Talk:Science of Identity Foundation

Potential refs

Previously removed: Farrar, Derek (August 12, 1992). "Rick Reed's Inner Self". Honolulu Weekly. p. 1. Retrieved November 26, 2019.

There are a number of local references that have been removed over the years. --Hipal (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honolulu Civil Beat has published a number of relevant articles, recently https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/11/gabbards-past-could-complicate-us-senate-confirmation/ . It appears reliable per (RSN discussion). --Hipal (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The AfD lists some as well:

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

I'm not seeing any further news coverage from major publishers. I've not attempted to look for local coverage. --Hipal (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"hostility" in the lead (without sources)

The lead says: It (SIF) includes hostility toward Islam. But the cited sources do not have such strong language.

NY Times says deeply suspicious but that is not the same as hostility

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/27/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-trump-national-intelligence.html

the Science of Identity Foundation, a secretive offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement vehemently opposed to same-sex relationships and abortion, and deeply suspicious of Islam.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/01/is-tulsi-gabbard-a-mystery/681398/

Only reference to Islam in this cited source is:

next year criticized the Democratic president’s reluctance to refer to Islamic State terrorists as “Islamic extremists.” RogerYg (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the article body, the source refers to Ex-follower (who alleges that group's teachings were often anti-Islamic).
A former member told The Independent the group’s teachings are virulently homophobic, often anti-Islamic and misogynist, and how they were forced to worship Butler, who is considered to be akin to a God.
Therefore, allegation by former member is per WP:RS source and not my personal commentary.
In my humble view, do not think an unnamed former follower in one source is sufficient to use strong language as "hostility". Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, hostility is a fair and close synonym of "deeply suspicious". That said, I don't particularly object to a change of the text to "deep suspicion of". What do you reckon Hipal? Cambial — foliar❧ 11:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't ignore sources. --Hipal (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The currently cited source said "deeply suspicious". Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear if you see the two quotes above.[1] --Hipal (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:TRT, Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest.
TRT World may not be a reliable source on this issue, as the Turkish government is likely to have a conflict of interest on issues related to Islam.
See High Quality sources NY Times and Reuters, noting Turkish government's pro-Islam and pro-Islamist relationship.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/turkey-erdogan-education/
"Turkey’s president has said he wants to create a “pious generation” to change the nation. So the government is pouring money into schools that teach Islamic values."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/27/opinion/turkey-istanbul-protests.html
Turkey’s drift toward Islamist extremism suggests that it could become another country that supports terrorism and threatens Israel.
Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was aware. --Hipal (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"hostility" is from TRT World, which is not a reliable source on this topic,
while, "deep suspicion" is from a High quality source, NY Times,
Therefore, I think hostility should be replaced to deep suspicion.
NY Times says deeply suspicious but that is not the same as hostility
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/27/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-trump-national-intelligence.html
a secretive offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement vehemently opposed to same-sex relationships and abortion, and deeply suspicious of Islam.
Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Islamophobic" is sourced above. --Hipal (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with replacing 'hostility to Islam' with Islamophobic, as it is sourced from WP:RS reference. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Searching through the edit history...
https://bylinetimes.com/2019/10/03/islamophobic-world-view-of-tulsi-gabbards-guru-revealed-in-unearthed-recordings-can-she-still-run-for-president/ was used, but appears unreliable. --Hipal (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Howley(2019) https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-campaign.html
Stankov, Pavel (2015-03-19). "Cronyism in Hawai'i's politics". Ka Leo O Hawaii. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
Kaneya, Rui (2015-03-16). "Krishna Cult Rumors Still Dog Tulsi Gabbard". Honolulu Civil Beat. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
Hurley, Bevan (16 May 2015). "Disciples, deities and development". www.stuff.co.nz. Retrieved 2024-10-01.</ref>
The above four were all used, and need to be reviewed as to what they verify. --Hipal (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in the four above.
The new changes are awkward.
We should consider expanding coverage of what ex-followers have said, properly qualified. --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the changes such as adding Islamophobia are well cited with WR:RS sources, an improvement over the previous version.
Butler's teachings included condemnation of homosexuality, suspicion of Islam, Islamophobia, and skepticism of science.
I agree the statements are bit awkward in the lead, and I will try to improve grammar per WP:Readability in the lead.
Yes, we can add more details in the body per sources, but we can discuss on TALK page before any substantial change in lead. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

To add to this article: Butler's year of birth. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit suggestions

I have promised to assist SIF in working to improve this article, which I hope to do in collaboration with the engaged editors here. Looking through the article, I believe there are some pretty uncontroversial improvements that could be made. Hence, some suggestions:

1. Infobox

I suggest we start getting the infobox referenced. Suggest to add these references:

  • Founder[1]
  • Founded at[1]
  • Type 501(c)3 organization[2]
  • Tax ID[2]
  • Headquarters[2]
  • Website[1]

References

  1. ^ a b c "Science of Identity Foundation (1977 - Present) - Religious Group". ARDA. Retrieved 14 April 2026.
  2. ^ a b c "Science of Identity Foundation". Nonprofit Explorer. ProPublica. Retrieved 14 April 2026.
2. Intro

I suggest we remove "A secretive group," from the introduction, as this general claim is neither referenced there nor covered in the article.

