Talk:Tulsi Gabbard

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) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• 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)

Science of Identity Foundation (2nd active thread)

Bumping the most evolved version from the Science of Identity discussion above:

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

All information related to Gabbard's ties to Science of Identity has been scrubbed from this article and is overdue. The vast majority of responses to the RfC above advocate inclusion. I am not particularly partial to the specific wording above, but the article needs some mention.Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you've been quite focused on this 70-80s stuff from before Gabbard was born, as well as in including as many local stories as possible on Mike Gabbard's BLP. So much energy towards negative spin is impressive. Several people have vetoed "longstanding ties" as POV insinuation, "grew up in the SIF community" was suggested as I recall. The paragraph, as is, is dripping with insinuation (repetition of "guru", "spiritual master" instead of just "teacher", repetition of "ties", "current" husband as opposed to just her husband (which is sufficient given the state of US law to identify a single individual)), so I would suggest trying to rewrite "for the opponent". Also, again, nothing was "scrubbed", no agreement has been reached on neutral wording, because it seems that there is a desire to suggest TG is being "influenced" by her "ties" to a controversial "spiritual master". I wonder if we shouldn't also have an equally long section on surfing? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I imagine there are problems with this too:

Both of Gabbard's parents were involved with socially-conservative guru Chris Butler, so she grew up in a community centered around the Science of Identity Foundation. Her husband, the videographer Abraham Williams, grew up in the same environment. His mother, who runs Gabbard's Hawaii office, and has also worked for Butler's wife.

The main advantage is that it doesn't turn "guru" into a fetish. (we could even say "with social conservative Chris Butler"). I've grayed the bit about his mother, not sure it can be sourced outside of Civil Beat or Huff's reprint of the same. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

There are indeed several problems with this version, too. For starters: This BLP is about Tulsi Gabbard, it is not about her father, not about her mother, not about her husband, not about the mother of her husband or any other person than Tulsi Gabbard. I explained this and several other problems there [35]. Related policies: WP:COATRACK, WP:GUILT, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, see also Sippenhaft. Xenagoras (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is important not for any sort of negative spin but, as so many editors have explained above, for a variety of reasons including the fact that the information exists in RS. It relates to Gabbard specifically, through her lifetime. Here is an even more neutral version, boiled down to three sentence, based on the one just above:

Tulsi Gabbard and her family have long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) and its founder, Chris Butler. In 2015, Gabbard referred to Butler as her "guru dev" (“spiritual master”) and describes him as "essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor." Gabbard's parents and both of her husbands are also associated with SIF.

Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

References

As long as proposals use words and phrases that suggest more than they convey, I don't know how we can proceed. Vague and suggestive wording needs to be replaced with something much more concrete. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz Unclear what you mean by this. The text above conveys everything factually and concisely, and we can easily proceed with it. If you have a specific issue with wording, then be clear about your concern.Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

See the concerns of 11:00, 9 December 2019 for specifics. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz Lots of nonsense allegations and insinuations in 11:00, 9 December 2019. It's nonsense, for example, to suggest taking out Gabbard's own words. If you have specific concerns beyond the stream of consciousness in 11:00, 9 December 2019, suggest edit. Otherwise, this version reflects the majority of views in the previous discussion. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"Long standing ties" is weasel-wording, something to expect on Fox News Channel. I know by name many of the merchants where I shop so I suppose that could be weasel-worded as long-standing ties although I don't have their home telephone numbers and we have never been to each others homes. And readers cannot be expected to know what gurudev means. Is it like referring to a politician as the honorable so-and-so. Then we can say that someone claimed Trump was honorable because they used that address in a letter to him. And btw, why haven't you replied to my questions about SARS? Bear in mind that the purpose of articles is to convey information, not to provide innuendo against politicians with whom we happen to disagree. And it doesn't matter if it's Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard or whoever. TFD (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz @The Four Deuces This revision should address your remaining concerns:

Tulsi Gabbard and her family have long been associated with the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) and its founder, Chris Butler. Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her, and in 2015 Gabbard referred to Butler as her spiritual master. Gabbard's parents, husband, and ex-husband are also associated with the SIF.

Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about her association with the SIF.

Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Providing quotes in your comments or the references would help. --Ronz (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz Some of these are referenced in the initial topic, but these are some important passages (there are of course more):

“[Tulsi Gabbard] was raised in part on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler, who founded The Science of Identity Foundation, and whose work she said still guides her. ‘Muslims have imams, Christians have pastors, Hindus have gurus, so he’s essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor,’ Ms. Gabbard said. ‘And he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me that have provided me with strength and shelter and peace.’

“According to some who knew [Tulsi Gabbard and her husband, Abraham Williams], the couple's links go back way before 2012 to their childhoods, when their families became intertwined through an offshoot of Hare Krishna called the Science of Identity Foundation, that has roots in New Zealand . . . . You won't find any mention of the Science of Identity Foundation on Tulsi's campaign website or Instagram feed. But according to her aunt, Caroline Sinavaiana Gabbard, she was born into the group, and has remained loyal ever since . . . . Gabbard's aunt, Caroline Sinavaiana Gabbard, remembers learning some 40 years ago that her brother Mike - Tulsi's father - had joined the Science of Identity.”

“As a child, Gabbard, who turns 38 next month, was part of a religious community centered around the teachings of the spiritual leader Chris Butler, a Hindu philosopher with links to the Hare Krishna movement who as early as 1970 was treated in the local Hawaiian press as a hippie guru and whose Science of Identity Foundation remains active worldwide. Gabbard has downplayed the association, telling the New Yorker magazine in 2017 that “I’ve had many different spiritual teachers, and continue to.” But her ties to the Butler community, from her family to her donor network, run deep, and since her election to Congress she has referred to Butler has her “guru dev”, or spiritual guide.“

“This summer, when I asked her about the teacher who led her to Hinduism, Gabbard grew evasive. ‘I’ve had many different spiritual teachers, and continue to,’ she said.

‘There’s not one that’s more important than the others?’

‘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.’ His name is Chris Butler . . . . As the Hare Krishna movement fractured, Butler created his own group, now known as the Science of Identity Foundation, and amassed a tight-knit, low-profile network of followers, hundreds or perhaps thousands of them, stretching west from Hawaii into Australia, New Zealand, and Southeast Asia. ”

“Abraham [Williams] has known Tulsi since childhood, when they both appeared at gatherings presided over by Chris Butler . . . . At 21, Tulsi was Tulsi Gabbard Tamayo, having married a man involved with Butler’s group, and like many people at that age, she had yet to outgrow the views with which she was raised . . . . [A]s late as 2015, in a video still up on YouTube, Tulsi publicly acknowledged her guru-dev to be Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, Chris Butler . . . . No one I spoke to with personal experience of the group, including Tulsi’s aunt, thought it possible that Tulsi Gabbard had somehow left Chris Butler’s sphere of influence, that her thirst for world peace and her persistent concerns about Islam were positions held independent of his counsel.“

“Mitchell Kahle, president of the Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of Church and State, said he filed a complaint Thursday for [Carol] Gabbard’s failure to disclose positions she and her husband, Mike, hold with various interest groups. ‘Not only didn’t she disclose (affiliation), but she checked ‘none’ – acknowledging she read it,’ Kahle said. He said that Carol Gabbard’s position as secretary and treasure of the nonprofit Science Identity Foundation, and Mike Gabbard’s role as the president of the Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values are potential conflicts of interest and disqualify her from voting on board policy regarding gays and lesbians.” Samp4ngeles (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Thank you.

I'm going to repeat myself, "As long as proposals use words and phrases that suggest more than they convey, I don't know how we can proceed. Vague and suggestive wording needs to be replaced with something much more concrete."

Using the word "associated", while better, still has this problem. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz Perhaps "affiliated with?" In lieu of that, how about eliminating the verb altogether:

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.

Many similar articles used the "was raised" language. Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Why should we report a 2001 ethics complaint and ignore the outcome? TFD (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That seems off topic of this discussion.

Yes, "was raised" seems a good introduction. --Ronz (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

To answer @The Four Deuces, this latest version doesn't use the 1981 citation, but I couldn't find an article in response to the ethics complaint. In any case, I agree with @Ronz that it's off topic (particularly given that it's no longer referenced here or relevant to the current language).

Yes, @Ronz, many politicians' or individuals' articles use "was raised," particularly when there was as conversion to another religion. Gabbard said she converted to Hinduism as a teenager, so this is perhaps a good way to phrase it. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, TFD asked "Why should we report a 2001 ethics complaint and ignore the outcome?” and you responded "this latest version doesn't use the 1981 citation …". The question was about 2001. Why are you referring to 1981? But what is more troublesome is that you insisted on including on 12/20 an article that reflects negatively on a living person in violation of WP:BLP after I informed you on 10/29 that "Carol Gabbard was cleared of any wrongdoing”. Next, your response to TFD continued "but I couldn't find an article in response to the ethics complaint.” That was after MrX indicated on Dec 11 how to search Hawaii newspapers archives. And, further, your 'latest version' above still, in fact, includes cite #1, the 2001 Asato cite TFD was referring to. NB This just covers cite #1. Humanengr (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr I'm happy to take this citation out because it's not essential, but don't roll back a whole set of edits because you don't link this source. I'm undoing your last edit and taking this source out, and if you have issues with any edits in particular, you can make more specific edits.Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles You inserted material when there was no consensus as to form. You did so without responding to my response to your confusing response above. @All, it seems that there are now two active threads re form — this one and the one Newslinger left open under the RFC. How shall we proceed? Humanengr (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Humanengr (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Humanengr There seems to be consensus after extensive back-and-forth, and the wording in this edit reflects that. What about it would you change? Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I pointed you to my comment above. Also, pls start a new § to discuss your current proposal. Humanengr (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The addltlon of thls[36] text seems flne to me. What exactly ls the problem? Seems llke standard blo stuff. ls anythlng lnaccurate? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans, Will address tomorrow after Samp4ngeles reposts in a new § here. Humanengr (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans This is standard bio stuff and it is well-sourced and consistent with what you see in articles for other politicians, but @Humanengr has gone to great lengths to keep it out. There is no need for a new (third §). This has been discussed ad infinitum for nearly *three months* now. The most recent version is amenable to seemingly everyone except @Humanengr, who has not previously raised any issues with it.Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles:, The 2001 Asato citation violates WP:BLP on several counts not least of which is the fact that raises the salacious innuendo of an ethics violation by Carol Gabbard, when Carol Gabbard was, in fact, cleared. Either you remove it or I am reporting you for this tendentious behavior. The form of the Science of Identity material has not been finalized. Humanengr (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

