Talk:Tulsi Gabbard

Science of Identity Foundation

I removed for examination re ‘contentious’ material per WP:BLP.

Tulsi Gabbard has a number of ties to the Science of Identity Foundation, a religious sect in Hawaii that has been described as a cult. In 2015 Gabbard referred to Chris Butler, the founder of the sect, as her “guru dev" or spiritual master. Tulsi Gabbard's husband, Abraham Williams, has strong family connections to Butler. His mother, Anya Anthony, works with Wai Lana Productions LLC, a company associated with Butler’s wife; Anthony runs Gabbard's political office in Honolulu. Gabbard's father, Mike Gabbard, said in 2004: “Although I’m not a member of the Science of Identity Foundation, I’m eternally thankful to Chris Butler;" both he and Tulsi Gabbard's mother served on the board of the Science of Identity Foundation. Tulsi Gabbard has not answered questions about her family ties to the sect.

Will return to discuss. Humanengr (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Humanengr. Though I respect the need to discuss this, I think it's more contentious NOT to include this issue and it should not be removed from the page. The New Yorker article shows it to be a legitimate issue. If anything, much more info from the articles could be summarized in this section (the business ties, for example). Removing this is like removing Jeremiah Wright from Barack Obama's page, or removing "The Apprentice" from Trump's page. Perhaps a section on "religious views" with this info? Localemediamonitor (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

First consideration: characterization as "cult" (both here and on Science of Identity Foundation page) carries subjectively applied, derogatory connotations:

In the English-speaking world the word "cult" often carries derogatory connotations. It has always been controversial because it is (in a pejorative sense) considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices.

Hi Localemediamonitor — I'll respond to your comments above as I can later today. Humanengr (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Localemediamonitor, further re 'cult', see WP:LABEL. Also, any ties to the 'Science of Identity Foundation' that are not hers specifically are not allowed per WP:BLPBALANCE. Humanengr (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

So remove the word "cult" then. Again, it's inconceivable that this issue does not merit inclusion on the page when the New Yorker and other publications have covered it extensively, and when Gabbard herself has referred to the religious/sect leader as her "guru dev" (spiritual master). Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans?Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Reading through the New Yorker reference, I'd say the disputed content was a POV violation representing a POV not in the reference. --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

So Ronz would you vote for reverting the removal while cutting out the word "cult" then? Localemediamonitor (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

No.

Some mention seems due given the New Yorker ref, a complete rewrite would probably be best. I cannot access the Star Advertiser ref, so have no idea on what guidance it gives us. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is a review of the the "New Yorker" article by Aseem Shukla [2]. After NPR quoted the New Yorker article towards Gabbard, reviews about that were done by Vamsee Juluri [3] and by The Hill [4]. Historical context: The Nazis prosecuted family members of a person which was found guilty via Sippenhaft, which is what Localemediamonitor's text does. Wikipedia should not re-enact Nazi habits. Localemediamonitor's text uses relatives of Tulsi Gabbard to construct her guilt by association in an attempt to disparage Gabbard. See also: Sippenhaft. I hereby request a topic ban against Localemediamonitor with the scope of everything related to Tulsi Gabbard. Xenagoras (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: that's not how a topic ban works, you would need to open up an WP:ANI thread about that. And your own editing in this topic area would also be scrutinized. Please don't compare other editors to Nazis.

I've previously discussed this issue, and I continue to believe that a very brief (three sentence max) mention of Gabbard's relationship with Butler is warranted in the section on her personal life. The discussion in this New York Times profile seems like a decent model. It's simply a fact about her religious upbringing. I think a start would be to simply say that: Gabbard has said that Chris Butler, founder of a Hare Krishna offshoot called The Science of Identity Foundation, was an important influence on her religious upbringing. We might add one sentence that mentions why some people have questioned these ties, and also one sentence that explains her response.Nblund ^talk 22:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I was considering that your first line "Gabbard has said that Chris Butler, founder of a Hare Krishna offshoot called The Science of Identity Foundation, was an important influence on her religious upbringing” might be appropriate for inclusion. But now I see that you had previously opened the topic of Gabbard's relationship to the Science of Identity Foundation topic at the BLP Noticeboard and the consensus after discussion appeared to be against inclusion.Humanengr (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The NYT article cited by Nblund (as well as other major coverage of the matter, see below) dates from after that BLPN discussion, which changes the equation. The sentence proposed above is absolutely fine to include in the article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It should be excluded per Balancing aspects: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. The fact that it is absent from mainstream news media is reason to exclude. The Reverend Wright story had extensive media coverage, became an issue in the 2008 campaign and Obama made a speech about it. But we don't mention every paranoid conspiracy theory about Obama that was reported in Fox News or right-wing media. Note too the phrasing uses weasel-wording, i.e., "has been described as a cult." And Barack Obama has been described as a Muslim and not really the president during his terms in office. I suggest that you write to the moderators at the next debate and ask them to raise the question. Then Gabbard would provide an answer and fact-checkers could get onto the case. TFD (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It's entirely off-base to compare well-documented facts about Gabbard's upbringing and family with Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. A much better comparison would be to the section Barack Obama#Religious views, which does in fact mention each of his parents' religious attachments and quotes the article subject himself about his more contemporaneous religious influences - things you appear to be fighting tooth and nail to exclude from this article in the present case. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"quotes the article subject himself about his more contemporaneous religious influences" This is the important argument to be considered and this procedure is followed in the articles about all 2020 candidates and beyond. Only direct quotes by the article subject about it's current religious views are contained in the 2020 candidates' articles. Xenagoras (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The source situation has changed considerably since that BLP noticeboard discussion in January 2019. For example, the issue has now received extensive coverage in a New York Magazine profile (which seems a very thoroughly researched and balanced piece to me).

