MrX 🖋 12:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

2020 update: MrX Please see Xenagoras' comments in the RfC above about Honolulu Civil Beat. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: I don't understand why you are responding to a comment I made more than two months ago. I read Xenagoras when they made it and I was not swayed by their mostly circular arguments. - MrX 🖋 20:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure there are. In fact, there are lots of sources that cherry-pick the one rapid mention (3 seconds) of Siddhaswarupananda Parmahamsa in the 5 minute video which is not about Butler... (but you know that). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, she has deflected questions about her guru-dev, probably because she thought it would hurt her politically.[29][30] Her aunt even tried to distance her from this association.[31] - MrX 🖋 14:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

v.2

[withdrawn per MrX stating the Civil Beat piece should not be relied upon, and additional concerns by Sashi Rolls]

Tulsi Gabbard and her family have long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation community centered around the yoga and meditation teachings of Siddhaswarupananda Parmahamsa (born ‘Chris Butler’). Gabbard has referred to him as one of several teachers she has learned from.

Opponents of Gabbard and her father, State Senator Mike Gabbard, have long sought to find something in this association that could be used against them politically, and online forums have been dedicated to that purpose.

In March 2015, after study of extensive forum postings, the public record, and conducting interviews, Honolulu Civil Beat found no evidence that Gabbard is or ever was a "devotee of Butler":

Beyond the vague notion of transparency, none of the people Civil Beat has interviewed, or even the Gabbard skeptics on the Cult Education forum, can point to any nefarious plot being concocted by Butler or offer an articulate explanation as to why Gabbard’s constituents should be alarmed by Butler’s potential influence on the congresswoman. …

To some, all this attention to Gabbard’s faith is troubling. In fact, they have been arguing that the whole idea of examining Butler’s influence reeks of religious bigotry.

Historically speaking, they may have that argument on their side. After all, the minority faiths of politicians — be it Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, Joe Lieberman’s Judaism or John F. Kennedy’s Catholicism — have at times been singled out and met with bigoted backlash.

Gabbard experienced this firsthand in the run-up to the 2012 campaign when her GOP opponent, Kawika Crowley, told CNN that Gabbard’s Hinduism “doesn’t align with the constitutional foundation of the U.S. government."

References

As indicated above, cutting down quotes while retaining their substance would be reasonable. Humanengr (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This will not work. The third sentence is not supported by either of the cited sources, and Honolulu Civil Beat is not an acceptable source for controversial BLP content anyway. Obviously, WP:OR is not allowed. The fourth sentence and quote are poorly-sourced and way WP:UNDUE. - MrX 🖋 12:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

v.THREE

Tulsi Gabbard and her family have long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation religious community, led by the controversial socially conservative guru Chris Butler. Gabbard has said that Butler's work is an influence on her; in 2015 she referred to him as her "guru dev" (“spiritual master”). Her familial ties to the organization include her parents, who served on the board of the Science of Identity Foundation when she grew up, and her current husband, who has worked for Butler's wife.

References

??? Isn't that it? It's a plain and simple statement of the facts drawn directly from legit sources. What could possible be wrong with it?  Localemediamonitor (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

This version looks best to me. We should keep it short and factual. We should also try to avoid sources like Honolulu Civil Beat.- MrX 🖋 22:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: There are 98 entries containing civilbeat.org on en.wp, including this entry. Are you saying those 2 links currently in the entry (one of which is just a link to the "Tulsi Gabbard" keyword at the paper) should be removed? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

We don't have to remove links as long as the Honolulu Civil Beat is not being relied on for controversial information (which it would be in this case). It should be avoided as a source for BLPs for all but the most mundane facts. Like it says in WP:BLPSOURCES, "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." There is little value in elevating a minor local news website, when much better national sources are available such as The New York Times which is used 266,863 in Wikipedia; The New Yorker which is used 14,177 times; and New York Magazine which is used 8,197 times. By the way Localemediamonitor, the correct link for the New York Magazine article is [http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-campaign.html].- MrX 🖋 12:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrX, Re WP:GUILT: Are you saying Tulsi "could have prevented" her parents or anybody else from espousing “controversial socially conservative views”? Humanengr (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Diff?- MrX 🖋 23:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced — will relocate above. Humanengr (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This version would need to have the bit about her parents serving on the board removed as it is not in any of the three sources.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I edited this version to include the bit about her parents serving on the board and added sources. Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Bulletin articles from mention her mother's position as secretary and founder of the Science of Identity Foundation, as well as filing of financial disclosure forms reflecting that. Public notices in the Arizona Daily Sun in 1989 list Mike Gabbard as secretary of the Science of Identity Foundation. Also worth noting as part of this discussion that her first husband, Eduardo Tamayo, was a part of the SIF community.Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

According to Heavy, Tamayo "is an employee of a group that helped run a school affiliated with Chris Butler," although he "was self-employed while they were married." However, "Not much is known about Tamayo. [32] If this were a gossip column, I'd say go for it, but do a little more research first. TFD (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Even for a gossip forum, it would be irresponsible and likely defamatory to include an article titled "Ethics complaint calls on Gabbard to recuse herself from gay-related school board issues" when 1) the article is not freely available, 2) it's not clear from the title that it refers to Carol not Tulsi Gabbard, and 3) that Carol Gabbard was cleared of any wrongdoing — and that is public record if you do your research (per TFD). Humanengr (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Using ‘controversial’ without specific facts is a naked attempt to circumvent the decision to keep the word ‘cult’ out of this BLP. By definition this fact-free introduction of ‘controversy’ into a BLP is a flagrant violation of the WP:BLP direction to “Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves”. Beyond that there are numerous vague and sinister misrepresentations of the source facts such as ‘influence’ and ‘spiritual master’ that are at best due to ignorance of Hinduism and at worst deliberate attempts to stir up racism and religious bigotry. Humanengr (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