References

"Multireligious"

The inclusion of the word "multireligious" in the sentence "Gabbard was raised in a multicultural and multireligious household" needs to be justified by contemporaneous sources (of which there are none) and is not supported by WP:CS. This vague term stems from a statement Gabbard herself made in 2012 (see [37]) saying, "I grew up in a multicultural, multi-religious household. My father is of Samoan/Caucasian heritage and he is a deacon in the Catholic church. However, he also likes to practice mantra meditation, including kirtan. My mother is Caucasian and a practicing Hindu." Admittedly, there are numerous sources that parrot this "multicultural, multireligious" statement, but the multireligious part of that statement cannot be viewed as reliable. Gabbard's parents were in the news frequently during Gabbard's childhood, and there are no sources during that time indicating that either of them was Catholic or Hindu (and, in fact, there are a lot of sources to the contrary). Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hindu and Catholic = multireligious. Are there other religious influences mentioned in the refs? --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz I'm not questioning that her family is Hindu and Catholic, or was in 2012. But Gabbard was 31 years old then. The statement "was raised in a . . . multireligious household" seems to match a persona crafted for political purposes but just isn't supported by any reliable sources. Samp4ngeles (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This seems like OR to further a POV not in any sources. --Ronz (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Not my intention at all. I simply hadn't focused on this word before. I was going to add "Citation needed," but I instead looked for citations and couldn't find any. It's a simple search to find the original quote in the 2012 article. Additionally, if you look at the versions of this article, the "multi-religious" language came in only after the article with the original quote was published. With regard to POV, the multi-religious language was added on November 8, 2012, by an editor, @Honuedit, with only three contributions, all relating to Tulsi Gabbard. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be kept out. --Ronz (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

One more bit of information that I didn't notice till now -- the primary source that the quote came from was not RS: https://www.rediff.com/news/report/concerns-of-hindus-are-near-to-my-heart-tulsi-gabbard/20121031.htm . Then the Times of India used the language on November 8, 2012: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/us-canada-news/Hindu-American-elected-to-US-Congress-for-the-first-time/articleshow/17137684.cms . Then The Atlantic used it on March 5, 2015: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/hindus-in-american-politics/386941/ Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

An article cited in the lead, "THE FIRST HINDU IN US CONGRESS" in the Indian Weekender says, "Tulsi grew up in a multicultural, multi-religious household." TFD (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The Atlantic doesn't use it to describe Gabbard. --Ronz (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that where it's used to describe Gabbard (at least in the refs I've looked at so far), it's sloppy reporting that has no depth. In contrast, the refs that do have depth do not say anything like this. --Ronz (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz, re your "it's sloppy reporting that has no depth", what specifically are you referring to? Humanengr (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That's my quick assessment of the sources. This discussion was started by Samp4ngeles on whether or not "multireligious" should be used. From what I'm seeing so far, I agree it should not be used because the better sources don't. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz, From here, I see "Gabbard … also discussed various aspects of her Hindu faith, …. … “I grew to understand from a young age being raised in a multi-faith home — my mom is a practicing Hindu, my dad is Catholic — and for us as kids we grew up studying and reading from both the Bhagavad Gita as well as the New Testament. So, we heard stories about Krishna and Arjuna at night when we were going to sleep as well as stories about Jesus of Nazareth." Other 'multi-faith' include here; here; here; here; here, here; 'multifaith' include: here, here; here; 'multi-religious' include: here; here. Humanengr (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, On what grounds are rediff or Times of India not RS as you indicated above? Humanengr (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr To start with, the original quote came from Rediff, which is not a "high-quality mainstream publication" nor an RS. The wording came from a quotation of Gabbard. "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original)." "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere," but there has been no substantive discussion of this claim by Gabbard in 2012 -- literally nothing that describes what is meant by multi-religious as it applied to Gabbard's family when she was a child. On the contrary, there are multiple RS that in fact find the opposite -- that Gabbard was raised in a family with one religious view, centered around the teachings of Chris Butler and the Science of Identity Foundation. I could go on .... @Ronz may have views on this as well. Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, WP:ABOUTSELF governs here. Humanengr (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Throwing a bunch of sources together without concern for their quality is not the way to move forward. --Ronz (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ronz, As I read it, under ABOUTSELF, a self-characterization can be excluded as "unduly self-serving" (Samp4ngeles's allegation) if that were upheld after due consideration. But under the policy, the quality of the sources is not an issue (self-published and even questionable sources are acceptable). Can you clarify what you wrote about the sources I had cited in light of this policy? Humanengr (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

This is BLP info, so quality of sources not only matters, we're required to use high-quality sources. Does that answer your question? --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Description of the need for reliable sources in WP:V is immediately followed with an exception for WP:ABOUTSELF, saying: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." [emphasis extended] as long as the ABOUTSELF criteria are satisfied. (These latter include the 'not unduly self-serving' criterion, which would need to be addressed next.) Humanengr (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

And BLP has additional requirements. --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

BLP has additional requirements for sensitivity, not that the statements a person makes about themselves need to be reported in reliable secondary sources before inclusion. Are you referring to something else? Humanengr (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid we disagree on the importance of high-quality sources and independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

How do you read the ABOUTSELF exception where self-published and poor quality sources are allowed? Humanengr (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about at this point. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You said "I'm afraid we disagree on the importance of high-quality sources and independent sources.” That is not the case, as I agree with that as a general rule. But ABOUTSELF provides an exception you have not acknowledged. I’ll try to explain one last time. The WP:BLP § entitled 'WP:BLPSELFPUB' lists 5 criteria that do not include quality. That § also refers to WP:SPS which is part WP:V. The structure of WP:V is that §2 Reliable sources (aka WP:SOURCE) is followed by §3 Sources that are usually not reliable (aka WP:NOTRS). That latter has subsections 3.1 Questionable sources, 3.2 Self-published sources (aka WP:SPS), and 3.3 Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves (aka WP:SPS) which refers to 3.1 and 3.2, saying as I quoted "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, …”. That means that quality (as well as ‘independence’) is -not- a criterion for self-published sources. The 5 criteria that apply to self-published sources there (and repeated in BLPSELFPUB) appear right after that statement. The requirement for ‘quality’ does not appear for 'about self' in either of those sections — which cover an exception. HTH, Humanengr (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I repeat: We disagree.

@Ronz, I confirm that @Humanengr is completely correct. The WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPSELFPUB policies serve to allow self-published sources with the restrictions defined in these policies, the most important ones being confirmed identity (authentication) of the source (e.g. blue check mark Twitter/Youtube) and no claims about third parties. Xenagoras (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See my comment below. Time for RfC? --Ronz (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ronz I am not sure which comment you mean, I assume 17:54, 4 January 2020 ? The WP:BLPSELFPUB policy is concise: "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used." In case your worry is purely about quality difference between sources: Please think for a moment whether a third party source (e.g. a newspaper author) knows better or worse what exactly the religious believe of a living person is. I am firmly convinced that a living person knows better what she herself believes than stranger does. I also recommend having a look at the personal life section of other politicians. The religious believe of living people is described exclusively by quotes from the living person. For the reason I just gave. Xenagoras (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The comment immediately below, which you decided to insert your comment before, Arguing against using higher-quality, independent sources is a waste of time from my experience. This isn't about her current beliefs, but how she was raised: a topic where she's reluctant to go into detail. Her summary should not be used over those of better sources. --Ronz (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ronz This argument does not make any difference, because no journalist can know better than Gabbard herself about what religious teaching Gabbard received during her childhood. Was there any journalist in Gabbard's nursery observing how Gabbard was educated in religion? (She was home schooled.) Btw, there are several sources where Gabbard describes her religious upbringing. A certain group of editors has failed to use them for several months by now. Also btw, Gabbard's current exhibition of religious behaviour [38] [39] [40] is completely in sync with what she says about her childhood. [41] Xenagoras (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm insisting on relying upon high-quality, independent sources for how to present this, rather than her own framing. --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC is a good idea so that these 'better sources' saying "she was not raised in a 'multi-religious' household" can be assessed once and for all. Humanengr (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Arguing against using higher-quality, independent sources is a waste of time from my experience. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