3. Intro

Instead of the phrase "A secretive group", I suggest we add "Since 2019," for context and to avoid wp:recentism.

Looking forward to any questions or concerns so far. Many thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion that instead of the phrase "A secretive group", I suggest we add "Since 2019," for context and to avoid wp:recentism, and as previously mentioned "secretive group," claim is neither referenced there nor covered in the article. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored "secretive". I agree that it needs to be addressed in the article body. Please read the main references at least. --Hipal (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be more in line with WP:LEAD to remove the "secretive" claim as long as it's actually not supported elsewhere in the current version of the article? /Urbourbo (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my not adding some basic coverage to the article body yet, based upon the main references. It appears to be an aspect of their notability. --Hipal (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the references for "secretive group" to the article body, and found theology section appropriate.
I have summarized & paraphrazed the relevant content from NY Times: The Science of Identity Foundation, a secretive offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement... Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both for constructive responses here. Given the strong source support, I can't argue against including "secretive" in the body text, and I appreciate the (indirect) attribution ("has been considered"). However, is it really and objectively a prominent enough trait of the subject to merit inclusion in the lead as well? Perhaps we could reach consensus to satisfy with the mention in the Theology chapter? Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reading up on WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, I believe that the "secretive group" opinion needs in-text attribution to stay policy compliant. Hence, my suggestion would be to switch the phrase "SIF has been considered a secretive organization" to: "SIF has been considered a secretive organization by authors in The Atlantic and The New York Times".
Also, I can't find support in the references for the second half of that sentence about SIF obfuscating its views. Hence, unless I'm missing anything here it seems we need to remove that part of the sentence, also considering that Butler's relation to islam is already mentioned earlier in the same paragraph. Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reading more of the sources to start. This article has a long history of editors removing proper sources (See Talk:Science_of_Identity_Foundation#Potential_refs) in order to steer the POV against policy. --Hipal (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I used obfuscate is in the context of denying, from the New Yorker article. i can add that ref.
I guess, disavow is better based on the sources. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Circling back to my WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV question here. Any feedback on my suggestion above from May 5 would be appreciated. I believe your responses only related to the second part of my latest message. Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific about what statement is your concern, and possible suggestions. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) RogerYg (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, happy to clarify. The point I'm trying to make is, that the "secretive" phrase is an opinion rather than factual, and hence needs to be attributed in the text, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. But I'm now realising that in order to suggest more specific wording that makes sense, I need to understand which of the sources that support "disavows" - but some of the sources were paywalled. Any chance you could clarify which source you drew that from? /Urbourbo (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi /Urbourbo,
Actually, I agree with you that "secretive group" is more of opinion, rather than factual, and therefore I suggest adding a qualifier: purportedly secretive group
We could also use reportedly or supposedly.
Regarding "disavow", I used the New Yorker article, which mentions that Butler denies the charges of homophobia and Islamophobia.
The New Yorker What Does Tulsi Gabbard Believe? By Kelefa Sanneh, October 30, 2017
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe
Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whose opinion is it, and how is it presented? We should be careful not to change the pov against sources to meet coi requests. --Hipal (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks @RogerYg, to add "purportedly" as per your suggestion sounds like a reasonable solution to me. Would it work to change these phrases:
  • "Since 2019, the secretive group has come under [...]"
  • "SIF has been considered a secretive organization that disavows [...]"
...to:
  • "Since 2019, the purportedly secretive group has come under [...]"
  • "SIF is purportedly a secretive organization. They have disavowed [...]"
/Urbourbo (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal rejected for reasons stated. This article has a long history of editors attempting to ignore or downplay references. Let's not continue that.

And please review past comments of this very topic. --Hipal (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I have already accepted that several reliable sources have described the organization as secretive. I am not suggesting that these should be ignored or downplayed, and it's good that this is now supported by inline citations.
My suggestion was simply to add attribution in the text so that the characterization is clearly tied to the relevant sources. However, I was also happy with @RogerYg's alternative suggestion to use the word "purportedly" instead, or another similar wording that clarifies that the characterization originates from sources.
I'll leave it to uninvolved editors to determine whether attribution or a similar qualifying formulation would improve the wording. /Urbourbo (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're both wasting time by ignoring the past discussions. --Hipal (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources, not anonymous editor's personal views, determine whether content in those sources is factual or opinion. The notion the group is secretive is stated as fact in the sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding my point 1 above on sourcing, I'll add these with a coi edit myself soon unless there are any objections or concerns here. /Urbourbo (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. /Urbourbo (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. Association with Tulsi Gabbard

In this final section, I suggest to repeat the year for the same reasons as above. I.e. at the end of this sentence: "SIF has received a great deal of media coverage due to Tulsi Gabbard's strong ties with the group" add "since 2019". Thanks in advance, /Urbourbo (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes adding 2019 makes sense. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Godly Gov't para

The "In 1976, …" ¶ predates SIF, not tied to organization (the topic of this article); is WP:COATRACK. Humanengr (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Howso? It appears directly related to Butler's community when it was deviating from ISKCON. --Hipal (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.