The above mentioned New York Times article from August has a newer statement from Gabbard on the matter, which essentially confirms the 2015 New Yorker quote (while pushing back on the "cult" criticism):

She 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.”

Also, it points out the continuing influence on her biography in other ways:

[Gabbard and her current husband] had met years before as part of the tight-knit community around the controversial socially conservative guru Chris Butler.

I think there is no question that a serious biographical encyclopedia article about Gabbard needs to cover Butler and the Science of Identity Foundation in some form.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

+1 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@HaeB, Pls see my response to MrX referencing your comment. Humanengr (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

This content belongs. Well-sourced and DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This reminds me of the Face on Mars controversy. It is human nature to make connections based on one's experiences and belief systems. But seriously, all Gabbard is saying is that Butler is a guru (which I suppose he is) and has taught her. practice meditation. Gabbard by thr way practices Yoga. There's nothing in any other political biography about fitness trainers. It's pretty propagandistic to mention Butler without first mentioning Gabbard's fitness routine and all the people who have helped her. TFD (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there's nothing inherently scandalous about it. So then why we would handle it any differently from any other aspect of her bio? We discuss other aspects of her faith, her martial arts practices, and her veganism, but we don't describe an aspect of her faith that has been covered in depth by two major magazines, and mentioned in profiles in The Guardian, the New York Times, and a number of others. It seems kind of propagandistic to mention Butler as though he's a fitness instructor - that's not what a "guru" is, and no reliable source covers him that way. He's an important spiritual influence. Nblund ^talk 21:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"why we would handle it any differently from any other aspect of her bio?" Because religion is (beside sexuality) the most sensitive aspect of human nature and therefore enjoying the strongest legal protection. Only direct/authorized quotes by the article subject itself about it's current religious views are contained in all 2020 candidates' articles. Gabbard's political opponents make her religion into a scandal: Gabbard's Republican competitor Kaaihue described her as "worshipping the devil".[5] This happened in 2016, not in 1616. Religious bigotry is a huge problem in the US, and you Nblund repeatedly deleting coverage about bigoted smears against Gabbard [6][7][8] is not helpful. Xenagoras (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Bernie_Sanders#Religion,_heritage,_and_values contains a lengthy discussion of his Jewishness. It quotes Sanders, but it also quotes a number of other sources discussing his beliefs and Judaism. I don't believe its true of any major candidate BLP that we only use quotes. We are not responsible for protecting Gabbard from the things that her political opponents write about her.Nblund ^talk 00:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, you're seeing a face on Mars where I only see rocks. Gabbard said nothing about Butler that connects him to her religious belief system and in fact she was never a member of his group (or sect or cult). TFD (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I read the "early life" and "personal life" sections of all 25 former and current 2020 presidential candidates. All of them follow the rule that only quotes by the article subject on their current religious views are included (with rare deviations I'll elaborate below). It's not difficult to understand why this rule applies (besides WP:BLP): A child has no control over the religious teaching it receives. Holding this against the child (here: Tulsi Gabbard) violates WP:AVOIDVICTIM and is one of the reasons I deleted it.[9] Therefore the topic of religion before adulthood is totally off limits, and Tulsi Gabbard has called this type of "questions" about her religion during childhood "very religious bigoted and offensive".[10][11] You know that since you have deleted this information two times already.[12][13] What you do is deleting text where Gabbard defends herself or gets defended against bigoted attacks and you prevent the removal of such bigoted attacks there:[14] We are responsible for protecting Gabbard and any other living person against WP:BLP violations like religious bigoted personal attacks. Read WP:BLP then WP:LIBEL.

Sanders' "religion" section gives way too much WP:UNDUE weight to his religious views. The length of that section is ludicrous. It is also the only candidate where not 100% of the content is quoted by Sanders himself. Did you know that "Brad Marshall, chief financial officer of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), considered raising the question of whether Sanders is an atheist in the hope of costing him votes in the primary contest against Hillary Clinton"? [15] Maybe that is one reason why the section on Sanders' religion is so absurdly long, giving religion way too much WP:UNDUE weight. Xenagoras (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@TFD: She described him as "essentially a Vaishnava Hindu pastor", and a "guru dev" who gave her a gift of a "wonderful spiritual practice" . Multiple reliable sources describe him as an important influence on her religious upbringing. One of your concerns in the previous discussion was that mainstream broadsheet newspapers hadn't covered this. But we have five high quality broadsheets now: Miami Herald, Telegraph, New York Times, The Guardian,Star Advertiser.

@Xenagoras: that isn't a rule, and you've not made any edits outside of this topic area, so I'm not sure that you have a very good sense of how policies are generally applied around these issues. If we include criticism of Gabbard, then it is warranted to include Gabbard's response. But you're trying to include an accusation that NPR participated in a "Hinduphobic smear campaign" while simultaneously insisting that we can't discuss what NPR actually said. It's just not a defensible position. Nblund ^talk 17:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Only 1% of my article edits are about the Science of Identity Foundation in relation to Tulsi Gabbard.

The rule is WP:AVOIDVICTIM: A child has no control over the spiritual/religious teaching it receives or the behaviour of it's teacher and therefore a person must never be disparaged/accused for this teaching or the behavior of the teacher, see also WP:GUILT: "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.". Localemediamonitor first inserted the text [16], "Tulsi Gabbard has a number of ties to the Science of Identity Foundation", which violated WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. He continued, SoIF were "a religious sect in Hawaii that has been described as a cult" which violates WP:BLPSTYLE and by implying Tulsi Gabbard were a member of a sect/cult it violated WP:LIBEL. Furthermore he attempted to "prove" Gabbard's "number of ties to the cult" (her WP:GUILT) via claims that rely on guilt by association with other people which he also claimed to have "ties to the cult". In Localemediamonitor's second attempt[17] he inserted, "the controversial socially conservative guru" which violates WP:BLPSTYLE, and via "Gabbard was brought up in part on the teachings of the controversial socially conservative guru Chris Butler and has said that Butler's work is an influence on her" Localemediamonitor implied Gabbard were also "controversial socially conservative" which violated WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION because Gabbard has repeatedly stated that her world views have drastically changed from childhood to adulthood. It also violated WP:BLPBALANCE,WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:AVOIDVICTIM.