“Hailing from a multi-ethnic and multi-denominational family, Gabbard has been a member of Congress since 2013 and holds the distinction of being the first Hindu to be elected to the chamber.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanengr (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr This source that you use to justify adding the term back into the article provides no further insight or justification beyond the other sources that parrot the original rediff quote attributed to Gabbard ("I grew up in a multicultural, multi-religious household. My father is of Samoan/Caucasian heritage and he is a deacon in the Catholic church. However, he also likes to practice mantra meditation, including kirtan. My mother is Caucasian and a practicing Hindu."). In particular, it does not explain whether the family was multi-denominational during Gabbard's childhood (with all indications to the contrary). There are sources that indicate her father turned to the Catholic church around 2004 and that her mother at some point became Hindu, but that was after Gabbard's early life. Please self-revert your edit until which time you can justify inserting this language. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr I echo what @Ronz just wrote. And in response to your suggestion that WP:ABOUTSELF governs here, that's outlandish. Politicians throughout history have exaggerated aspects of their life stories or identities to appeal to different groups, so extra scrutiny has to be given to ensure that the sources here are not "unduly self-serving" and that there is not "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." In my opinion, it's not hard to envision a scenario where Gabbard's statement to an Indian interviewer could have been exaggerated. Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, authenticity of a source (as used in WP:ABOUTSELF and the equivalent WP:BLPSELFPUB) means that the identity of the source is confirmed. "Authenticity without reasonable doubt" means e.g. identify-verified (authenticated) social media accounts: those with a blue check mark on Twitter/YouTube, as well as video/audio sources exhibiting well known people whose faces/voices are well recognized so that their identity is "confirmed without reasonable doubt" even in video/audio that has no authentication checkmark on Twitter/Youtube. Xenagoras (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Xenagoras Thank you for explaining that. Looking at this further, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPSELFPUB still do not appear to be appropriate here. WP:BLPSELFPUB says, "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Humanengr, however, is trying to apply this to a politician's biography. Similarly, WP:ABOUTSELF is primarily for Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works, rather than politicians' bios. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles you cited the policy WP:SELFPUB which is the wrong policy in this matter. WP:SELFPUB states, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people." Our matter is a person writing about herself, not about a third party. The policy to apply in this matter is WP:BLPSELFPUB which states, "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used." Xenagoras (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Xenagoras From WP:V (emphasis added): Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Also, what's your source on your previous comment that authenticity means "identity of the source is confirmed," versus the lay definition of "worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact?" Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles you claim to cite WP:V, seemingly adding another policy to your argument, but in fact you cited WP:SELFPUB again. I already explained why WP:SELFPUB does not apply in this matter and why WP:BLPSELFPUB applies in this matter. Please do not game the use of policies and guidelines by WP:PLAYPOLICY selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a policy or cherry-picking one policy to apply but willfully ignoring others to support a view which does not in fact match policy, and do not WP:SPURIOUSPROTECT spuriously and knowingly claim justification under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy.

My source for claiming "no reasonable doubt about the authenticity of a source" in WP:BLPSELFPUB means "the identity of the source is confirmed" is as follows: WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF are equivalent. This gives insight into why these policies were created: WP:ABOUTSELF is a synonym for WP:SOCIALMEDIA and WP:TWITTER, which means the policy for usage of self-published sources is tightly connected to the widespread use of social media. Social media accounts have an authentication mechanism which users can use to verify their identity. If person X writes on Twitter about themselves, this can only be used in the BLP of person X if the Twitter account of person X has verified identity (blue check mark). Lacking this rule, anybody on Twitter could claim to be person X, and if we included the Tweets of an unverified Twitter account in the BLP of person X, we would expose Wikipedia to legal litigation by the real person X. Xenagoras (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Xenagoras So, this is the second time you've said that WP:BLPFSELFPUB's reference to "authenticity of the source" means, "the identity of the source is confirmed." In actuality, however, WP:BLPSELFPUB leaves the phrased undefined. So does WP:ABOUTSELF. A lay interpretation, then, is according the definition of authenticity, meaning, "worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact" (i.e., WP:EXCEPTIONAL) and needing "multiple high-quality sources"), which this claim is not given contradictory RS and lack of multiple high-quality sources. All of that aside, if WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF are the same and/or based on WP:ABOUTSELF alone, then we have to take the WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy into consideration. This "multireligious" claim does not meet the standard.

N.b: The WP:V I referenced above is noted as further information on WP:BLPSELFPUB. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles your claim about the meaning of "authenticity of the source" has been dismissed by the wikipedia community, which confirmed my interpretation there See also the latest explanatory contribution to the discussion. Xenagoras (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Xenagoras That's still an open discussion, so no -- the Wikipedia community hasn't dismissed anything. I'm also adding the WP:SPA tag to all of your contributions here and noting that on the discussion there. Samp4ngeles (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Your claim that she crafted a message regarding her upbringing violates WP:BLP. I suggest that you remove that from this talk page. Humanengr (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles: Also, pls remove your "laughable", I request that you remove that and adhere to WP:CIVIL. Humanengr (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

no biggie. done. Samp4ngeles (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles: Now remove your speculative disparagement of Tulsi Gabbard. As I indicated, that violates WP:BLP. Humanengr (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Healthy Hawaii Coalition co-founding cites

@MrX, I see you indicated the Sierra Club article was not RS as it was published on typepad.com. It was written by Courtney Hight, Sierra Club Deputy Political Director, and "Paid for by Sierra Club Independent Action, www.sierraclub.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.” Sierra Club Independent Action publishes a voter guide. That would seem to indicate some editorial oversight and fact-checking. Thoughts? In any case, there is also The Atlantic.

The former says "At age 19, [Tulsi] Gabbard co-founded"; the latter, "At age 19, Gabbard and her father cofounded". AFAICS, the earliest primary source that lists Tulsi Gabbard shows "Mike Gabbard, Founder/President; Tulsi Gabbard, Co-Founder / Vice President". Humanengr (talk) 05:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we can just use The Atlantic as a source. It's not an extraordinary claim. - MrX 🖋 16:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thx. The Sierra Club article contains the tidbit "She personally led the volunteer cleanup effort at city beaches after flooding at a local landfill released dangerous medical waste." While that might be too much to include in the article, it probably makes sense to retain the cite for access to that. Humanengr (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Descent — amending

@Nblund, w/ apologies for re-raising … re your cmt: "I don't necessarily have a problem with saying 'According to her campaign website, Gabbard is of mixed ethnicity, including Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent'" in Early Life and Education. I realize now I mistakenly removed the attribution in my response. So, a q to you and TFD — are we ok including Nblund's version in Early life after "Her father is of Samoan and European ancestry" in ¶2? (The source is her congressional website, so I'll adjust for that.)" Humanengr (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You need a better source than a campaign website. That is a biased non-RS. It has no place in this article.Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

If you read the above carefully, you would see it is the congressional website, which is RS. Cite specific policy language to exclude. Humanengr (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr In this case, it doesn't make sense to rely on one source for this, particularly her own site. If, however, you were to order based on percent ethnicity based on the PBS results, it would be "European (or Caucasian) and Asian (or Polynesian) descent." Note that the PBS results estimated her ancestry at 69% European origin. It is a stretch to say that her ancestry is Asian, given that Asians settled Samoa about 2,000 years ago. Using the language you've suggested above also ignores her father's Kentucky ancestry, which is documented in some RS. It would be perhaps most accurate and relevant to say that she has "primarily European American ancestry and is approximately 30% Samoan." This statement is supported by RS. Samp4ngeles (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 3#First Hindu, first Samoan, ethnicity. Humanengr (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Humanengr Thank you -- I had already read through that. The current wording in the article is misleading and too dependent on Gabbard's own publicly-crafted persona. The wording on Gabbard's website that says, "A practicing Hindu, she is of Asian, Polynesian, and Caucasian descent" and proximity of Hindu and Asian suggests primary Asian or perhaps even Indian ethnicity and minimizes her Caucasian ancestry -- as well as implying that her Hindu faith stems from her ancestry, which it does not. It would be more accurate to say:

Gabbard is of mixed ethnicity, including primarily European American as well as Polynesian ancestry. Samp4ngeles (talk) 17:40, 5 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). [42] 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

Clinton's Russian agent comments

The paragraph on Hillary Clinton's Russian agent comments is too detailed and lengthy. I think it should be trimmed to about half the size, with more of a summary structure rather than the she-said-she-said. My edits to this paragraph earlier today have been reverted. This detail does not seem to have any enduring value. - MrX 🖋 02:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Should the article include Honolulu Civil Beat's investigation of forum postings about Tulsi Gabbard's involvement with the Science of Identity Foundation?

Should the article's coverage of Gabbard's involvement with the Science of Identity Foundation include material about forum postings referenced to a 2015 article in Honolulu Civil Beat? - MrX 🖋 13:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed sample 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".
— Honolulu Civil Beat

Previous discussions:

• #v.1
• #Workshop for SIF material
• RS/N thread on Honolulu Civil Beat as of 8/1/2020 (permalink added by 🌿 SashiRolls)

---

comment: I will vote later, but I just want to be clear that I don't think anything should be added about SIF until this question (present already in version 1 of the proposed text) is resolved. The two really go together. The wording and quote here is not the primary concern. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

No. It's one reference in one article that is vastly incongruent with more recent reporting. To quote from WP:UNDUE, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." I think it's fine to include the article itself as a citation, though, because it provides additional context from a source published prior to Gabbard's presidential run. See my comments above for a more detailed analysis. Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment I’ve read the previous threads, but I’d prefer to see the references laid out here, for clarity. If it’s just civilbeat being proposed, then hell no. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see the evidence section below. I've done the work you requested. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• No - As far as I know, Honolulu Civil Beat is the only source for this information, which makes it WP:UNDUE. Searching an internet forum is not what I would consider good investigative journalism, and searching public records would not normally be expected to yield meaningful results in this case. The source is very outdated in comparison to much better sources that have thoroughly covered Gabbard's involvement with SIF, so we should stick to those and keep the material brief as proposed in previous sections.- MrX 🖋 14:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• No. The content above appears to conflict with numerous recent reports by several RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. The Honolulu Civil Beat is one of the most respected local news outlets, with awards, and is likely to be a stronger RS on Hawaii-specific topics than national outlets. MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment I think we need to be careful here about deeming anything reliable for inclusion solely based on the news source. WP:NEWSORG states that, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." In this case, there multiple news stories from both Civil Beat and mainstream/national RS contradict this excerpt from the March 2015 Civil Beat story. Samp4ngeles (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Neither New York source confirms or denies the story, just as neither provides evidence contradicting it. The paper is RS as the discussion at RSN (last I looked) seemed to agree. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Question & Comment -- Is this the same person behind Meanwhile in Hawaii? For those who want to go diving into the wreck, you could just ask Gogol: "forum Gabbard SIF?". There was also something about bringing a flashlight to look for cockroaches. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean, is the Honolulu Star-Advertiser the same person as Nick Bredimus and/or Jack Schweigert? No. This is a distraction. As is diving into WP:FRINGE discussions in forums in order to support a POV based on a single sentence in a single-source, rather than relying on WP:V sources. Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK Samp, that you had added 76K to this talk page since October 29, 2019? That's more than one special K a day! I would be wary of those who might accuse you of badgering. Just today Snoog & MrX both publicly accused me without evidence of being obsessed with David Brock. As it happens I have never once edited their BLP talkpage. I did once add a hatnote 3.5 years ago. Since those two are both regulars on this page, I'll tell them that I think their decision to let you continue badgering here is worthy of note. Could you consider laying off the constant replies to everyone's comments, Samp? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This isn't WP:BADGER by any definition. And I think you'll find that many of much of what I have written here to be constructive and, particularly recently, an attempt to reach consensus on the SIF material in the face of WP:STONEWALLING. It is, however, interesting to see the volume of your comments on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders, and someone seeing that for the first time I'm frankly sympathetic to MrX's and Snooganssnoogans' concerns. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

