Talk:Science of Identity Foundation

revert re Byline Times

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

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

References

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

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

Podcast

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

Recent edits (BI + Independent)

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

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

About the Founder of SIF and the History

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

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

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

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

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

Old news

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

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

NPOVN

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

Same old label concerns

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

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

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

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

  Butler preaches that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

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

Avoid libelous claims on Gabbard per WP:BLP

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

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

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

Gabbard identifies as a Vaishnava Hindu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New religious movement

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

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

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