I know very well how to read, understand and interpret policies and their spirit, and you should not question my capabilities to follow policies.

I never insisted that "we can't discuss what NPR actually said". The opposite is true, because my original text version [18] that you deleted [19] (by falsely claiming that WP:N applies to content in the article) contained: "NPR suggested in an interview with Gabbard that her religion Vaishnava Hinduism equates to a "cult" and she would "worship images of a cult leader whose preachings are anti-science". In this interview NPR also confronted Gabbard with various other types of accusations that got published since her campaign start." Xenagoras (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay. If you want to have a discussion about edits I made on other pages, please open up a discussion on the relevant talk page. If you want to accuse other editors of libel (you shouldn't, but if you insist) then take it to WP:ANI Nblund ^talk 21:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

So I made a new version of the addition, much shorter, drawing only on points from the NYT and New Yorker. Localemediamonitor (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss potential versions here, rather than edit-warring to include them. Thanks.

I agree with removal of this latest version. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed it because of violation of WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:AVOIDVICTIM (see also my answer above to Nblund). Xenagoras (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I think some coverage is warranted, but @Localemediamonitor: we need to hammer out a wording and gain consensus here before adding to the page. Nblund ^talk 17:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I read the Telegraph article which says, "The cult is seen as having influenced her conservative stance on social issues early in her career, such as her opposition to gay rights....She has since reversed her position and is now a member of the House of Representatives LGBT Equality Caucus." Notice the difference in tone from their phrasing and yours. In their version it was an influence she very early on rejected, while in your version Butler has a Rasputin like influence on her. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. TFD (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not really worth my time to keep changing the wording just to have it removed again and again. If the serious people here can't figure out a way to simply edit the passage satisfactorily to get this extremely relevant and well-sourced info onto the page in some form (as many agree, such as HaeB, Snooganssnoogans and even Nblund), especially in the context of all the other politicians' pages that have similar info (as cited above ad nauseum), then that's the way it is. It makes Wikipedia look kind of stupid though, and like it's hiding something.Localemediamonitor (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

"It makes Wikipedia look kind of stupid though, and like it's hiding something." You are hiding critique and advice about your WP:BLP violations. [20] Xenagoras (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I'm wondering if you've confused my edit for someone else's. The wording I proposed above only said he influenced her upbringing. I don't believe I have proposed anything resembling a "Rasputin-like influence", and The Telegraph really goes a step further than I would by calling Butler's group a "cult" and suggesting that it shaped her early political positions. I'm totally open to hearing an alternate wording. None of the sources I've cited are tabloids. Nblund ^talk 14:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

References

NY Times article of possible interest:
“As she injects chaos into the 2020 Democratic primary by accusing her own party of “rigging” the election, an array of alt-right internet stars, white nationalists and Russians have praised her.”

• Lerer, Lisa (12 October 2019). "What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?". The New York Times.

—40.142.140.74 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

Could I get a rough sense of where editors stand regarding how to word this stuff?

1. No mention of Butler (status quo)
2. Mention Butler as an important religious influence in her early life in the "personal life" section (like the wording I proposed here)
3. Mention Butler and the link to her early opposition to gay marriage (following The Telegraph and TFD's framing above)
4. Mention Butler with one sentence on the controversy (accusations of "cult") and one sentence on Gabbard's response (eg.: the questions are rooted in religious bigotry). Similar to the framing from Vox, or this paragraph from yesterday's New York Times article.

For my part, I think option 4 would be ideal — we might as well just be forthright about the discussion — but I think option 2 and 3 would be fine as well. I'm open to alternatives, but at a minimum I'd like to get a sense of how many editors outright oppose any mention of Butler at this point. Nblund ^talk 16:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Definitely 2 and 3. Given the problems with using "cult", I'd like to see specific wording for 4, but in the context of religious bigotry and political attacks, something seems to deserve mention. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This could probably be a paragraph with the topic sentence: Tulsi Gabbard has long-standing ties to the Science of Identity Foundation, both through her immediate family and her husband's. Also, this article by Nick Grube should probably be included: [21], this one from India Post probably shouldn't be: [22] (misspelled headline, etc.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP should be applied with “a high degree of sensitivity”. We should avoid guilt by association (as noted by Xenagoras and TFD above) through vague allegations of “strong ties” at second-degree. There is documented interest of some to smear her with innuendo of cult association. Therefore, statements for a WP BLP need clear evidential support of her individual current (or at least recent) beliefs and activities. Humanengr (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... (ISKCON guru system#Siddhaswarupa). I agree sensitivity and caution are needed, however there does appear to be a lot of information coming out about the SoI. Some is likely opposition research, we should certainly only add things that pass WP:V. It does appear that she grew up "under the influence" of Butler and her parents. Can anyone find the *name* of the high school she attended? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It absolutely was not a Christian missionary school, it was the Baguio Boarding School that Butler established so children of his followers could be taught somewhere with no oversight after clashes with authorities in other countries. This is noted in this New Yorker article and in a Hawaii Free Press expose series on Butler as well as other sources. Despite what some dedicated editors are trying to insist on it's clear that she has strong connections to Butler and hiding them in this article doesn't maintain neutrality, it conceals fact. JamesG5 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls, re "there does appear to be a lot of information coming out about the SoI. Some is likely opposition research, we should certainly only add things that pass WP:V.": Agree re the news and likely opposition research. The question is what, under policies, should or should not be in WP about a living individual as opposed to in an article about the Foundation per se. Humanengr (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr: she says Butler's work "still guides her", so I think we have that indication of recent personal beliefs. I agree that we should handle this delicately, but Wikipedia describes disputes. In my view, the best way to avoid innuendo is by briefly stating the facts and the arguments without taking a side. Gabbard's campaign adviser has compared her relationship with Butler to Barack Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright. If we take that comparison as valid, then we could follow the same model followed in the final paragraph of Barack_Obama#Religious_views: state the relationship, mention the criticism, and state the response. It avoids innuendo, but also still notifies readers of the existence of a controversy. Nblund ^talk 18:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund, re "still guides her": I can't find such an assertion from her in the article. What she did say was "… he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me that have provided me with strength and shelter and peace." That arguably could be included in her bio page but I note TFD's comment here. Humanengr (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That is the characterization offered by the New York Times, which is generally considered a reliable source. I'm open to rewording, but she compares him to a pastor or Imam, and elsewhere refers to him as her "guru dev" (New Yorker), or "diksha guru" (this interview). I don't think it is appropriate to characterize yoga and meditation as part of a "fitness" regiment for Hinduism.Nblund ^talk 22:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