And I'm impressed that you added 60K to Media coverage of Bernie Sanders in 10 days. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

oops. busted :p It's true that adding refs spoofs the numbers. And, that WP:TNT had recently been applied to the article. in fairness, too, you don't use ref-names and tend to spread the same ones on the TP all the time because I keep adding reflists. (I hadn't realized this was why that was happening...) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added the link to RS/N about this question that you forgot to link when you opened it at on 6 January 2020 MrX 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you SashiRolls. Good idea. - MrX 🖋 14:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Evidence

New Yorker

The best way to study the New Yorker article (§) to see if it has any evidence backing up its claims is to go through the 130 occurences of the name "Gabbard". No significant evidence of any controlling relationship is presented in the article, just a number of assertions and anonymously attributed (or contradicting) statements. Around a dozen of those 130 uses of her name actually have something to do with her upbringing, and only 5-8 have anything to do with Butler (I've highlighted some of the more rhetorical parts of the prose:

1. This summer, when I asked her about the teacher who led her to Hinduism, Gabbard grew evasive. “I’ve had many different spiritual teachers, and continue to,” she said.
2. "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.”
3. 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.”
4. Gabbard’s life would be unrecognizable without Butler’s influence.
5. Gabbard, like her predecessors, firmly rejects the idea that she is part of a political initiative tied to her spiritual leader.

There are a few other evidentiary claims? innuendi? introduced with: "some of the people who have supported Gabbard but", "One person familiar with Gabbard", "One of Gabbard’s friends describes her parents", etc.

There's even "Tulsi Gabbard’s name reflects the family’s pre-existing spiritual commitments." which is almost certainly true, but what we can be sure has to do with Butler in that claim is precisely zero.

I welcome fact-checking on the above. Would someone do the same for the Intelligencer article to see if it's got any better evidence countering the Civil Beats claim that

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. But that hasn’t stopped them from looking for evidence of a secret agenda.

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

---

NY Mag

I went ahead and did the Intelligencer article quickly too. Here is what I found searching through 28 occurrences of Gabbard & 83 occurrences of Tulsi (including a very weird tangent about a homonym). Outside of the weirdness of a journalist calling Gabbard by her first name as if they were chums, when she'd been refused an interview... after having been given a ride earlier by the campaign... this is what I found in terms of associative evidence/insinuations (I left bare assertions about relationships to the SIF community through extended family members out with the exception of #1 and #3):

1. A party chair, Bill Penaroza, is the father of Tulsi Gabbard’s current chief of staff, Kainoa Penaroza.
2. Former members of the Science of Identity say ...
3. The children of those teenagers in the Quonset hut were born into the sect, as Tulsi was
4. Tulsi Gabbard’s response to questions about the Science of Identity frequently begin with accusations of religious bigotry and “Hinduphobia.”
5. No one I spoke to with personal experience of the group, including Tulsi’s [ed. estranged] aunt, thought it possible that Tulsi Gabbard had somehow left Chris Butler’s sphere of influence
6. [A] staffer ... said Tulsi would take questions on religious matters via email [ed. after a last minute interview cancelation after review of the journalist's questions]. Tulsi replied [ed. to the journalist's written questions] with an email that declined to mention Hinduism, Butler, the Science of Identity, the gatherings or the Philippines.
7. "Now he [ed. Butler] has realized his dream through Tulsi Gabbard." Says Rama Ranson, who maintains the blog ...
8. Tulsi calls herself Hindu, the first Hindu member of Congress, in fact, though the group in which she appears to have grown up does not identify as Hindu.
9. The campaign’s position is that any serious inquiry into Tulsi’s religious background constitutes a Hinduphobic line of attack to which other candidates would not be subject, though again, Butler’s group does not identify as Hindu.
10. But, as late as 2015, in a video still up on YouTube, Tulsi publicly acknowledged her guru-dev to be Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, Chris Butler.

With regard to #5, it fails as a literal truth, because she spoke to Tulsi Gabbard, her sister & her husband in the campaign car and cites none of them saying anything like what she claims (maybe Gabbard confided in her off the record on their way to the rally that she couldn't shake her "spiritual leader"?). Presumably, the journalist means after she hitched that ride...

NB: neither source links to the "smoking gun" August 2015 Hare Krsna TV ISKON Desire Tree video they "present" as Exhibit A for their case, though they both mention it is online, but give no dates. Likewise, neither mentions it is a fleeting mention in the video. Both mention she is uncomfortable dealing with discussions about her upbringing and neither mentions the 2015 story about the forum campaign Civil Beat referred to in 2015.

In fact, the NYMag author writes: "For many years in Kailua, the Gabbards’ known involvement with the Science of Identity went largely unremarked upon. It took an outsider, ... independent journalist Christine Gralow...to get curious enough to start asking questions". Unless I'm mistaken those are questions that the local "best overall online news" site in Hawaii *had* indeed investigated. The "largely" in "largely unremarked upon" may acknowledge obliquely that story's existence, or it may acknowledge the author didn't do an existing literature search but still wanted to make the claim, I don't know. In any case, I think I see why Gabbard might be uncomfortable having to talk about her upbringing with such rhetorical writers as these. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The NYMag story is a RS, and other stories predated Gralow (for whatever that's worth). Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Workshop for text pertaining to SIF and Gabbard appropriate for her BLP

When the previous RFC on whether there should be mention of the SIF in Gabbard's BLP was closed, the closer stated there was a majority in favor of 'yes' but noted: "A few editors objected to the phrasing of the RfC statement, because it does not specify the exact wording that would be used in the article." The closer left the Proposed wordings section open for workshopping of text. That section was not used but some proposed wording was put under a new section that been created for another purpose. To open the matter to broad participation and centralize discussion, this RfC is for workshopping text pertaining to SIF and Gabbard appropriate for her BLP.

Related material for reference:

• RSN#Honolulu Civil Beat [active]
• RFC: Should the article include Honolulu Civil Beat's investigation of forum postings about Tulsi Gabbard's involvement with the Science of Identity Foundation? [active]
• Proposed wordings [old]
• Workshop for SIF material [old]

Humanengr (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Text proposals

v.ONE.a

— for discussion of v.ONE.a go here

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

v.FOUR

— for discussion of v.FOUR go here

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.

v.FOUR.a: Identical to v.FOUR with addition of the 2015 Civil Beat cite to the first sentence above.

References

v.FIVE

— for discussion of v.FIVE go here)

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

v.SIX

— for discussion of v.SIX go here)

Gabbard’s personal religious views have been the subject of bigoted and sometimes racist attacks since the time of her first run for Congress in 2012:

• The Republican opponent Gabbard faced in 2012 and 2014 publicly argued that a Hindu should not be allowed to serve in the U.S. Congress and that Hinduism is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution."
• In March 2015, the Honolulu Civil Beat reported on an intensive effort by a small group of anonymous internet forum contributors attempting to identify something sinister in an association between Gabbard and the Science of Identity Foundation, a religious organization founded by Chris Butler to teach Vaishnava Hindu yoga and meditation practices. The Civil Beat noted that "many, if not most, of the posts contain claims that are not backed up by supporting material, and they can be readily dismissed as rumors and innuendo — even patently false" and that "even if Gabbard were a Butler devotee … none of the people Civil Beat has interviewed or even the Gabbard skeptics [online], 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."
• Gabbard's 2016 Republican opponent, Angela Kaaihue, wrote on her Facebook page “Some Christians say, a vote for Tulsi Gabbard is a vote for Satan, the devil — do you agree or disagree?” Kaaihue sent out a press release saying that Gabbard worshipped the devil and posted a flier (still available online) which included the text "Hindus are cannibals” and “Hindu Tulsi Gabbard … I call that a dumb Samoan and her dumb Samoan followers".

In written pieces and interviews, Gabbard has put the religious bigotry she has faced as a candidate in the context of other examples of bigotry against politicians: Abraham Lincoln attacked with accusations that he was not Christian; John F. Kennedy regarding his Catholicism, Barack Obama regarding suspicions he was Muslim; Mitt Romney bearing "direct attacks against his Mormon religion."

References

Discussion

Discussion of v.ONE.a

— earlier discussion here

• Still 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 🖋 20:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Your refusal to link to the source where she says Chris Butler is her "guru dev" while supporting that quotation being added to wiki-text is a devious path to take. As for Civil Beat, I'll rewrite a new proposal if you like, but both articles should be included in any discussion of SIF links to her campaign. It has been repeatedly explained to you (both here and at RS/N) that you have no reason to oppose the Civil Beat as a gold-star source for Hawaii reporting. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

IMO it's best if we mostly DGAF where the content is posted when it comes to RS considerations. (We do have to consider whether it's a copyvio when discussing what to link to.) In this case, the source seems to be Hare Krsna TV -- Iskon Desire Tree which doesn't seem to be an RS to me. It doesn't matter whether it's on Youtube or their own website. If the source was BBC News, it would probably be an RS, no matter if it's on Youtube or their own website. Video sources are not ideal, still they are often still RS and can be used if there was no alternative. Nil Einne (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX, Youtube is a perfectly fine "source". What matters is the reliability of the author, not the technology of the medium used for presentation. Honolulu Civil Beat is a high quality, multiple award winning [43] RS and certainly not fringe or undue. I urge you again to stop disputing the reliability of apparently good sources. Xenagoras (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support. This is an objective summary, although I recommend to clarify by writing guru dev (spiritual teacher), and I recommend to not use the New York Intelligencer as source because it contains at least one gross misrepresentation of what the interviewed people said and is written as a narrative by a Professor for creative writing. Xenagoras (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Discussion of v.FOUR

— earlier discussion here See section below titled: why 5 won't work (yet). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

All of these sources are 'human-interest' (see WP:NEWSORG), so their reliability needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis rather than relying on the reputation of the publisher. Bowles does not provide any source or facts for the summary assertion that Gabbard was "raised in part on the teachings of the SIF religious community". "The SIF religious community" is a weasel phrase that seems as if it says something clear and specific, but it is left undefined. What is this "religious community" and what are the "teachings"? The Bowles article perhaps could be used for quotes from Gabbard since Bowles did speak to her. But the claim "Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her" is a misleading rephrasing by Bowles of what Gabbard actually said:

“Muslims have imams, Christians have pastors, Hindus have gurus, so he’s essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor,” Ms. Gabbard said. “And he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me that have provided me with strength and shelter and peace.”