As is, to a lesser extent, "ties". --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be accurate to describe SIF as either a cult-like Hare Krishna splinter group (see [33]) or a fringe yogic sect, primarily due to its virulently homophobic and Islamophic teachings.Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Is "grew up in" the SIF community better? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Samp4ngeles, regarding cult-like, fringe, and virulently homophobic and Islamophic: No. I fail to see how those are verified by the source you indicate, let alone represent a neutral presentation of the best sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like there is consensus on this. Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'this'? Humanengr (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

v.THREE Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No. --Ronz (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Meets WP:CON and WP:CONLEVEL Samp4ngeles (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Please drop it, or try a new proposal that's not rejected. --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be one one who is mistaken here. And you alone are not able to keep construction contributions like this out of the article. Will take this issue to the noticeboard.Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A noticeboard sounds like a good next step. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, there's consensus on mentioning it somehow (assuming the RfC closes with a decision to include), but no consensus on how to do so. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see [34], below, for latest discussion on wording.Samp4ngeles (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Replacement for Samp's link is at here. Workshop for proposed wordings is now RFC for that purpose. Humanengr (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(Explanation of revert for failure to) Workshop SIF material

@Samp4ngeles:, You have violated 1RR. Please self-revert. The RfC closer, in closing the RfC said: "The Proposed wordings section below remains open as a workshop to determine how this information should be presented." Rather than present anything there, you unilaterally re-inserted SIF material, as you had started inserting back here prior to the RfC. There are still many issues to discuss, which I, for one, have not had opportunity to do since it has taken months — from my first request here, TFD's here, me again here, and here to get to you to delete one objectionable cite — which, btw, you have still left on this talk page in violation of WP:BLP. You have not complied with the closer's instructions. There is more to discuss.

You also, in your edit summary, labeled what I did "malicious edits". That does not WP:AGF. Humanengr (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr No "workshop" needed. This has been discussed for right around three months in two different threads, and these four WP:NEUTRAL and succinct sentences seem to be agreeable to nearly everyone:

Tulsi Gabbard was raised in part on the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler. Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her. and in 2015 Gabbard referred to Butler as her spiritual master. Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community. Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF.

Please, no further WP:STONEWALLING Samp4ngeles (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

References

This looks good to me. - MrX 🖋 16:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I will return later to explain. It has taken months to get Samp4ngeles to respond to the first edit request I repeatedly made (and which TFD also made) by finally taking out — yesterday — one cite. Humanengr (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

That is not accurate.Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you fact check before making that assertion? Humanengr (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Documenting multiple requests that you take out and stop including one BLP-violating cite:

• On 19 October, Nblund opened an RfC for the Tulsi Gabbard BLP page re whether a certain issue should be mentioned, asking for suggestions re wording, and adding a 'Proposed wordings' § here.
• At 03:14, 29 October 2019, you introduced a cite entitled "Ethics complaint calls on Gabbard to recuse herself from gay-related school board issues" (in the 'v.THREE' subsection of 'Proposed wordings') that, standing alone, served to smear both Tulsi Gabbard and her mother Carol Gabbard without regard for the fact that Carol Gabbard had subsequently been cleared.
• At 18:32, 29 October 2019, I explained the above to you: "Even for a gossip forum, it would be irresponsible and likely defamatory to include an article titled 'Ethics complaint calls on Gabbard to recuse herself from gay-related school board issues' when 1) the article is not freely available, 2) it's not clear from the title that it refers to Carol not Tulsi Gabbard, and 3) Carol Gabbard was cleared of any wrongdoing"
• At 04:42, 9 December 2019, you copied the version you had introduced above (retaining the objectionable cite) to start a new discussion without replying to the warnings and requests above.
• At 04:48, 10 December 2019, you revised your proposal in response to unrelated comments, but retained the objectionable cite and continued to ignore the earlier warnings.
• At 04:14, 17 December 2019, you further revised your proposal, again in response to unrelated comments, but again retained the objectionable cite and continued to ignore the earlier warnings.
• At 05:00, 19 December 2019, you quoted extensively from cite.
• At 00:15, 20 December 2019, you further revised your proposal in response to other comments, once again retaining the objectionable cite and continuing to ignore the earlier warnings.
• At 00:33, 20 December 2019, TFD questioned inclusion of the cite.
• At 02:09, 20 December 2019, you responded to TFD's questioning re that cite that you "couldn't find an article in response to the ethics complaint" and that you had removed the cite — when in fact the cite had not been removed.
• At 01:58, 24 December 2019, I responded noting your insistence on inclusion; you claimed you "couldn't find an article in response to the ethics complaint", despite MrX, having provided instructions on how to search relevant archives; and your claim that "it's not longer referenced here" not being the case as the cite was still included. (MrX pointed to the The Honolulu Advertiser's archives where a simple search for 'Carol Gabbard', sorted by the default 'best match', yields near the top that Carol Gabbard was cleared.
• [Documentation of your failure to respond re this one BLP-violating cite can be continued]

Humanengr (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Any mention of the SIF should probably also include information about the long forum offensive conducted in order to discredit Gabbard. The "spiritual master" language, which is not Gabbard's, is leading and unacceptable. (again, the Hare Krishna network video where she mentions the name of her "guru dev" (she does not mention "Chris Butler") is a parenthetical passing comment in the celebration of the anniversary of Bhaktivedānta's trip to the US).🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls is absolutely right on all counts and those are an excellent place to start. (There is more to cover as well.) Humanengr (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's see some sources that demonstrate that "the long forum offensive conducted in order to discredit Gabbard" meets WP:DUEWEIGHT. Regardless, the basic SIF content currently enjoys consensus for inclusion. - MrX 🖋 17:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at RSN and pinged you to it so that we're all on the same page here. Also, for the same reason, I am not necessary proposing that specific language for the entry, that was a talk-page comment (I believe I formulated it more neutrally several months back). I also had a look, it appears that Honolulu Civil Beat has indeed won a number of SPJ awards for "best online news site" in Hawaii as stated in the RfC. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls We used the term "spiritual master" here to accommodate your request that the wording not include "guru dev." Several RS use wording that incorporates both terms, along the lines of "'guru dev,' which means, roughly, 'spiritual master.'" If that leaves too much to the imagination, we could use this language: ""'guru dev,' which means, roughly, 'spiritual teacher' or 'spiritual master.'" Or, we could simply use "guru," which is mainstream enough and is, by definition, "a spiritual teacher." Simply using "teacher," however, is not accurate and not supported RS. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls In response to MrX's suggestion to find sources that demonstrate "the long forum offensive conducted in order to discredit Gabbard," I have seen none. That is WP:FRINGE. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to make that comment in the appropriate thread at RS/N about the source. My proposed wording was in v.1 above (under the RFC at the top of the page), not what is being cited. Perhaps that wording can be improved... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls If you're okay now with using "guru dev" and your original language, it could look like this:

Tulsi Gabbard was raised in part on the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler (aka Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa). Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her. In 2015, Gabbard referred to Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa as her guru dev (roughly, "spiritual teacher"), in the context of a celebration of Srila Prabhupada's trip to the United States. Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community. Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF.