What does “Butler’s work still guides her” refer to — political opinions, business arrangements, meditation practices, or other? The reporter’s inference leaves that open and invites speculation of possibly sinister control inappropriate for a BLP. Relying on secondary source inference from an article where there is a direct quote available seems inappropriate, especially when subject to wide interpretation. Humanengr (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It obviously refers to her spiritual life. So does calling him a "guru". Secondary sources are preferable, but I don't have any problem with also including Gabbard's characterization of her relationship to Butler. What I do have a problem with is simply leaving out noteworthy information simply because some editors think there is something "sinister" about any affiliation with a new religious movement. Nblund ^talk 20:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Option 1 because of policy. 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 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." 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 notorious [23] NPR interview [24] [25] 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 [26] and [27] There are also speeches from Gabbard at Hinduism conferences where she explains her religion even more detailed and a lot of videos from town halls where Gabbard explains the pillars of her philosophy. Somehow nobody seems to be interested in writing Gabbard's actual current religious or philosophical views into her article, but only her alleged "ties" with the "controversial cult leader" seem of interest to some people.

Regarding the Options 2, 3 and 4 there are additional problems. The article Science of Identity Foundation cannot be used as link in Gabbard's article because it contains several factual errors and outdated information, the sources are contradicting each other, and it severely violates WP:BLP in many ways. The article Science of Identity Foundation was created minutes before it's content was used to insert defamatory text into Gabbard's article. It is an attack page that should be deleted per WP:G10.

Gabbard's opposition to gay marriage until 2004 (when she was 23) is already described twice in both the lead and "political positions" section. (It should not be in the lead because it's an outdated stance.) Adding the name of Butler or his "cult" would add no information about Gabbard's outdated or current political views, but only add guilt by association with anything "bad" some people connect with Butler or his "cult".

The controversy about Gabbard's religion is not a one time event since Gabbard has been the target of religious bigoted attacks many times over the years, and she has taken a stance on religious issues on her own behalf and on behalf of others several times. Religious discrimination#United_States would be a starting point for interested people. Xenagoras (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Option 4. JamesG5 (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: I think the Grube article could be included as an additional source just for the Butler stuff. (Where can I sign up for that job?) I agree that the IndiaPost article is unhelpful.

@Ronz: here's what I had in mind for option 4:

1.Gabbard has said that Chris Butler, founder of a Hare Krishna offshoot called the Science of Identity Foundation, was an important influence on her religious upbringing.

2. Her affiliation with the foundation has been scrutinized due to what some have described as anti-gay views and authoritarian leadership the group's leader.

3.Gabbard has described Butler as a 'essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor' and characterized the interest in her relationship with him as anti-Hindu bigotry.

Sentence 1 could be replaced with SashiRoll's suggestion above, but "ties" might be seen as a bit suggestive. Sources like the New York Times simply avoided the use of the term "cult" altogether, so I think "authoritarian leadership" is a less loaded way of describing it. Open to suggestions here. Nblund ^talk 19:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how much I should be indenting here. After further (re)reading, my impression is that the main point of the Grube article is campaign-specific. It could be added first to the campaign entry and then probably also to the subsection on the campaign, here? Still I would encourage using less accusatory terms than Grube does, at times, in his article. (He's never been a fan, I don't think) I think we need to keep in mind that by the time she was born, her family was already into this group, and so her responsibility for the community into which she was born does remain somewhat limited. I wonder what her endgame is... that story of the reclusive Washingtonian reminds me of Kerouac & Gary Snyder. Cf. Desolation Peak (Washington) ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I am still seeing this as innuendo, opposition research trying to show a connection without explaining what it is. One editor compared the issue to the Jeremiah Wright controversy. Wright was Obama's pastor for 20 years, he married him and his wife and baptized their children, and Obama took the title of his book The Audacity of Hope from one of Wright's sermons. Obama's connection with Wright became a major 2008 campaign controversy. Here's how the Barack Obama article covers the story: "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." But Gabbard's connection with Butler is much weaker and has not really attracted controversy in the campaign. It's more like the Bill Ayers 2008 presidential election controversy, which is not mentioned in Obama's article.

Maybe it will be brought up at tonight's debate and dominate the news cycle for the next month. In that case we can add it to the Gabbard campaign article and add a brief mention in this article that Gabbard knows Butler, consistent with how we treated the Wright controversy.

TFD (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Then can you propose a version that avoids innuendo? The comparison to Reverend Wright was made by Gabbard's campaign staffer during her interview with the New York Times. Nothing in this article has "dominated the news cycle" for a month. She's not going to get that level of news coverage. Nblund ^talk 17:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see enough coverage yet for inclusion. TFD (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You previously suggested we needed broadsheet and cable news coverage. We have both.