I join Sashi's comments on use of the brief mention of guru dev without sufficient context.

The Hurley article is tabloidy and sensationalist (see the subheading "Prostrating at the feet of a white guru"). Here anonymous "former members" claims are presented without context or information by which they could be assessed (though since it draws on the prior non-RS Stuff material, Rama Ranson is likely the source). It also relies on the NY Mag piece that not only highlighted Rama Ranson's opinion about Butler's politics (though Ranson was apparently 15 when he went to live with his grandmother in San Francisco), but pointed people to Ranson's outlandish website.

"Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community": Again, "part of the community" seems like it says something specific but it is left completely undefined. Also, her ex-husband, a private person, is brought in using the discredited NY Mag piece. In any event why would it be noteworthy if married people belonged to the same church or shared religious beliefs?

I could not find support for "Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF" in the McCarthy cite. McCarthy does include the opinion that Gabbard "downplayed" the SIF, citing the New Yorker article Sashi critiqued, a YouTube video and a Daily Kos 'Community' piece as sources.

But Gabbard did make statements in the Bowles piece and elsewhere that could be used on the SIF for her BLP. Why is that material deliberately being left out, while statements about her alleged 'reluctance' to speak (without explaining the context of the harassment and ridicule her beliefs have been subjected to) are included as newsworthy?

Humanengr (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The information about reluctance to speak publicly about the SIF comes from the Stuff.co.nz article,[44] as well as a dearth of RS where Gabbard has gone on record speaking about it. And there was no deliberate effort to leave anything out -- but there has been a deliberate effort to keep the statement basic, matter of fact, and neutral. If you want to include something beyond what has been proposed, rather than stonewalling others' efforts, suggest an edit. Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

1) The Stuff piece is tabloid non-RS; 2) there is no BLP policy that states one can infer a reluctance to speak about something from a “dearth of RS”. That’s a violation of NOR and NPOV; 3) there are quotes from Gabbard topic. It’s just the editors have been refusing to consider them. Humanengr (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You've alleged previously that the Stuff is a tabloid. Stuff has won, or been a finalist for, numerous Newspaper Publishers' Association awards, including best news website in 2018 and 2019. So, don't even. Stuff reported on Gabbard's reluctance; it is WP:V, and it should be included.

There are quotes where Gabbard has deflected (e.g., calling Butler "essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor" or that she has “many different spiritual teachers”), but you won't find a quote where she has talked about the SIF directly. If you find one, though, I'd be very interested to see it. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:48, 10 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 20:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The logic of this statement escapes me, given that by and large 4 and 5 have the same core sourcing. You also don't mention which "one" you consider unreliable here. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

you won't find a quote where she has talked about the SIF directly. I added this 2017 interview to the talk page earlier, perhaps you missed it? She talks about Chris Butler, if not about SIF... [[45]]. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@SashiRollsI don't think I had actually seen this piece before. Do you consider this RS content that you would want in the article? I'm happy to consider it, although there are aspects of it that I do not consider RS-like. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No I don't think it needs to be in the article. At this point the RfC close has been respected and we don't need to add anything else to the article (on SIF). If there is consensus that claims should be added about her reluctance to talk with political reporters about the SIF, and if there is consensus to mention that she has called Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda her "guru-dev" in a ceremonial context, then it would certainly be worth giving readers her explanation of Paramparā in Eastern traditions. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the information from this source shouldn't be in the article, but I think we have different conclusions regarding whether or not there is more to added to the article on SIF. Most editors on the RfC/workshops are in favor of adding more than what has been added. Samp4ngeles (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

You have misunderstood. My position is that her comments on Butler *will* need to be added if anything is added to mainspace on the subject of her post-March 2015 comments on Chris Butler. (in other words, no, you can't just take what she said in the ceremonial video out of context) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support v.4 (no bloody a, b,c, or d) - It's factual, verifiable, and NPOV. There is obviously no need to cite Civil Beat.- MrX 🖋 20:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

As a Kiwi, I find it confusing to talk about Stuff in this context. Most content on stuff.co.nz comes from some Fairfax/Stuff publications so shouldn't simply be called Stuff. In this case the highlighted article is from the Sunday Star Times. A lot of NZ media is tabloidish and frankly the weekend especially the sunday papers tend to be worse at it. Still I don't think it's accurate to the describe it as a pure tabloid. Frankly the modern NZ media landscape means there isn't really room for a published pure tabloid or serious paper. For tabloid, you get magazine crap like Investigate (magazine) or New Zealand Woman's Weekly. Nil Einne (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her" is very vague and misrepresents what Gabbard actually said: "Muslims have imams, Christians have pastors, Hindus have gurus, so he’s essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor. And he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me that have provided me with strength and shelter and peace." And is omits that she was raised on the teachings of the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita. [46] "In 2015, Gabbard referred to Butler as her guru dev (roughly, "spiritual teacher")" is a correct quote, but vague for not mentioning a description of what the spirituality actually is (although there are quotes available in other sources). "Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community" is a WP:COATRACK. "Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF" is innuendo that elicits the assumption of some sinister secret.[47] Xenagoras (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Discussion of v.FIVE

— earlier discussion here

Why 5 won't work (yet)

1) As I understand it you wish to quote Tulsi Gabbard saying something on youtube but do not want to link to the original primary source on youtube. !Policy says: Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. source References 5 & 6 do not provide any context or link to the video they are quoting. They make bare assertions. Better to provide the actual source.

2) You wish to use the fact that both of her husbands grew up in families who are or were once associated with the SIF religious community. I've looked through the en.wp entries for 11 recent candidates for the Democratic nominations who are married. 9 of those pages do not contain information on the candidate's current spouse's religious affiliation, 2 of them contain information concerning what a candidate's spouse's religion was not, and one contains information about a spouse's work in interfaith cooperation. No page uses a spouse -- let alone two -- to try to insinuate that the candidate is a member of a shadowy conspiracy. ps: the number of spouses doesn't add up, because Biden's article talks about his 1st & 2nd wives.)

no mention:
Jim Warren, Bill Clinton, Chasten Glezman (Buttigieg), Jane Sanders, John Bessler (Klobuchar), Evelyn Lu (Yang), Susan Daggett (Bennett), Jill Jacobs (Biden), April McClain (Delaney),
mention:
(Michael Bloomberg): "The mayor's longtime companion, Diana Taylor, is not Jewish." (in a footnote);
Kat Taylor (Tom Steyer) 'His wife was on the President's Council for the United Religions Initiative whose purpose is to "promote enduring, daily interfaith cooperation, to end religiously motivated violence, and to create cultures of peace, justice and healing for the Earth and all living beings."';
Neilia Hunter (Joe Biden) "They overcame her parents' initial reluctance for her to wed a Roman Catholic, and the ceremony was held in a Catholic church in Skaneateles." 3) Regarding the claim of "reluctance", this is widely sourced (see Evidence section above) but needs balancing to remain. Who wouldn't be reluctant when forums (Cult Education, Democratic Underground) are collating as many reported sightings of you at the temple/church/beach when you were 8 into google's memory as possible? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

On the issue of husbands, it was noteworthy enough for the RS citations to write about. It is not trying to insinuate anything, much less a conspiracy -- and it is intentionally written not to insinuate anything. It's completely in line with other BLP articles, such as the Biden article that explains that he and Jill Biden met on a blind date or that the Obamas met while working at a law firm. It provides WP:BLPBALANCE.

Similar for the question of reluctance, which also provides WP:BLPBALANCE. It also implies nothing, but it explains that Gabbard has not gone on record to explain something that the reporters have questioned her about (which itself can generate whatever discussion you're concerned about on forums). Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Another good example related to the husband material is that the Buttigieg articles says he and his husband met on the dating app Hinge. This information is on Wikipedia for Bernie Sanders, as well. It is pretty much standard. Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm listening, ... and #1? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Defer to others on that. I wasn't in the original discussion. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, so you have no opposition to including the original video then, if I understand correctly. I listened, and then I fact-checked your assertion: regarding where Tulsi Gabbard & Abraham Williams got to know each other, both the NY Times & O magazine agree in their stories about her wedding: "In fact, Williams and Gabbard connected when in 2012, Williams volunteered to help shoot Gabbard’s campaign ads during her first run for U.S. Congress." ([48]. Neither source mentions Butler or SIF. Likewise, neither of the New York articles above in the Evidence section mention that the two got to know each other because of SIF. Putting this in a paragraph whose topic sentence is related to SIF is not warranted by the sources. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not that I have no opposition -- it's that I have not even really read it or thought about it.