Hope that works for you. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, I am okay including the Civil Beat source (), although it is not essential.Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

References

The above clouds the issue entirely somewhat and has nothing to do with the RSN discussion or my comment (except endless bickering about terms for spiritual wizardy & control). Please continue the discussion concerning the previously proposed text:

In March 2015, after study of extensive forum postings and the public record, Honolulu Civil Beat "found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee" and "could find no record of her ever speaking publicly about it".

at RS/N as requested.

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls The latest text above stands as written, regardless of the excerpt from Civil Beat. Reporting by Civil Beat itself subsequent to 2015, as well as reliable sources, as well as Gabbard's own statement, all contradict the statement in the March 2015 Civil Beat article. Feel free to suggest other language, though, particularly regarding the "guru dev," "guru," "spiritual master," "spiritual teacher" language, which you seemed to hone in on. Samp4ngeles (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

No, actually they don't. No evidence from years of massive forum searching permitted saying Gabbard was a "devotee" of the said Mr. Butler. Then, in a Hare Krishna video that MrX says we cannot cite, used as the uncited source for the article claiming she called him her guru div (unless I'm mistaken), suddenly she made passing mention to her spiritual teacher / counselor by an honorific name in the context of a celebration of another spiritual teacher who brought ISKCON to the US. I believe she also said in an interview with a journalist that he's shared some meditation techniques with her. In neither case does this make him her "spiritual master", cf. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Guru+Dev .

Rereading, I see you've added spiritual teacher which is an improvement. The key here is that there is no reason to be keeping the evidence that the root of all this innuendo is a forum dominated by people who seemed to have a rather focused political agenda. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls "Spiritual teacher" seems fine. It certainly does carry the same connotation as master (e.g., subservience).

There's really no evidence, though, much less anything printed in RS, that suggests any of it is innuendo or put forward by people who have a political agenda. Aside from that, the proposed text above avoids the question of whether or not Gabbard herself should be called a "devotee." The thrust of the text is that she "was raised in part on the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation" (similar to language of in articles for other politicians) and that "Butler's work still guides her" (as stated in the Bowles article in NYT). This is an accurate statement. As is the rest of the text.

As tidy as it would be to rely on Civil Beat's March 2015 conclusion that Gabbard is not and was never a Butler devotee, and to put that in this article, no subsequent RS has reached that conclusion. And that's how we arrived at the text we have here, which skirts the issue but includes more recent analysis. And in the context of this one article it's worth noting that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose this add-on as being insufficiently sourced, WP:UNDUE, and very outdated. It appears to be a fringe point of view. - MrX 🖋 14:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

For those seeking to understand why Samp4ngeles & MrX etal. don't want any information about the role of the forum campaign against Gabbard (in which Ms. Christine Gralow, Mr. Rama Ranson, & Mr. Nicholas Bredimus may have been involved), Cf. "The Truth About Tulsi Gabbard’s 'Cult'". For those interested in better understanding the notion of siksha guru and diksha guru, there is a Q&A with Gabbard where she explains it at Yoga Hawaii magazine. Siksha guru refers to any person who you have been spiritually inspired, enlightened, or taught by. And diksha guru is the person from whom you have received the transcendental mantra or special combination of God’s holy names. (the latter would appear to be an institutional conduit...) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not going to help anyone understand why I don't want the outdated forum theory in the article. I've explained it in clear policy-based terms above, and on WP:RSN. - MrX 🖋 14:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Humanengr please explain your specific objections to the proposed text that you just reverted and propose alternative, per the RfC outcome. This is starting to look an awful lot like WP:STONEWALLING. - MrX 🖋 14:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: As Newslinger said in closing the RfC, "The Proposed wordings section below remains open as a workshop to determine how this information should be presented." There were multiple versions of proposed text and Samp had created another section with proposed wording. I had asked "@All, it seems that there are now two active threads re form — this one and the one under Newslinger left open under the RFC. How shall we proceed?" No one addressed my question about the multiple threads and versions, so I suggested starting a new section for clean proposals to be made. However, given the attempts by two editors (Samp4ngeles and you) to include text based on 'no workshopping needed', it seems we should return to Newslinger's direction in closing the RfC. Please state your version of proposed text there and leave appropriate time for response. Humanengr (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Humanengr Version #3 has the most support (and happens to be the most similar to the version under discussion now). The previous discussions have stalled as of two months ago.

I ask you again, what are you specific objections to the material that you reverted from the article?' I don't want to talk about process, what other editors wrote, or the comment from Newslinger in the RfC. Please answer the content question posed or choose another version so everyone knows that you're not just trying to keep the SIF content out of the article. Thanks. - MrX 🖋 15:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

If you are advocating for Version 3, state that in the 'Proposed wordings' as directed by the admin less than a week ago. Else, state why you are refusing to cooperate with the admin's direction. Humanengr (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You're being very difficult Humanengr and that usually doesn't bode well. If you are not going to participate in this discussion in good faith, or point to version of this content you support, then you should refrain from reverting editors who are trying to improve the article. Otherwise, it looks like WP:GAMING. - MrX 🖋 15:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to take the bait with tendentious editors who characterize my request for compliance with admin direction that the form of content be workshopped as being 'malicious', STONEWALLING, and GAMING. Post your proposed form of content in the Proposed wordings § above and allow an appropriate time for all editors to respond. Humanengr (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger may not have been aware of the subsequent discussion, and you, Humanengr, created the workshop here rather than there and that is where the discussion has been taking place. v.THREE was the best of the three initial proposals, but there were concerns around the use of "ties":

Tulsi Gabbard and her family have long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation religious community, led by the controversial socially conservative guru Chris Butler. Gabbard has said that Butler's work is an influence on her; in 2015 she referred to him as her "guru dev" (“spiritual master”). Her familial ties to the organization include her parents, who served on the board of the Science of Identity Foundation when she grew up, and her current husband, who has worked for Butler's wife.