What else are you looking for, exactly? Because it kind of seems like you've set a moving target that requires one of the least-covered primary candidates to become a top news story. If that's the standard then this whole article should be a stub. Nblund ^talk 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not Option 1. Gabbard was affiliated with Chris Butler up to at least 2015, when she explicitly called him her "guru". She chose to be connected with him for a majority of her adult life. There is no valid reason to omit this information from her article. - Frankie1969 (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you provide evidence that Gabbard was "affiliated" with Butler? Thanks. (p.s. Cambridge defines "affiliated" as: "to be officially connected with or controlled by another, usually larger, company or organization" OR "to become part of or form a close relationship with a group or organization"). I don't see any evidence of such a thing in the video you adduced as evidence (that video is discussed below extensively). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

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.[28] 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.[29] and in 2016: Some of Gabbard's political opponents called her a "devil worshipper" and her faith "incompatible with the constitution".[30] 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.[31], 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 [32] NPR interview [33] [34] 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 [35] and [36] 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.[37] How about writing about Gabbard's inter-religious stances with Catholics[38], Muslims[39] and Jews[40]? Somehow nobody has been interest to use these hours of material on her actual current religious views for her article, but only her alleged "ties" with the "controversial cult leader" seem of interest to some people. Xenagoras (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MrX, Honolulu Civil Beat is a reliable source, it is an investigative news website that practices watchdog journalism: fact-checking, interviewing, beat reporting and investigative journalism. Honolulu Civil Beat has been awarded best news site in Hawaii by the Society of Professional Journalists each year since 2011. Please do not dispute the reliability of apparently good sources. You have a habit of doing that, e.g against Glenn Greenwald's writing in The Intercept if that writing is non-hostile towards Gabbard or Russia ("Greenwald was simply not objective in his reporting", "We're not obligated to print his misinformation", Localemediamonitor:"That's pure disinfo from Russian apologist Greenwald." MrX:"I agree."). You claimed a widespread perception that Gabbard were trading favors with Russia ("The viewpoint of the apparent Russia-Gabbard quid pro quo is contemporary with her campaign, so it's very relevant") 5 months before Gabbard's opponents (Clinton et.al.) began making a similar claim by defaming her as "Russian asset" [41] and 4 months before the same rhetoric of "quid pro quo" was used to justify impeachment inquiry against Trump.[42] 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:[43].

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 [44] [45], which I explained.[46]

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.[47] 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.[48] [49] Wikipedia prohibits Scandal mongering. Every sentence that argues with "...Gabbard is associated / affiliated with bad person/group X..." is violating policy because it comprises guilt by association. WP:GUILT states, "...At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject." This means the minimum requirement to begin considering inclusion of negative information about another person is that the article subject had the same negative conduct as the other person and their conduct was directly related (e.g. they acted together or in support of each other). Negative information about Gabbard's father is already part of the article via the sentence, "In 1998, at age 17, she campaigned for an anti-gay rights organization founded by her father", although this violates WP:AVOIDVICTIM because at age 17 she was a minor that lived dependent and under the authority of her parents and therefore she could not act independently from her father. Xenagoras (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Snooganssnoogans, you have ignored my petition for striking out your unwarranted SPA-comment I feel belittled by, and instead repeated that comment. Additionally you uttered an unwarranted and false suspicion about me having a conflict of interest.[50] These two things serve an attempt to damage my reputation. My impression is that you are attempting to bait me into retaliating with aggression. This constitutes uncivil behavior on your part. Please be civil. Xenagoras (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

• User:The Four Deuces & User:Humanengr: I proposed this RfC framing in the discussion section above, and neither of you offered any objection to it. Multiple editors have offered a variety of potential wordings ([51], [52] [53], [54], [55]). 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)

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.[56][57] Her aunt even tried to distance her from this association.[58] - 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. [59] 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 [60]) 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)

Tulsi born as Tulasi

@Samp4ngeles, In an early reference on Mike Gabbard running for office, she appears as Tulasi; other sources seem to use the names interchangeably in the same piece — not sure if that’s a matter of transliteration. She clearly is known by Tulsi in her recent public life. Changed lede to back to your edit. Humanengr (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You need a source that it was her name at birth before the article can say that. It could for example have been a nickname used at the time. Even if sources are found, it's lacks weight for inclusion in the lead or info-box, especially when it is not mentioned in the body. TFD (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'm fine either way if you want to revert it or leave it and wait for Samp4ngeles to produce the mentioned source? Humanengr (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I will revert per WP:BLP. There should not be any unsourced material. TFD (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Re Tulasi vs Tulsi: The earlier references I found had Tulasi, while she has recently gone by Tulsi. But this may be a distinction without a difference, coming down to the Tamil vs Sanskrit: “In Sanskrit, we have two categorized Tulsi such as Rama Tulsi and Krsna Tulsi. In Malayalam it is called Trittavu. In Marathi as Tulshi, Tulasi in Tamil, Thulsi in Telugu and finally Holy Basil in English.“ https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-basil-and-tulsi Humanengr (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr @TFD The very first mention of Tulsi in a newspaper was on July 18, 2002, in an article in the Honolulu-Star Bulletin about her father, which said, "Gabbard, 54, was flanked by his wife, Carol, a member of the state Board of Education, and daughter, Tulasi Gabbard-Tamayo, who will be running for state House District 42." On July 24, 2002, the Star-Bulletin published a list of candidates for public office, listing Tulsi as Tulasi Gabbard-Tamayo running for State House District 42. This would have reflected the name in her filing papers. On September 8, 2002, the Star-Bulletin again published a list of candidates showing her as Tulasi Gabbard-Tamayo. On September 13, 2002, a different newspaper, The Honolulu Advertiser, profiled her as Tulasi Gabbard Tamayo. On October 27, 2002, after the primary, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin again published her name as Tulasi Gabbard-Tamayo. Other articles beginning on September 8, 2002, and subsequently, began referring to her as Tulsi Gabbard Tamayo. In her 2006 divorce decree, however, she was listed as Tulsi G. Tamayo divorce decree. Then on April 30, 2011, a public notice appeared in in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, saying, "In the Matter of the Petition of TULASI GABBARD TAMAYO For Change of Name . . . the Name of TULASI GABBARD TAMAYO shall be changed to TULASI GABBARD. The same name notice appeared again on May 3, 2011. A 2019 profile of Gabbard's childhood in New York Magazine indicates that her three older siblings, Bhakti, Jai, and Narayan, had other names at birth -- but that Tulsi and her younger sister, Vrindavan, were born into the Science of Identity Foundation. I will change it in the lead to Tulasi "Tulsi" Gabbard, in line with other articles (e.g., Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke and John Ellis "Jeb" Bush) as well as other options presented in WP:NAMES. Up to you as whether to use it in as her birth name in the info-box.Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