The Oprah mag reference is neither plausible nor reliable. The New York mag source said, "Abraham has known Tulsi since childhood, when they both appeared at gatherings presided over by Chris Butler."[49] The Stuff.co.nz article says, "According to some who knew them, the couple's links go back way before 2012 to their childhoods, when their families became intertwined through an offshoot of Hare Krishna called the Science of Identity Foundation, that has roots in New Zealand." [50] A 2001 Honolulu Star-Bulletin article mentioned Abraham Williams' mother, Anya Anthony, participating in a Healthy Hawai'i Coalition (Gabbard's charity) event in 2001 A quick search for articles mentioning Williams' mother reveals she also wrote letters to the editor as far back as 1998 related to Gabbard's parents' political activities. There is more about Anya Anthony's years-long linkages to the Gabbards and SIF in the 2012 Daily Kos article.[51] So, it's clear that saying that they met in 2012 is only a small part of the story. Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Looking at muckrack I see that Burley is the chief news editor of Stuff's tabloid Sunday News. The article relies on an anonymously sourced comment in the Intelligencer (NY Mag) article and Civil Beat (which does not draw the same conclusion). That interesting Daily Kos blogpost seems to be an isolated source concerning her campaign finances. Do you know of other sources that have confirmed/looked into any of what is written there? Thanks for moving the SIF sentence up to Early Life and Education. I think that was the right move. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@SashiRolls Bevan Hurley is a national award-winning reporter and the news director for three Stuff publications. If you look at the very bottom of article, you'll see that it was published in the Sunday Star-Times -- and not for the Stuff Sundays tabloid. This should put an end to the speculation about whether this is or is not an RS and/or "tabloidish." Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - There is no value in the passage "... in the context of a celebration of Srila Prabhupada's trip to the United States." - MrX 🖋 20:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. "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" is very vague and misrepresents what Gabbard actually said: "Muslims have imams, Christians have pastors, Hindus have gurus, so he’s essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor. And he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me that have provided me with strength and shelter and peace." And it omits that she was raised on the teachings of the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita. [52] " 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" is a correct quote, but vague for not mentioning a description of what the spirituality actually is (although there are quotes available in other sources). "Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community" is a WP:COATRACK. "Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF" is innuendo that elicits the assumption of some sinister secret.[53] Xenagoras (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Discussion of v.SIX

What is noteworthy about the SIF in relation to Gabbard is not the SIF itself but how her personal religious beliefs have been used in a campaign of rumor and innuendo suggesting there is some sinister 'secret agenda' afoot. In the context of her being hounded by such attacks, her attempts to maintain some privacy for her spiritual life have been used against her as evidence that she has something to hide. This proposed text version is the only one that puts the rumors about the SIF in context. Humanengr (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Everyone has their network. I still think Grube's article (#3 above in 1a) should be at least on the 2020 campaign page. I think we should also stop thinking of "Science of Identity" as a paragraph. If you listen to her "service for others" mantra, it is clearly inspired from that tradition, for example. cf. video on this page. That doesn't make it bad/nefarious etc, it's just roots. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Smacks of WP:OR, and there are poor and unreliable sources in there. Which reliable and independent source(s) clearly states she's been subjected to such attacks? --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ronz: ?? CNN, Atlantic, NBC in addition to Civil Beat, HAFsite, Rawstory, and the primary source verified and linked in the NBC article. Claiming this is is poorly sourced when the RS are directly in front of you is either incompetent or clear evidence of biased and obstructive behavior. Humanengr (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't specify which source (but Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Medium stands out) Please strickout your comments. --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This material is being workshopped. There are RS that can be substituted for the points of the last paragraph such as the Civil Beat story. The Medium piece need not be included. The Civil Beat is also a source for the first bullet and I am adding it there.

You asked "Which reliable and independent source(s) clearly states she's been subjected to such attacks?" when the RS and IS were directly in front of you.

I suggest we put the conflicts behind us and workshop this material to get it into RS form for inclusion in the BLP. Humanengr (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the redaction.

If you cannot answer the question specifically, then don't expect to get any consensus for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This proposed edit is unrelated to a discussion about the wording for the SIF material. Please don't attempt to the SIF text contingent upon this mishmash. You cannot combine sources to reach a the novel conclusion that "Gabbard’s personal religious views have been the subject of bigoted and sometimes racist attacks since the time of her first run for Congress in 2012". See WP:SYNTH. The extent of the material is WP:UNDUE. - MrX 🖋 19:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - This fails WP:OR and WP:DUEWEIGHT. Also, it's not really about SIF which is what this "RfC" is supposed to be about. - MrX 🖋 20:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. While well researched and detailed presented, it lacks the most important thing: a description of Gabbard's spirituality. This material about bigoted attacks should be shortened and added to a description of her spirituality. I will present my own proposal. Xenagoras (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

General discussion

This section isn't needed. There is extensive discussion above (see v.FOUR, v.FOUR.a, v.FIVE, and now the discussion around version 1a). v.FOUR appears to have the most support. Please continue comments there. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles: A few days ago I pointed out that you were using the § that I created for explanation of my reversion of your unworkshopped SIF text for new proposed text discussion. The closer (six days previous) had suggested using the Proposed wordings section of the earlier RfC. I stated: "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."

You responded: "Feel free to ping whoever you think might need to weigh in on this discussion (SashiRolls, Ronz, Nblund, Ronz, TFD, MrX, etc.)" Rather than pick and choose some individual editors to invite (as you subsequently did), it is appropriate for this to be a fresh RfC open to the community for discussion that is not buried in a section I had created for another purpose.

It's easy for you or anyone else to cut-and-paste current preferred text above. Humanengr (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This notion of an RfC is poorly conceived, according to the guidelines in WP:WRFC. You apparently didn't ask other editors on the talk page whether they think an RfC would be helpful. You have formed a specific question or proposed text. And Newslinger didn't recommend an RfC. Furthermore, the goal of this seems to be WP:GAMING and WP:STONEWALLING, given the sheer amount of discussion that has already occurred on this topic (and months of opportunity for anyone in the community to weigh in) and that v.FOUR above or v.FOUR with some minor edits seem to have the most support (given no support for v.FIVE and serious opposition to version 1a). Samp4ngeles (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This effectively is not a new RFC: it is a continuation of the prior one after you confounded things by failing to follow Newslinger's direction. Three days after Newslinger noted that there was no consensus on the form of text and that the Proposed wordings of the earlier RFC would be left open for that purpose, you unilaterally inserted SIF text (that included a BLP-violating reference that I had asked you repeatedly to take out of your proposed text) into the BLP, declaring "based on latest Talk discussions". I reverted and asked you to follow the direction to workshop; you reinserted again stating your unilateral conclusion "based on lengthy Talk discussion" and starting that my reversion was "malicious". I had to resort to a formal complaint, after which you self-reverted. In response to my explanation on the Talk page of my reversion, you stated "No 'workshop' needed". I again pleaded, "Post your proposed form of content in the Proposed wordings § above and allow an appropriate time for all editors to respond." You chose instead to paste proposed text in reply and now you are claiming that posting there constitutes adequate workshopping and there's no need to publicize. You also stated that there had been some discussion in yet another section that Newslinger was probably not aware of – but there was no consensus there either.

And that is exactly the point: workshopping the text to address the concerns of editors should not occur in a fragmentary manner sprinkled among other sections, with a few editors invited individually. It should occur either in the Proposed wordings section of the 1st RFC or here (which is simply a clean slate for that purpose).

We have workshopped the text. It doesn't need a new RfC, which this clearly is. As for the Newslinger decision at the end of December, I didn't happen to see it before inserting SIF material, which by then had long been open for comment. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The earlier RfC was for comment on whether there should be mention of any SIF material. This is now about the specific content that would be appropriate to include about a living person's private religious/spiritual beliefs/experiences. What is your objection to shining light on this discussion and ensuring it is treated with sensitivity and appropriate care to "get things right", as mandated by Jimmy Wales: "One of the social things that I think we can do is WP:BIO [...] I think social policies have evolved in recent years, I mean the recent months, to actually handle this problem a lot better. A lot of the admins and experienced editors are taking a really strong stand against unsourced claims, which is always a typical example of the problem. [...] And the few people who are still sort of in the old days, saying, 'Well, you know, it's a wiki, why don't we just... ', yeah, they're sort of falling by the wayside, because lots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right."(Jimbo Keynote, 4 August 2006) Humanengr (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• This is not a proper RfC. We now have three substantially similar discussions. Just list the options, conduct a straw poll, and chose the option with the most support after a few days. - MrX 🖋 03:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: In addition to the reasons for proceeding carefully and systematically that I have stated above, I have been so busy responding to your and Samp's disruptive unilateral insertions of text contrary to the closer's direction (and refusals despite repeated requests to remove related BLP-violating text on the talk page) that I have not had time to identify the current proposals and respond. I will do that next, but I see you have, once again, taken it upon yourself to defy the need for consensus-building identified by the closer a week ago — even with the straw poll you suggested immediately above. Now that I have the versions systematically collected, I will have a chance to review and comment if you and Samp will stop your disruptive behavior that is diverting time and energy. Please revert your unilateral insertion so we can proceed without distraction. Humanengr (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTBURO and we have every right to add the SIF text to the article, per the outcome of the RfC. Nine days is plenty of time for you to offer any number of adjustments to the multiple options that have been presented. Also, STOP lecturing me on Wikipedia process. I have far more experience editing, discussing, and negotiating content on Wikipedia than you do. - MrX 🖋 20:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Odd that you would phrase this as you and Samp have "every right to add the SIF text." Humanengr (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

See your talk page. Four editors have assented to the material proposed by Samp4ngeles. - MrX 🖋 23:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding these reverts of my edits earlier today, we need to include addition context about Gabbard's relationship with Science of Identity foundation. At the very least, we need to include that she is still an adherent to their teachings, and I also believe we should include some mention of her guru Chris Butler. Finally, the wording "fully embraced the Hindu faith as a teenager." seems to fly in the face of WP:NPOV which is why I changed it to "As a teenager, she embraced Hinduism". Comments are welcome. - MrX 🖋 19:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

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.”"[54] 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) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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 [55] 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) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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 [56], 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)

Anti-gay advocacy.