That evolved to this version, which I will call v.FOUR, which MrX inserted today, but SashiRolls previously raised concerns around the term "spiritual master" as well as the direct reference to Chris Butler; it also includes a source referring to her ex-husband being part of the community:

Gabbard was raised in part on the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler. She has said Butler's work still guides her and in 2015 referred to Butler as her spiritual master. Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community. Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF.

SashiRolls took issue with the term "spiritual advisor and direct reference to Butler. Based on that, I suggested this version, which I will call v.FIVE:

Tulsi Gabbard was raised in part on the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler (aka Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa). Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her. In 2015, Gabbard referred to Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa as her guru dev (roughly, "spiritual teacher"), in the context of a celebration of Srila Prabhupada's trip to the United States. Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community. Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF.

It would seem that either v.FOUR or v.FIVE, using the term "spiritual teacher," would solve this issue and address previous concerns. Samp4ngeles (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

And I added a link in the Proposed Wordings section to the discussion in this section. Samp4ngeles (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles: Newslinger noted the lack of consensus and need for further workshopping on form less than a week ago. There had been no consensus achieved in any discussion, either in Proposed wordings or in your separate thread, that would obviate that conclusion. If you were intending that separate thread to act as RfC on form, that wasn’t clear.

I created this section not to serve as the new location for workshopping but to explain my reversion for your failure to workshop, as stated in my initial paragraph. But I see that today you did include a link in the 'Proposed wordings' section pointing here.

Given the extra sensitivity required regarding assertions about a living individual’s private religious beliefs; the contentious material online deliberately linking the name of the SIF with ugly, salacious and defamatory claims; and the fact that for many editors this has been a holiday period, ample time should be allowed for discussion of the form. Humanengr (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

HumanengrThere is general consensus, achieved over the course of the past three months, that settles on a revised version of v.THREE along the lines of what MrX posted but substituting "spiritual teacher" for "spiritual master" (see v.FOUR and v.FIVE above). If in fact there were any "ugly, salacious and defamatory claims," we have long past moved beyond anything remotely along those lines. Feel free to ping whoever you think might need to weigh in on this discussion (SashiRolls, Ronz, Nblund, Ronz, TFD, MrX, etc.) -- but you haven't suggested any constructive edits recently so your request for ample time seems to be primarily WP:GAMING. Samp4ngeles (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding Snooganssnoogans, NickCT, and Localemediamonitor to this discussion as well, based on previous substantive comments in the RfC.Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's obvious WP:GAMING to continue with the delay. The relevant text (v.FOUR or v.FIVE) should be included onto the page now. Localemediamonitor (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, no attempt to address the issues in version 1 concerning the forum campaign. Why not? What do people fear about associating that info? You are correct, Samp, to note at RSN that Honolulu Civil Beat being deemed admissible is also good for team "nefarious conspiracy", because award-winning Grube doesn't seem to like her much (twitter) and has done some investigative work into her campaign. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls As a couple of us have suggested above, if there's a RS referring to the forum campaign, please suggest wording. Otherwise, it is somewhat WP:FRINGE.

Looking over the article in its entirety, I would also suggested that the first sentence of this text ("Tulsi Gabbard was raised . . .") should go in the Early Life and Education section and segue into the sentence that says, "Gabbard fully embraced the Hindu faith as a teenager."). The rest is not relevant to Early Life and should go in Personal Life.Samp4ngeles (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Creating separate sections below for v.FOUR and v.FIVE, in order to make any comments easier. Samp4ngeles (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

v.FOUR

Tulsi Gabbard was raised in part on the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler.

Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her. In 2015, Gabbard referred to Butler as her guru dev (roughly, "spiritual teacher"). Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community. Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF.

This version seems fine to me. - MrX 🖋 20:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Four Five has no sources to support that she's anything other than a follower. Sources for four, except one are reliable Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

v.FIVE

Tulsi Gabbard was raised in part on the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler (aka Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa).

Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her. In 2015, Gabbard referred to Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa as her guru dev (roughly, "spiritual teacher"), in the context of a celebration of Srila Prabhupada's trip to the United States. Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community. Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF.

References

This version is fine too, without the duplicate sources of course.- MrX 🖋 20:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

version 1a

Tulsi Gabbard grew up in the Science of Identity Foundation community. In March 2015, after study of extensive forum postings and the public record, Honolulu Civil Beat "found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee" and "could find no record of her ever speaking publicly about it". Five months later, Gabbard referred to Siddhaswarupananda Parmahamsa as her guru dev (teacher), in the context of a celebration of Srila Prabhupada's trip to the United States. in 2019, Gabbard said Butler was "essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor" and that his meditation teachings had given her "strength, shelter and peace".

References

Oppose - This proposal was already rejected more than two months ago. YouTube is an unacceptable source. The HCB material is outdated and WP:UNDUE, and represents a fringe POV. HCB is a weak source when stood up next to the other sources.- MrX 🖋 20:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

enDUEring a years-long forum campaign is part of someone's life, MrX. Again, why do you refuse to mention it? I don't think anybody agrees with you about Honolulu Civil Beat's reliability concerning the forum campaign. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