References

You need a secondary source first so that we can accept the information as true and secondly to establish weight. There are secondary sources that say what Bush and O'Rourke's legal names are, it's been discussed in secondary sources and hence we mention it. But Tulsi's legal first name is Tulsi. There has been lots of discussion at RSN about how we cannot use primary legal sources. TFD (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, The legal documents you cite do not say what you claim: the later notice is not the same as the earlier one. This is the second time you have misrepresented the record, apparently as part of a deliberate smear campaign to stir up bigotry (as also indicated by your ridiculous 'born into' claim). Your efforts show again why conscientious editors need to be scrupulously careful to follow the policies and not allow tabloid misrepresentations and sensationalism to slip into this BLP.Humanengr (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, Revert your repeated insertion, per above. Humanengr (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2019

@Humanengr I would suggest you read WP:PA before making the sort of comments you just made. The legal documents support exactly what I explained above -- as factually as possible. This is in no way an attempt to smear Gabbard. On the contrary, it is out of a desire to portray this information factually, in accordance with WP:BLP. Excluding this information from the article leaves a major gap. The "born into" language is merely to distinguish between Hindi naming conventions of Mike and Carol Gabbard's children before and after they began following Kris Butler. The New York Magazine article [61] makes this clear. It would be similar to describing someone as being born into Catholicism or Judaism if their parents had changed their religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samp4ngeles (talk • contribs) 04:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, You proposed a citation for Tulsi Gabbard’s BLP whose title began with "Ethics complaint calls on Gabbard to recuse herself …”. This positioning not only smeared Tulsi Gabbard by failing to make clear it was Carol Gabbard who was the subject of that article, but it failed to state that Carol Gabbard was herself cleared. The introduction of this article introduced contentious material against two living people, and it should be stricken from this Talk page.

Next you attempted to amplify on an unreliable defamatory source by misrepresenting the legal record of the May 3 article.

Then you added some material slurring both Gabbard and a religious organization – to be treated with sensitivity as a small group per WP policies – inserting your own judgment, though I assume you are not a scholar of either Hinduism or US case law on what constitutes a ‘cult’. For this you cite caravanmagazine.in, another ‘human interest’ publication improper as a source for a BLP which has been called out for hinduphobia.

Your wanting to insert more on Gabbard’s first husband also seems to be an inappropriately targeted effort: he is a low-profile individual, who has been covered only because of his connection with a single event. (See WP:BLPNAME.)

If you are genuinely trying to do competent and neutral editing work, it would help if you did not carry out actions like the above. Humanengr (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

As a first step, look more closely at the May 3 publication and revert your edits. Humanengr (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr Uh, you're reading a lot into based on what appear to be your own biases. Don't try to smear me. I have simply inserted her actual name in based on RS and what has been published in newspapers and is in the public record. You have produced no evidence to the contrary.Samp4ngeles (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles: which one of these (WP:SECONDARY) sources say that her legal name is "Tulasi"? Also, please don't reinstate this material until you have the consensus of the editors in this discussion, otherwise you will likely be blocked from editing.- MrX 🖋 12:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrX All of these secondary sources:

And all of this is corroborated by primary sources (divorced and name change) referenced in other secondary sources.Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

References

@Samp4ngeles: Here is what the first of those sources says:

"Gabbard, 54, was flanked by his wife, Carol, a member of the state Board of Education, and daughter Tulasi Gabbard-Tamayo, who will be running for state House District 42, which includes Ewa Beach. Gabbard said his family has lived in Ewa Beach for just less than a year and had lived in a downtown condominium for the previous decade."
— http://archives.starbulletin.com/2002/07/18/news/index13.html

A passing mention of her name is not valid for a claim that Tulasi is her legal name. I assume your other sources are similar.- MrX 🖋 01:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@MrXIt's not a passing reference in that it matches the spelling of the other three references from 2002, which are more focused on her ("Tulasi Gabbard Tamayo is a self-employed martial arts instructor" on the September 13, 2002, reference, plus her name on various lists of candidates in the other 2002 references (presumably taken from her candidate filing). Significantly, these sources also match her divorce record and name change records. user:Samp4ngelesuser talk:Samp4ngeles 🖋 02:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is, and no you cannot use WP:OR. Your arguments betray a lack of basic understanding of Wikipedia's content guidelines and policies. Your efforts would be much better spent learning them rather than in trying to add this bizarre name variation to this article. I strongly suggest that you move on to something else.- MrX 🖋 02:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