With respect to this edit [57] (yes, there was a "valid reason for changing this") it is important to not that the focus of the article (and many more like it), say that Gabbard apologized after she decided to run for President. Yes, she did apologize in 2012 (not 2011) also, but that is not what sources have highlighted. I would also note that including her previous anti-gay advocacy, lobbying, and legislating has previous consensus. - MrX 🖋 18:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, your version describes better what the sources say, and it is important to write properly. My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

As the Choi article specifically mentions this 2012 apology, I have added it to wiki-text as a compromise solution. It may also be worth noting that your first source is blocked in Europe for legal reasons (presumably GDPR).🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX, your edit [58] grossly misrepresents Gabbard's stance on LGBT issues because it removed from the article lede any mention that Gabbard has been supporting LGBT rights since 2012. This violates also WP:AGE MATTERS because you made the lede present Gabbard's views from before 2012 but these have been obsolete since 2012. This problem is easily solvable as there is a trove of sources supporting her pro-LGBT record since 2012, e.g. [59]. You chose to not insert a source link (or ask other editors to insert one), instead you deleted easily fixable content. Therefore there was no valid reason for your change. Additionally, you made [60] Gabbard appear to be an opportunist by her "apologizing and changing her mind on LGBT after starting her presidential campaign in 2019". This also violates WP:V because she changed her mind in 2011 and apologized in 2012. That's another reason why there was no valid reason for your change. The current text in the LGBT section also gives undue weight to obsolete info. Additionally it violates WP:NPOV because at the time when Gabbard advocated against LGBT in Hawaii, this represented the majority view and she found majority votes in the Hawaii Referendum in 1998 and in the House of Representatives in 2004. Xenagoras (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your complaint Xenagoras. There is no misrepresentation at all. The text from the very edit you linked is "but in 2012 Gabbard she apologized for her "anti-gay advocacy"." which is almost exactly what articles on the subject say, and it certainly is not contrary to the idea that Gabbard "has been supporting LGBT rights since 2012", although that tends to overstate her recent change of heart. As I mentioned before, consensus has already been established (and is even evident in this discussion), that we must represent the totality of her anti-LGBT and pro-LGBT stances in the lead. - MrX 🖋 20:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I oppose these changes by Xenagoras which distances Gabbard from her past anti-LGBT activism, and completely buries the fact it was not only related to same sex marriage. The previous wording is carefully balance and chronological, and was in the article for quite a while before it was polished up. - MrX 🖋 01:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, the lead is bit off. She did not simply lobby agains same sex marriage. See was full on anti-LGBT rights. Also, her 2019 apology came shortly after her campaign announcement, a fact which has been highlighted by many sources. - MrX 🖋 01:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX, your edit [61] removed from the article lede any mention that Gabbard has been supporting LGBT rights since 2012. You changed the lede to say, "She voted and lobbied against LGBT rights in Hawaii prior to her first tour of duty, but in 2012 Gabbard she apologized for her "anti-gay advocacy"". But Gabbard has been a supporter of LGBT rights since 2012 [62], a fact you removed from the lede. This violates WP:AGE MATTERS because you made the lede present Gabbard's views from before 2012 but these have been obsolete since 2012. You grossly misrepresented Gabbard's stance of LGBT issues. Gabbard said in 2011 that she changed her mind on LGBT issues.[63] This was 9 years ago and is therefore certainly not "recently" as you claim. Writing in the lede that "Gabbard has been supporting LGBT rights since 2012" certainly is not "overstating" the change of her stance as you claim, because Gabbard received a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign for her legislative efforts to support the LGBT community.[64] I did not question and I did not change whether both Gabbard's anti-LGBT and pro-LGBT activities have to be presented in the article. You wrote, "We must represent the totality of her anti-LGBT and pro-LGBT stances in the lead", but you are the one who removed the pro-LGBT part from the lede. How about you actually honor what you claim to honor? Besides that, regarding your claim, "consensus has already been established": consensus can change over time. You write you oppose my change [65], because it "distances Gabbard from her past anti-LGBT activism." The things that distance Gabbard from her past are the time period of 9 years that has passed since she lobbied against same sex marriage and the reversion of her stance from anti- to pro-LGBT legislation. Gabbard's actions regarding LGBT and the time passed have distanced Gabbard from her past. What you did was you erased Gabbard's present stance to emphasize the obsolete past stance. That will not stick. Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Problems per 19 Jan, 2020

Lede: LGBT rights vs same-sex marriage

MrX, you wrote, my edit [66] "completely buries the fact [Gabbard's anti-LGBT activism] was not only related to same sex marriage." Unless you can name any other LGBT rights other than same-sex marriage that Gabbard voted against, the text "she lobbied and voted against LGBT rights" cannot stay and has to be replaced with "she lobbied and voted against same-sex marriage". Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

2002 vow to amend constitution

MrX inserted the text: "In her campaign for the Hawaii legislature in 2002, she vowed to "pass a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage."" This is fake news from Vox.[67], because Gabbard never made such a vow. What really happened is described in the text I previously put in the article [68] and which you removed.[69]: "In 1998 she supported her father's successful campaign to amend the Constitution of Hawaii to give lawmakers the power to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples." This amendment passed with an overwhelming majority in a referendum in Hawaii in 1998.[70] In 2002, Gabbard said her work to campaign with her father to get this amendment passed qualifies her as legislator in Hawaii.[71] (a fact that ABC News and all other outlets except Vox reported correctly in 2019.[72]) "Funny" how you manage to cite the only news outlet that failed to report this fact correctly. Even "funnier", how you can insert this false statement of fact into the article although you also inserted the proof that it is false:[73] [74] Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hawaii school related text and redundant content fork vs brief summary

MrX also put into the article, "[Gabbard] disputed that Hawaii schools were rampant with anti-gay discrimination." This is misrepresenting the source article [75], because your text makes it appear as fact that in 2004 "anti-gay discrimination was rampant at Hawaii schools." But the article states the opposite: "Few gays report harassment at school. ... only a small number of student harassment complaints in Hawai'i public schools involve sexual orientation... 16, or 1.1 percent of the 1,435 harassment incidents [were] related to sexual orientation.". That is clearly not "rampant". The source states further, "Tulsi Gabbard ... said the figures ... contradict a claim in the House resolution that gay and lesbian students are three times as likely as other students to face harassment ... and show that our schools are not rampant with anti-gay harassment." We cannot give the appearance that Gabbard disputed a fact of "rampant gay discrimination" when the source states there was no "rampant gay discrimination". This makes the sentence "She disputed that Hawaii schools were rampant with anti-gay discrimination" a misleading "information", a nothingburger that reduces the quality of the article and should be left out if we are not gonna explain in detail what the facts are (as I did). Additionally, the Political positions section of this article is not supposed to contain everything Gabbard ever said or did, and especially because there is another article that is dedicated to Gabbard's political positions, this section of the BLP is supposed to contain a brief summary, because otherwise it would be a redundant content fork. We should shorten all sub-sections in the Political positions section so that they are indeed a brief summary of their main article. And therefore, the text "Around the same time, she opposed Hawaii undertaking research on LGBT students and disputed that Hawaii schools were rampant with anti-gay discrimination" should be left out in this article. Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

LGBT caucus membership

MrX removed [76] information that Gabbard first joined the LGBT caucus in 2013 during the 113th Congress and again in the 115th Congress and 116th Congress and changed the article to "Gabbard joined the House LGBT Equality Caucus in 2019". This grossly misrepresents the history of Gabbard's LGBT Caucus membership. I propose changing "Gabbard joined the House LGBT Equality Caucus in 2019" to "Gabbard has been member of the House LGBT Equality Caucus during her first [77], third [78] and fourth [79] terms in Congress." Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Undue weighting of obsolete vs current stance

The LGBT rights section weighs the obsolete stance of Gabbard from before 2012 with twice as much space in the section as her current stance and thus gives it undue weight. E.g. that section lists legislative efforts as well as minor details from before 2012 but none of Gabbard's legislative efforts from after 2012.[80] I propose using the text that I previously put into the article as basis and shorten it to follow the brief summary guideline. [81] Xenagoras (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments

I think you should not hesitate to make the changes. MrX has continually been working the LGBT section from his earliest contributions here, and you lay out very clear argumentation above showing why this really should not be permitted. How much time did you have to invest in these clear explanations? And how long did it take MrX to "do what he does"? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to use the information and arguments I provided to make changes to the article. I have no interest or plan for an edit war. What I presented here serves the community as input to improve the article. Xenagoras (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for verifying all of that and laying everything out so clearly. My apologies if I've missed anything. Maybe the template in the LGBT section, but in principle I could get dragged to wikicourt now for reverting you, so I'd better not risk it. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome. You probably refer to that revert? That one does not count because you undid that revert.[82] You worked to solve the article's problems that I highligthed.[83], thank's for that. I added the undue weight template and hereby state that your changes warrant removal of the template (meaning: I would not drag you to wikicourt for removing it now) with 2 caveats: Firstly, I noted that the LGBT section lists legislative efforts ... from before 2012 but none ... from after 2012. Perhaps a couple of words from this article could balance this aspect. Secondly, we should keep that template for at least 24 hours to ensure interested parties have acknowledged its existence and the ensuing content changes, so that a new consensus gets established before removing the template. Xenagoras (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Parents' occupations

I find it odd that this article does not mention of Gabbard's parents' occupations. From what we know, during her childhood her father was Assistant Dean of Instruction at American Samoa Community College until 1983, then ran a school for children of Science of Identity Foundation devotees until 1987, then until ran a deli in a health food store run by Science of Identity Foundation devotees, then worked for a state senator affiliated with the Science of Identity Foundation's founder until the early 1990s, then was listed as a teacher for the Science of Identity Foundation in the early 1990s, then became an activist in the late 1990s. When Gabbard was an adult, her father started a business called Hawaiian Toffee Treasures around 2001, then ran unsuccessfully for city council in 2002, then successfully ran for state office in 2002 and is still in state office.

Gabbard's mother was listed as a teacher for the Science of Identity Foundation in the early 1990s, worked in the early 1990s for the same state senator as her husband did who was affiliated with the Science of Identity Foundation's founder, and was secretary of the Science of Identity Foundation till 2000. When Gabbard was an adult, in 2000, her mother ran successfully to become a school board member and held the position a couple of terms.