No, an internet forum is not part of someone's life. If this is important, it should be easy for you find addition sources. This is not the place to pit outdated reporting from a solitary local news website against current reporting from several major news publications. - MrX 🖋 20:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, Hawaii story, get New York sources. That's logical. Thanks for the tip. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with MrX that this is just a singular local source. More importantly, the conclusion hasn't been supported by any other significant local source such as the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Hawaii Tribune-Herald, etc. in the last five years. In the meantime, multiple other RS -- both local and national -- have reached the opposite conclusion. And Civil Beat itself has written multiple articles highlighting Gabbard's relationship with Butler and the Science of Identity Foundation. The Gralow reporting, while not yet considered here to be RS but published in the Hawai'i Free Press, which has a high circulation, offers further details that contradict the March 2015 Civil Beat conclusion. And it's important to reiterate that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If a RS can support the March 2015 Civil Beat conclusion at some point in the future, then it should be added at some point in the future. Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Conflicting sources provides some guidance here. While it might be possible to include both POV, it's hard to justify doing so on the basis that academic consensus was never in line with the conclusion of the March 2015 Civil Beat articleSamp4ngeles (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record, the Gralow article you mention confirming the forum campaign in the Hawai'i Free Press is not a reliable source. Honolulu Civil Beat swept the online awards (11 first place prizes and as many finalists) including best online site in the most recently posted SPJ-Hawaii awards program (2017). [35] Hawai'i Free Press is mentioned zero times on the SPJ-Hawaii awards list, suggesting it may not even be considered a newspaper. There are other sources, including Paste, which mention the forum campaign, but since Honolulu Civil Beat is pretty clearly a respected RS with a corrections policy and multiple awards, I don't see the need to look further. MrX is just going to have to accept that he is wrong on this one, despite his unlove for Omidyar publications. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. From an outside perspective, I think this is the fairest. But perhaps it could be supplemented from some of the lines in the other proposal. Overall I think both sides make some valid points and that a compromise should be made here. I would like to see a compromise proposal that merges this and the other versions. MaximumIdeas (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. This version is based on one sentence in one article that is now nearly five years out of date. It also focuses narrowly on the issue of whether Gabbard was a "devotee" -- a topic which v.FOUR and v.FIVE purposely avoid. Since the 2015 Civil Beat article, a number of RS have found information to the contrary (which this version makes no mention of, instead relying on things like Gabbard's own statements), and even Civil Beat itself has published the following statements:

"Like Gabbard, he has ties to an obscure religious sect called the Science of Identity Foundation that’s based in Kailua and run by a reclusive guru whose devotees have displayed political ambitions."

"The Robinsons and the Stewarts all have ties to the Kailua-based Science of Identity Foundation, a controversial religious sect that was founded by Chris Butler, someone Gabbard has described as her “guru dev,” or spiritual master."

"Gabbard’s parents, Mike Gabbard, a Hawaii state senator, and his wife, Carol, a former school board member, were both Butler devotees. The congresswoman even spent a couple childhood years at a school in the Philippines that was run by Butler’s followers."

"Robinson isn’t the only person with ties to the Science of Identity Foundation who has been affiliated with Gabbard in recent years, since she’s been in Congress or even during her run for president. The congresswoman surrounds herself with people who are linked to Butler and his followers, from her chief of staff, Kainoa Penaroza, to some of her closest campaign advisors . . . . Her committees have also hired Blue River Productions, a company Williams worked for that’s run by Science of Identity affiliates, to do media work for her presidential run."

"Tulsi is silent about her own and her family’s association with Butler’s Krishna organization, but friendships and business relationships from those days continue to flourish in her inner circle. People with connections to Butler are among the advisors and campaign employees helping guide her decisions today."

"Gabbard’s parents were devout followers of Butler, and her father, Hawaii state Sen. Mike Gabbard, was a leading opponent of same-sex marriage for many years before switching to the Democratic Party to advance his political agenda."

"Butler played a role in Gabbard’s upbringing while her parents were devout followers of his teachings. The congresswoman has referred to Butler as the equivalent of her spiritual master, while others have likened his organization to a cult. But instead of talking about her past, Gabbard has gone on the offensive, accusing those who question her of “fomenting bigotry” or at least being complicit in its proliferation."

"Gabbard is a Hindu who has identified Chris Butler of Hawaii as her “guru dev” or “spiritual master.” Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Sources of original 'cult' allegations (relevant to all versions)

MrX objected above to inclusion of the Civil Beat reporting on the hundreds of pages internet forum postings attempting to identify something sinister in an association between Gabbard and Butler/SIF, stating "an internet forum is not part of someone's life". The facts below are presented to refute that assertion. All of this is and has been publicly available on the net. It is presented here not for inclusion in the BLP but because it is factual context editors should be aware of.

Rama Ranson was the key source for the 2015 Stuff.co.nz ‘cult’ allegations. According to Ranson, the Stuff interview was arranged by the same convicted pedophile and wealthy IT executive who was orchestrating the internet forum campaign to seed online links between Gabbard's name and ugly/salacious/sinister claims about Butler/SIF.

There are no specific allegations in the Stuff interview that would support the tabloidy ‘I Survived a Krishna Cult’ title. From Ranson's blog, it is clear that he is troubled and hurt about falling out with his family over their continued practice of Vaishnava Hinduism. It is also clear that he is hardly a reliable source for facts or judgments: among other things, he has claimed that Butler murdered his father and has been involved with the CIA. He also said that his mother was granted a restraining order against him.

Before deciding what material should be included about Gabbard's private religious beliefs — which BLP policy directs should be treated sensitively and conservatively — documented facts about the primary sources behind rumor, innuendo, and unsupported allegations should be weighed. Multiple ‘human interest’ pieces built on this same shaky foundation of people that have agendas and lack credibility makes the material unworthy of inclusion, even if the publications have ‘usually RS’ reputations otherwise.

For example, NY Mag may be ‘generally reliable’ (though it has ‘no consensus on contentious statements’). But Rama Ranson's website with his extreme outlandish allegations was easily available to their writer (and 'fact checkers') before they published their story on Gabbard, yet they chose to make Ranson a central element of their story.

And the Civil Beat's factual reporting on the hundreds of pages of postings by the small group apparently obsessed with harming Gabbard's political career is definitely relevant. Well-funded, internet-savvy people in that group had the explicit, admitted agenda of linking her name to a web of negative online content about Butler/SIF. That grapevine of negative associations subsequently involved otherwise ‘RS’ publications as well, starting with the arranged interview in Stuff. Humanengr (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Your last paragraph is basically a rehash of what has been discussed before. Wikipedia always prefers sources with established reputations for fact checking, over minor sources with small staffs, who investigate forum posts. We're going around in circles at this point. There is no consensus to include this. If you think that it would help, you can post an RfC to get some outside opinions. Let's be clear though, we do not balance content solely to satisfy some notion of fairness. That would violate WP:NPOV, specifically WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Regarding the NY Mag and Stuff, I might be convinced that we should just omit them and their reporting and lean on the remaining sources. I would first like to see any counterarguments, which I suspect Samp4ngeles may have. - MrX 🖋 12:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Re FALSEBALANCE: That is a misdirection: it applies to inclusion of minority positions regarding theories in scholarly articles.