When this is taken to a noticeboard, Samp4ngeles' extensive editing at Mike Gabbard's BLP should also be mentioned. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls which was all excellent editing, by the way.Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: Samp4ngeles has been reported to Admins for edit warring. [62] Policy- or guideline violating editing or conduct can also be reported at other venues, e.g. the BLP noticeboard.[63] Xenagoras (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles, unless you can provide a single reliable secondary source that her legal name at birth was Tulasi, it is a violation of WP:BLP to add it. If you don't have one, then we should close this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four DeucesProviding a source that references her legal name *at birth* is not a requirement for WP:BLP. I have provided multiple secondary sources, including:

And all of this is corroborated by primary sources (divorced and name change) referenced in other secondary sources.Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI just background information for editors: “… that the name of TULASI GABBARD TAMAYO shall be changed to TULSI GABBARD upon a single publication in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, a newspaper of the general circulation in the State of Hawaii, published at Honolulu, Hawaii” Star-Advertiser May 3, 2011 (accessed through newspapers.com) Humanengr (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

References

@Humanengr That is an inaccurate quote from the citation. The legal notice you cite changed her name from TULASI GABBARD TAMAYO to TULASI GABBARD (emphasis added).Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Samp4ngeles, Humanengr did not inaccurately quote the newspaper you used. Search results for Humanengr's quote "that The Name Of TULASI GABBARD TAMAYO Shall Be Changed To TULSI GABBARD": 1 match [64] Search results for your quote "that The Name Of TULASI GABBARD TAMAYO Shall Be Changed To TULASI GABBARD": 0 matches [65] Please do not accuse Humanengr of mistakes that you commmit. And btw, claiming that the name of a living person in her biography is wrong is an exceptional claim for which you are required to present exceptionally good sources. Also, TFD is right to remark, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."" Xenagoras (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"Avoid misuse of primary sources" applies: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." For all we know Tulasi could be a typo or perhaps she changed her name to Tulasi, perhaps by accident, rather than having the name on her birth certificate or whatever they call it in Hawaii. And as we know from the birther controversy, those documents are not readily available. TFD (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree. I presented the content so other editors would understand the basis of my saying that Samp4ngeles was misrepresenting his (unusable) primary source. Humanengr (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces @Humanengr We're no longer talking about proving that it was her name at birth (it's irrelevant to having it in the lead). The primary question here is whether Tulasi is her legal name, which it is. The WP:SECONDARY sources are sufficient to establish that Tulasi was her official name in the early 2000s. WP:PSTS states that primary sources can be relied on "to a lesser extent." The 2011 name change notice published in the Honolulu-Star-Advertiser indicate that Tulasi remained her legal name in 2011. If you want to go deeper than that, her 2006 divorce record (notable due to reference in multiple secondary sources) also lists her legal name as Tulasi. Conversely, there are no RS that indicate that "Tulsi" is either her birth name or legal name and this therefore violates WP:V. The 2002 secondary sources alone are sufficient to establish her legal name, though.Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

There are so many obvious errors in your argument it is difficult to know where to start. BLP policy says your source cannot be used and any violations of BLP policy can result in users being blocked from editing. And note that PSTS says, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used...." TFD (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Unless someone presents a source that says "Tulsi Gabbard's legal name is Tulasi Gabbard", this discussion is at it's logical end. Samp4ngeles please don't waste editors' time by ignoring their policy-based arguments, and reposting the same rejected sources. See also WP:HORSEMEAT.- MrX 🖋 01:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Advice needed: What is to be done re an editor who seems to blatantly disregard BLP policies, inc. adherence to NPOV? See recent edits at Science of Identity Foundation. Note also that the SIF references have been edited to include a contentious tabloid piece focused on Tulsi Gabbard. Humanengr (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of that page, the Byline Times has been used six times on en.wp. The author also writes for Middle East Eye, but didn't publish his story there. I don't want to get involved in drama so I didn't open a RS/N or BLP/N discussion about it. Otherwise, their sources are quite often paywalled. This contribution (check out the article title) is also worth study.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SashiRolls (talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It's simple. "Tulasi" is Sanskrit and "Tulsi" is Hindi. The name is spelled the same in Devanagari in either case: तुलसी. It's a regular case of modern Indo-Aryan languages deleting Sanskrit's inherent short vowel a in unstressed open syllables. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

What's simple is what is written in the public records and in early newspaper records in Hawaii: Tulasi. No transliteration needed. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.180.209 (talk)

I see. The reason for the discrepancy may be that in the minds of Sanskrit-using Hindu devotees, the name is filed in the category of the scriptural Devanagari Sanskrit form of the name, तुलसी, which has either of two alternate readings, depending on use of vernacular language (Hindi) or scriptural (Sanskrit), and that whichever is chosen at a given time is less important than the primary mental category in Devanagari. Of course, the discrepancy formerly thought unimportant is now highlighted by the cold glare of objective fact finding. Perhaps it's an emic/etic divide, with the variable reading (Tulasi or Tulsi) encompassed by the emic worldview, and the imperative to nail down a single English spelling by the etic. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Relevance of Hillary Clinton's comments

What is the relevance of adding Hillary Clinton's comments to Tulsi's page? There might be a source to verify the comments Hillary made, but there definitely isn't a source to verify the validity of them. Politicians say things about other politicians all the time, but I've rarely noticed those comments on their wiki page. Below is the start of three paragraph

On October 18, 2019, Hillary Clinton was reported to have said that Russia was "grooming" a female Democrat to run as a third-party candidate who would help President Trump win reelection via a spoiler effect. WhowinsIwins (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It is relevant, per weight, since it received wide coverage. Since virtually no one believes Clinton's comments, there is no need to provide verification for them. TFD (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Presentation of Hillary's comments

We have currently:

"About a week after the initial reports, mainstream media corrected their reporting to say it was not Russians but Republicans who Clinton thought were doing the grooming."

Citing only USA Today. But the above statement isn't accurate. The story is more nuanced. Not all MSM claimed to have gotten it wrong. The encyclopedia should treat the story similar to CNN, which simply gives an overview of events, rather than becoming the voice of Clinton's spokesperson, as WP is doing.