BLP, particularly for politicians, typically include a brief summary of parents' occupations, so what's the best way to do so? Samp4ngeles (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is a copy of your text with the religion exchanged to a more commonly known one:

I find it odd that this article does not mention of Gabbard's parents' occupations. From what we know, during her childhood her father was Assistant Dean of Instruction at American Samoa Community College until 1983, then ran a school for children of Jewish devotees until 1987, then until ran a deli in a health food store run by Jewish devotees, then worked for a state senator affiliated with the Jewish community's founder until the early 1990s, then was listed as a teacher for the Jewish community in the early 1990s, then became an activist in the late 1990s. When Gabbard was an adult, her father started a business called Hawaiian Toffee Treasures around 2001, then ran unsuccessfully for city council in 2002, then successfully ran for state office in 2002 and is still in state office.

Gabbard's mother was listed as a teacher for the Jewish community in the early 1990s, worked in the early 1990s for the same state senator as her husband did who was affiliated with the Jewish community's founder, and was secretary of the Jewish community till 2000. When Gabbard was an adult, in 2000, her mother ran successfully to become a school board member and held the position a couple of terms.

BLP, particularly for politicians, typically include a brief summary of parents' occupations, so what's the best way to do so?

The best way to handle this is to purge it from the BLP. Xenagoras (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please focus on the latest proposed text below. This line of argument, focused around background information, is a distraction and is not constructive. Samp4ngeles (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Then why did you write it [84], although it is "distracting and unconstructive"? Xenagoras (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It's background information that might be useful, but debating it, rather than the proposed text, is not a good use of anyone's time. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is potential wording:

Gabbard's father was Assistant Dean of Instruction at American Samoa Community College when she was born, and after the Gabbards' return to Hawaii in 1983, he was headmaster for the Ponomauloa school in Wahiawa, Hawaii for several years; together, Gabbard's mother and father subsequently ran a deli, worked for Hawaii State Senator Rick Reed, and were teachers for the Science of Identity Foundation where her mother later served as secretary. Tulsi Gabbard's childhood, her mother and father both entered politics, with her mother serving two terms on the Hawaii Board of Education from 2000-2004 and her father serving on the Honolulu City Council from 2002-2004, running unsuccessfully for Congress in 2004, and serving as a Hawaii State Senator from 2006 to the present.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samp4ngeles (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Information about her parents should be limited to about 1-2 sentences as is common practice for biographies. Also, we should stick to WP:SECONDARY sources, with preference given to the highest quality sources. There is noThe LGBT lobbying is already in the article, and should remain because Tulsi was involved. Briefly mentioning her parents SIF involvement is fine I guess, but there's no need to pound it into readers' brains. - MrX 🖋 12:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrX I made some edits to this effect. Her parents had such a varied background that its perhaps not as easy to sum up as other BLPs with parents who had single professions. And some BLPs have bits on parents that are longer than 1-2 sentences, if it's notable. Anyhow, this should roughly do it. Samp4ngeles (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I still think its a bit lengthy. How about something like this?

Gabbard's father was Assistant Dean of Instruction at American Samoa Community College and then headmaster and teacher for the Ponomauloa School after the family's return to Hawaii. Both of her parents subsequently were small business owners, worked for Hawaii State Senator Rick Reed, and taught for the Science of Identity Foundation, where her mother served as secretary. Gabbard's mother served on the Hawaii Board of Education from 2000-2004 and her father has been in politics since 2002, serving as a state senator since 2006.

Sources

- MrX 🖋 15:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrX Closer. The deli (which made the news when they had to shut it down due to a reaction to her father's anti-LGBT rhetoric) and fact that her mother was an officer of the Science of Identity Foundation are both notable. The toffee business, perhaps not as much given that it wasn't in her childhood. See my markup, in bold/strikethrough. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Explaining my last reversion of Samp4ngeles's and Xenagoras's edits for the Talk page: I corrected the history re 2004 in the lede, adding cites, and deleted the post-childhood mat'l from Early life. The introduction of trivia regarding her father and brother's tennis was removed. The entire effort to expand on material from Gabbard's family seems to be COATRACKing and detracts from the article. Humanengr (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Humanengr. This entire talk section is unnecessary because the current amount of info on Gabbard's parents is already sufficient and adding more would give them undue weight in this BLP. Samp4ngeles' attempts amount to COATRACKing as you said. Xenagoras (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC) — Xenagoras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Y'all need to re-read WP:COATRACK, because this wording is unrelated to any concerns there (i.e., it makes no point about something else, does not fail to give a truthful impression, and does not excessively focus on one or more aspects of the subject) and is in fact WP:WINAC and WP:NPOV. The current amount of info on Gabbard's parents is not commensurate at all with what exists on other 2020 candidates' BLP, as it talks merely about where they were from and their ancestry. For example:

Biden: Biden's father had been wealthy earlier in his life but suffered several financial setbacks by the time his son was born. For several years, the family had to live with Biden's maternal grandparents, the Finnegans.[17] When the Scranton area fell into economic decline during the 1950s, Biden's father could not find sustained work.[18] In 1953, the Biden family moved into an apartment in Claymont, Delaware, where they lived for several years before again moving to a house in Wilmington, Delaware.[17] Joe Biden Sr. subsequently became a successful used car salesman, maintaining the family's middle class circumstances.[17][18][19]

Sanders: In 1921, [Sanders' father] immigrated to the United States, where he became a paint salesman.[10][12][13] His mother, Dorothy Sanders (née Glassberg, 1912–1960), was born in New York City[14][15] to Jewish immigrant parents from Poland and Russia.[16][17] . . . . Sanders's older brother, Larry, said that during their childhood, the family never lacked for food or clothing, but major purchases, "like curtains or a rug", were not affordable.[28]

Warren: When she was 12, her father, then a salesman at Montgomery Ward,[12] had a heart attack, which led to many medical bills as well as a pay cut because he could not do his previous work.[5] After leaving his sales job, he worked as a maintenance man for an apartment building.[15] Eventually, the family's car was repossessed because they failed to make loan payments. To help the family finances, her mother found work in the catalog-order department at Sears.[5]

Yang: His parents emigrated from Taiwan to the U.S. in the 1960s.[2] They met while they were both in graduate school at the University of California, Berkeley.[3] His father graduated with a PhD in physics and worked in the research labs of IBM and General Electric, generating over fifty patents in his career.[4][3] His mother graduated with a master's degree in statistics.[5] She became a systems administrator at a local university,[6][7] and later became an artist.[8] Yang has an older brother, Lawrence,[6][9] who is a psychology professor at New York University.[7][8] Yang's father, uncle, and cousin also became professors.[8]

Klobuchar: Klobuchar is the daughter of Rose (née Heuberger), who retired at age 70 from teaching second grade,[4] and Jim Klobuchar, an author and a retired sportswriter and columnist for the Star Tribune.[5] Klobuchar has one younger sister, Beth.[6] Her father is of Slovene descent; his grandparents were immigrants from Slovenia's White Carniola region, and his father was a miner on the Iron Range.[7][8] Klobuchar's maternal grandparents were from Switzerland.[9] Her parents divorced when Klobuchar was 15 years old and in high school. The divorce took a serious toll on the family, and Amy's relationship with her father was not fully restored until he quit drinking in the 1990s.[10]

By comparison, the proposed text for Gabbard is a good summary that is entirely consistent, reasonable, and measured:

Gabbard's father was Assistant Dean of Instruction at American Samoa Community College[1] and then headmaster and teacher for the Ponomauloa school after the family's return to Hawaii.[2][3] Both of her parents subsequently owned a deli, worked for Hawaii State Senator Rick Reed,[4][5] and taught for the Science of Identity Foundation, where her mother served as secretary.[4][6] Gabbard's mother served on the Hawaii Board of Education from 2000-2004. After several years as an activist, her father entered local politics in 2002 and has served as a Hawaii State Senator since 2006.[7][8][9]

Samp4ngeles (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Her parents have been discussed by sources, so it makes sense that we would touch on them here. Their involvement in politics is certainly relevant. I think the deli and toffee are wholly unrelated to Tulsi Gabbard though. - MrX 🖋 20:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to leaving out mention of the deli specifically and agree that the toffee/candy business is not significant, although it could make sense to group both together and say that they were "small business owners," given the existence of references like this. Samp4ngeles (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Further digging at the Lehi, Utah "find a grave" site reveals that her paternal grandmother once founded a famous "refreshment stand" in Leloaloa. HIH. I think since Mike Gabbard has a page, there's no sense duplicating info here that's over there about what he was up to before TG was born and while she was toddling. As for her Mom on the Board of Education, is there anything in your sources about TG? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I like the sarcasm, Sash, but "Aggie's Refreshment Stand" doesn't seem notable enough to include here. Maybe if it was a Fortune 500 company or something. Inclusion of information on grandparents' work could, however, hypothetically be notable. For example, the article on Mitt Romney mentions his great-great grandparents' activities related to the LDS church. The article on Biden says his grandfather was an oil businessman. In this case, however, we're just focused on Tulsi Gabbard's parents. As easy as it would be to just direct everyone to her father's article (of which there is not mention of her mother's professions), I go back to the fact that it would be inconsistent with BLP for 2020 candidates. The proposed text is a good, succinct summary that doesn't require sifting through details on another page. And if you're looking for additional sources to add to the proposed text (which I will now) relating Tulsi Gabbard to her mother's profession, you'll find quite a few. Here is a decent one. Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Updating the proposed text based on the discussion above:

Gabbard's father was Assistant Dean of Instruction at American Samoa Community College and then headmaster and teacher for the Ponomauloa School after the family's return to Hawaii. Both of her parents subsequently were small business owners, worked for Hawaii State Senator Rick Reed, and taught for the Science of Identity Foundation, where her mother served as secretary. Gabbard's mother served on the Hawaii Board of Education from 2000-2004 and her father is a Hawaii State Senator.

Sources

- Samp4ngeles (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Please list below all the sources you want to add which mention Tulsi Gabbard from your list above, Samp4. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)