In BLPs, only statements of facts free from vague weasel words are to be considered for inclusion. If the person denies that a noteworthy incident or event occurred, their denial is to be included as well. The allegation that it did occur should be included only as “it has been alleged that”.

From WP:PUBLICFIGURE "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported.”

Also from PUBLICFIGURE: "Example: 'John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe.' Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of 'messy' and stick to the facts: 'John Doe and Jane Doe divorced.'"

Note that a 'fact' is "A thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence." (presented for context in discussion, not as from RS) All of the proposed text versions so far are laden with weasel words which prevent verifiable statements of objective facts from being clearly identified. Until proposed versions are phrased as allegations of objective fact rather than subjective and unattributed judgments, compliance with BLP per the above examples cannot be achieved. Humanengr (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Much of what Humanengr writes here is a distraction from the task at hand and is WP:FRINGE. No one has suggested using the 2015 Stuff.co.nz articles. The **2019** Stuff.co.nz article, however, as well as the NY Mag article, rely on multiple sources, including Gabbard's aunt, Caroline Sinavaiana Gabbard. As such, the 2019 Stuff.co.nz and NY Mag (Howley) article are important sources. There are certainly some serious allegations in the 2015 article (that are reported elsewhere), but based on previous discussion during the past three months, the proposed text for inclusion in this article intentionally steers clear of anything remotely related to it. Humanengr has raised issues such as weasel words multiple times in the past, and v.FOUR addressed those concerns. I keep waiting for Humanengr to make constructive edits to the proposed text, but that never happens.

Ultimately, what Humanengr and SashiRolls seem to be advocating for is inclusion of this content from the 2015 Civil Beat article: "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." The second sentence is no longer relevant, as Gabbard has been asked about it and has deflected. That is reflected in v.FOUR ("Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF.[9]") This is the only RS that has ever come to this conclusion, and it is WP:UNDUE to include it given that multiple other RS, not to mention articles published by Civil Beat itself, have reached opposite conclusions, and it is reflect in the proposed text saying, "Gabbard was raised in part on the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation]." This helps us steer a wide course from the question of whether Gabbard was or is a Butler devotee -- an answer we may never know for certain. What would perhaps be WP:DUE and a sufficient compromise would be including the 2015 Civil Beat article as a citation on the first sentence, such as this:

v.FOUR.a (inclusion of 2015 Civil Beat article as a source

Tulsi Gabbard was raised in part on the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler.

Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her. In 2015, Gabbard referred to Butler as her guru dev (roughly, "spiritual teacher"). Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community. Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF.

It would be great to be able to be able to add some of the information about what has been discussed in forums (although I admittedly have not delved into the discussions in any great detail), but there just aren't yet any RS to support that. As such, it's not not WP:V. I hope this helps.Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, Humanengr, if you read FALSEBALANCE carefully it explicitly refers to "any topic" (not theories and scientific articles) -- and even references media bias. On WP:PUBLICFIGURE, there are "multiple reliable third-party sources" and Gabbard has not "denied such allegations." Samp4ngeles (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Again this is a misdirection. 'Any topic' is any topic in scholarship where there can be multiple theories interpreting observed facts. The word 'scholarship' is used 3 times in the WP:FALSEBALANCE paragraph, referring to "mainstream scholarship", "academic scholarship", "established scholarship". A BLP conservatively presents well-sourced facts, not theories and opinions which are interpretations of sourced facts. Humanengr (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You're reading it wrong. That sentence is portraying an extreme example. This is also covered in WP:BALASP and WP:DUEWEIGHT. Regardless, there is an RfC, so anyone who thinks the forum material should be included can make their views known there. - MrX 🖋 15:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Which sentence are you referring to in “That sentence is portraying an extreme example”? The whole FALSEBALANCE paragraph is about scholarship where there can be conflicting theories interpreting facts. Humanengr (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Humanengr, You're really reading too much into the scholarship examples. The sections leads off with, literally, "any topic." The classic examples are in science (e.g., climate change and MMR), but it also extends to WP:FRINGE views like the one here. Samp4ngeles (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Links provided show nothing by her claiming to be a "hawk" on terror

Looking at this section of Tulsi Gabbards wiki:

Gabbard opposes military interventionism but has called herself a "hawk" on terrorism.[11][12]

After reading linked articles, I can find NO mention of the words "hawk" or terrorism for that matter. Where is this quotation coming from? Certainly not in listed links. See below:

Bonn, Tess (September 26, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard calls for foreign policy-focused debate". TheHill. Retrieved October 3, 2019.

"Anti-war presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard campaigns in Fremont". SFChronicle.com. March 18, 2019. Retrieved October 3, 2019.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acortright (talk • contribs) 19:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC) 

Fixed (with Snoogans' help)... it apparently comes from the article with Bannon in the headline.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the quote should be included because it's mentioned in most attack articles against Gabbard beginning with Jacobin. I would exclude the "but" because it implies that her positions are inconsistent. They may well be, but that opinion needs to be sourced in text. Either that or we should provide the full quote. The original mention by the way says, "“In short, when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk,” Gabbard said. “When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”"[36] Unfortunately there is no source when she actually said that.TFD (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure she said it more recently in her long Joe Rogan interview but I don't really want to dig for it. The citation you provide dates back to 2016, so it's not a recent concoction. Concerning and versus but I agree and that's how I rephrased it. I think it's weird to only cite half the quote though.

Snoog added the Bannon article (which links to the Daily Kos blogpost above and to the Hare Krshna: ISKON Desire Tree gotcha moment), while also removing a direct quotation from a WaPo article about how she disgusted "leading establishment Democrats" (listing Peter Daou (EiC of Shareblue); Neera Tanden (CAP); and Friedman (The McPherson Square Group)). In fairness, the article also listed three tweets from Josh Rogan and twitter criticism from Republican Adam Kinzinger.

Back to the main question: should the full quote be included and should we use the ref TFD provided above or leave it sourced to the Bannon article by Tom McCarthy? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The article linked by TFD should be used as source, it has much better quality. Xenagoras (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC Listing RS contradicting Gabbard's statement re being raised in a multi-faith household

Objections have been raised to including Gabbard’s statement that she was raised in a multi-faith/multi-religious household on the grounds that there are RS which contradict that statement. Please list any such sources with their specific contradicting claims so that they can be assessed. Humanengr (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources

References

Discussion (multi-faith)

The ref from The New Yorker was pointed out back in October in a different discussion. In the "Multireligious" discussion, the ref from The Atlantic. Are there others that go into her religious beliefs and upbringing in detail? --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Per the lengthy discussion on this above, this RfC is unnecessary and is formed poorly around the question of finding sources to "contradict" unreliable sourcing. It is an exceptional claim based primarily on "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in . . . biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." It therefore requires multiple high-quality sources, which do not exist because this "multireligious" wording is based solely on parroting of language in a 2012 non-RS interview ( https://www.rediff.com/news/report/concerns-of-hindus-are-near-to-my-heart-tulsi-gabbard/20121031.htm ). In Gabbard's case, multiple sources referenced in the lengthy discussion above and in the Gabbard article itself indicate that she grew up in the Science of Identity Foundation, including:

· https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe

· https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/18/tulsi-gabbard-2020-progressive-steve-bannon-right

· https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/donald-trumps-america/114665278/meet-the-guitarstrumming-kiwi-surfer-dude-whos-become-us-presidential-candidate-tulsi-gabbards-secret-weapon

· https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-campaign.html

None mention a "multireligious" aspect of her childhood, so this casts serious doubt on the 2012 claim. There are latter references to her father being a "socially conservative Catholic" and her mother being a Hindu, including some wording in an Atlantic article, but there are no RS to support that is irrelevant to her early life. @Humanengr, please self-revert your edit that re-inserted this unusual "multireligious" term into the article without consensus. Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

A lot of this arguing seems to be based on misconstruing what the Science of Identity Foundation teachings in particular (and Hinduism in general) are. There is no contradiction between practicing Bhakti yoga and valuing multiple religious traditions.

As stated in the text you quoted from for the SIF article, "Butler has said of the SIF philosophy of Bhakti yoga, 'It does not conflict with Christianity, with Islam, with any bona fide religious system.'" There is no contradiction there to being multifaith.

The RfC is the place to identify specific contradicting claims from RS — which neither you nor Ronz has provided to date. In the meantime, there is no basis for making a change. Humanengr (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

References

There are quite a few sources saying that Mike Gabbard is a practicing Catholic. He has been seen at a Catholic church taking communion (by reliable sources) and says he is a lector at the church. MG says he went to seminary at 14. TG has said and been quoted in many RS saying that she grew up in a multi-faith household. It is unclear to me why Samp4ngeles wishes to assume bad faith (they do not deny that TG & MG have said what they've said, they wish to claim that what they said is untrue). This habit of long protracted battles over every word in this entry (always with an eye towards making TG look bad) has already led you to be blocked once for edit-warring, Samp. Could you give these assumptions of bad faith a rest? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a political platform. (Yes, I know that is not entirely accurate representation of en.wp, as the long history of attempts to magnify every negative detail in this biography attest, beginning shortly after TG left the DNC...) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Humanengr: I'm really tired of repeating myself. I'm having a very difficult time seeing this as a good faith effort to work cooperatively with others to improve this article based upon the high-quality sources that BLP requires. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Is the FBI a high-quality source, Ronz? Everyone working on this page has probably run across this item about someone being jailed for threatening TG, and yet nobody has suggested adding it... I wonder why. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

After Gabbard voted "present" on the Impeachment of President Trump, she received via Twitter death threats and other threats of physical violence. Xenagoras (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Ronz, How about you follow the WP:BLPSELFPUB policy? It's not Gabbard's fault that secondary sources avoid reporting on the facts of her religious beliefs but instead focus on throwing dirt onto her via guilt by association, innuendo and eliciting religious bigotry in the audience. This behavior of secondary sources started when Gabbard resigned from the DNC to oppose Hillary Clinton and intensified when she announced to run for President. Before 2016, there was neutral coverage of Gabbard. Meanwhile, there is trove of direct quotes on Gabbard's religious views available from interviews and speeches. No editor so far cared to look at them and incorporate them in her BLP. Xenagoras (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to ignore other policies. Have you read the two sourced I've pointed out? --Ronz (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there are high quality sources saying that Mike Gabbard has been a practicing Catholic during Tulsi Gabbard's adulthood and that there is a source saying he went to seminary as a child. There are none, however, describing multiple religions during Tulsi Gabbard's childhood, so the term "multireligious" is not appropriate for the early life section. The sources that do use the "multicultural, multireligious" line do not say what the other religion is (beyond the Science of Identity practice that was present in her childhood). The "multireligious" term is therefore shallow and vague and therefore WP:UNDUE, primarily due to lack of depth of detail. Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

So you agree that both Catholicism and karma yoga were present in the Gabbard household. Case closed. Please stop deleting "multi-faith", continuing to do so would be disingenuous. ETA: Oh, sorry I missed the maneuver suggesting that MG was Catholic before his daughter was born [37] and after but never brought up Catholicism during her childhood. Erm, that's pretty weak Samp... SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There is trove of sources for Gabbard's multireligious upbringing. The two involved religions are Hinduism and Christianity. Xenagoras (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Sash... I think you interpreted that incorrectly. There is no indication that Catholicism was present in the Gabbard household during Tulsi Gabbard's early life. No RS has addressed this issue whatsoever, much less in any depth of detail (see WP:UNDUE), and therefore the term is not warranted in the article. No RS has talked about Mike Gabbard being Catholic at any time between about 1962 and 2004. Samp4ngeles (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ronz: The fact that some sources do not describe Gabbard’s upbringing as ‘ multi-faith’ does not mean it was not multi-faith. To quote Samp4ngeles, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Here absence of contemporaneous RS saying it was a multi-faith household’ is not evidence it was not. In any event, it would be OR to conclude anything by reading between the lines of sources rather than presenting what they say.

If the 'about self' statements are to be disputed by RS, the latter need to contain explicit allegations that contradict what the person says, not merely fail to make statements confirming.

There have been no such sourced claims presented on the Talk pages that would justify removing this long-standing content. Humanengr (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Other than the two sources I pointed out, and possibly others as well. --Ronz (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ronz, re your "Other than the two sources I pointed out", the Atlantic says Gabbard is “… the daughter of a Roman Catholic and a Caucasian Hindu convert”. Humanengr (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr Nothing justifies long-standing, poorly-sourced content. And what exactly are the sources that talk about Gabbard's Catholic upbringing? The bottom line is that you need something RS to justify a "multireligious/multifaith" statement. Otherwise, it means nothing. Samp4ngeles (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Two points:

1) People looking into this question with no POV on the matter could note that Rediff.com has never been said to be an unreliable source at RS/N, contrary to what Samp4 suggests. Aziz Haniffa, the journalist who interviewed her, is (now) managing editor of India Abroad.

2) It is likely that Samp4 is either unaware of syncretism in those in the West who adopt Eastern traditions or is feigning that unawareness. (Cf. the chapters "Religion in an Alien Context: The Approach to Hinduism in a Western Society", "Salvation in the World: A Hindu-Christian Dialogue on Hope and Liberation," and "Christianity and Reincarnation", in Dialogue and Syncretism: an Interdisciplinary Approach (among others) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

With regard to Rediff.com, there are two things to consider. First, it is a "high-quality mainstream publication?" Probably not. More importantly, though, the RS discussion around the 2012 interview with Gabbard ( https://www.rediff.com/news/report/concerns-of-hindus-are-near-to-my-heart-tulsi-gabbard/20121031.htm ) is a primary source and there are no secondary sources explain what was meant by the term multireligious.

Further on that point, and in answer to your second point, no RS discusses whether the multireligious term refers to syncretism, Catholicism, or something else. There is, overall, a lack of multiple, high-quality sources to justify the inclusion of this term in the TG article. Samp4ngeles (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have to agree with what several editors have said. Folks need to stop trying to elevate minor sources that happen to agree with their POV. There are long standing principles, endorsed repeatedly by Arbcom, that we are to use only the highest quality sources for BLP content. Straight from the lead of BLP:

"Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."

Nowhere does it say to use the subject as a source instead of an independent source, nor does it say to used a newsletter instead of a newspaper. Those who keep promoting low quality sources are going to have to answer for it at WP:AE if they don't desist. - MrX 🖋 20:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is why we should be very firm about using gold-star sources from Hawaii, such as Civil Beat for news about Hawaii. (best hawaiian online news site, 9 years running)🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I do so enjoy your humor. - MrX 🖋 02:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Well, it is essentially a matter of fact that her parents followed different religions, as all sources tell. Therefore, I do not understand why Humanengr started all this discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  And while we can certainly state the fact that her parents followed different religions during their lifetimes, it's unclear what religious environment she was raised in, beyond the strong involvement with the Science of Identity Foundation. --Ronz (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

How come? Here is good source [38], and it tells:

She comes from a multicultural, multi-religious family and, as a practicing Hindu, was the first Hindu elected to Congress.

Right? And is not it important and a good thing? My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You're new to this discussion, so I'll explain that Samp4 & apparently Ronz want to exclude the word "multi-religious" from the entry. The former has removed it repeatedly, while Humanengr has restored it repeatedly. It's been in the article for years. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, please WP:FOC. You're misrepresenting the situation by trying to focus on the editors.

That CBSNews article gives the briefest of summaries. We can and are going into far more detail. We've far better sources, and the better sources support what I wrote, that it's unclear what religious environment she was raised in, beyond the strong involvement with the Science of Identity Foundation. Tulsi has been very reluctant to give details, and "multi-religious" seems to be a bit of hand-waving from her (and from this article) that gets echoed in sources that don't bother to go into details themselves. --Ronz (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Except that as you can see, we have gone into the details above. Hinduism and Catholicism were both present in the household. edit: So, I'm guessing, was a sense of "service to others", as being the essential human condition. I understand why people want to keep it during an election; I also see why people want to delete it during an election. At least, I think I do, maybe I'm wrong. Again, I don't think it does anyone any harm and it is accurate. I vote keep. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Except that the details you've provided aren't enough information to go on and the sources aren't high-quality enough, so it's still WP:UNDUE due to lack of depth of detail in the reporting and the fact that the claim stems from personal statements by Gabbard that may have been self-serving. Whether or not, as @My very best wishes suggests, this is a good thing unfortunately doesn't pertain, as the article needs to remain WP:NEUTRAL. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ronz: Your argument is based on the assumption that the SIF is an exclusionary religion. But no RS supports that. From the Science of Identity Foundation#Theology article:

Although grounded in Hinduism, Butler has said of the SIF philosophy of Bhakti yoga, 'It does not conflict with Christianity, with Islam, with any bona fide religious system. We're trying to teach the essence of Bhakti yoga without having anybody say 'Oh that's Hindu' or 'Oh that's Christian’.[1982 cite]

Humanengr (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC.

My argument is based upon the sources.

Note that there is an open BLPN discussion. Why all the discussion here too? --Ronz (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ronz, please stop saying FOC. I have added a line to my summary above, after quite a few edit conflicts. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry you don't like it. Could you redact this? --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Why? Do you support maintaining the word in the BLP or not? That's the content issue in this RfC. The preceding discussion led me to believe you opposed. Why are we wasting time on this pin-counting question? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I already pointed out that the word could be used in certain contexts. Meanwhile, there's an open BLPN discussion. --Ronz (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Noting BLPN discussion

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tulsi_Gabbard

I find it deeply concerning that there appears to be no notice about this BLPN discussion, and the results have apparently been ignored. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I specifically followed the results of the BLP/N in restoring the long-standing, well-sourced text until any claims in RS that specifically contradict are identified. At that point, the two perspectives can be juxtaposed as stated by Masem. No specific statements from RS contradicting the multifaith upbringing have been presented to date. Vague innuendo by editors built from SYNTH, inferrence, and speculation is not grounds for disrupting stable well-sourced biographical content. Re lack of notice, can you point me to policy? I’ll be happy to comply if I see such. Humanengr (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ronz Thank you for pointing this discussion out. I also find the omission of mention on this Talk page by @Humanengr concerning. Samp4ngeles (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)