• Hillary Clinton suggests Russians are 'grooming' Tulsi Gabbard for third-party run

"Asked earlier if the former secretary of state was referring to Gabbard in her comment, Merrill told CNN, "If the nesting doll fits."

"This is not some outlandish claim. This is reality," Merrill said. "If the Russian propaganda machine, both their state media and their bot and troll operations, is backing a candidate aligned with their interests, that is just a reality, it is not speculation."

On Friday evening, after Clinton's comments drew considerable criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, Merrill backed away from the former secretary of state's allegation, tweeting, "She doesn't say the Russians are grooming anyone. It was a question about Republicans."

It is more accurate to say that the spokesperson changed his tune, not that all media admits they got it wrong. CNN, for instance, hasn't changed their article except to add Merrill's updated position. They still have "groomed by Russians". Politifact doesn't take sides, but offers the full context and suggests readers interpret for themselves.

• In Context: Hillary Clinton on Tulsi Gabbard, the Trump campaign and Russia.

WP should be doing something similar to CNN and Politifact, and not using a single source (USA Today) to mischaracterize the situation, and essentially air a politician's PR statement in Wikipedia's voice. petrarchan47คุก 04:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

When the media changed Russians to Republicans, editors made the change here, but I added the edit you mention because it is very important to state how the comments were originally understood. Since there is still dispute over what Clinton meant, we should change "corrected" to "changed." Do you have any sources that say CNN still asserts that Clinton meant Russians? Clinton seemed to use the terms Russians and Republicans interchangeably maybe believing that they were the same thing. TFD (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

CNN still has their title as 'groomed by Russians', and simply states that the PR rep changed their position after Clinton received all the pushback. Nowhere in the article do they say their original reporting was wrong. It is true that some corporate media claimed they got it wrong, saying that indeed the PR rep's current position is the correct one, and we can add that. But it is incorrect to state that all MSM did this. The fact that MSM mirrored Clinton PR is notable and interesting, however, where the truth lies does not seem to be something we can determine. Hillary was a lawyer and her language was designed to create ambiguity, it would appear. petrarchan47คุก 01:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• The Four Deuces I took a stab at it, see what you think. petrarchan47คุก 07:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC) The Four Deuces petrarchan47คุก 07:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

NYT[66], NBC News[67], ABC News[68], USA Today[69]: She referred to Republicans, not Russians. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I think for we have to go with what reliable sources have reported. While it may be that Clinton was referring to Russians, we would have to wait for reliable sources to express doubt. The fact that one outlet has not changed its original story is not convincing - we would need the outlet to state that it stuck by its original reporting. It could be that they were too lazy to make a correction. My reading is that Clinton was talking about Republicans but then thought she was talking about the Russians. It may be that she thinks they are the same thing, a sort of international conspiracy to prevent her from becoming president. TFD (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It is categorically false to claim that "mainstream media corrected their reporting". This indicates all MSM made the change to reflect the new talking point from Merrill. Here are 4 sources that did not: CNN, DB, Maui News, CBS. So I've changed the article to say "some" MSM changed their reporting. This is both neutral and accurate IMO. petrarchan47คุก 03:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

A bit confusing and not neutral enough (crooked chronology and avoidance of controversies)

Wanted to share my impressions of this article hoping it would help editors with a more in-depth knowledge of the subject.

Too often, this article reads like a mixture of positive data and commentaries to counter condemnation somewhere else, but that is of no help for Wikipedia or the subject. A fairer piece would have a more cohesive narrative linking information in a chronological order. For an example of the problem, in the early career section the article says that in 2002 Ms. Gabbard was a self-supporting martial arts instructor, but there is nothing else on that point. Farther down she appears heavily involved in politics simultaneously. How was she doing both? Was that a part-time gig? What is the relevance to her broader career?

Moreover, little effort is placed here to explain her critics and the positions she is defending. In fact, any reader coming to the subject for the first time may wonder why Clinton referred to her in uncommonly harsh terms. It seems to me that there is not enough relevant content.

Cheers, Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 03:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Caballero1967 This is a good suggestion and I added details on her early career to help explain things. Addition of material on her ties to the Science of Identity Foundation would also help the article greatly, but certain editors seem to be attempting to block the addition of the consensus text above. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Samp4ngeles I am glad you have a receptive ear and did something about it. As Gabbard attracts more attention, this article will be read more carefully, and if disjointed and unbalanced, people will ignore it and jump to the next source while confirming their doubts about WP. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 15:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Syrian Chemical weapons use

Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War is explicit that such use by the Assad regime has been confirmed by both the UN and the OPCW .

"On 7 August 2015, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 2235 (2015) to establish a joint investigation mechanism (JIM) to identify the perpetrators responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The resolution was drafted by the United States, and adopted by all 15 members of the Security Council.[127][128] The JIM issued its first report on 12 February 2016.[129] The second was released on 10 June 2016,[130] while the third report was issued on 30 August 2016.[2] The third report blamed the Syrian government for two gas attacks in 2015, and accused ISIS of using mustard gas.[131] In October 2016 the leaked fourth report of task force determined that the Syria had conducted at least three gas attacks in 2015.[131] In January 2017, they declared that they had composed a list of those responsible for using chemical weapons in the war. The list, which has not been made public, is divided into three sections. The first, is titled "Inner-Circle President" and has six people, including Assad, his brother, the defense minister and the head of military intelligence.

Here come the Suns (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The Gabbard article should say "Assad's use of chemical weapons", not "Assad has been accused of using chemical weapons". At the very least, if the article is going to attribute that Assad has used chemical weapons, it ought to say "According to the UN and international chemical weapons inspectors, Assad used chemical weapons". "Accusations" gives the impression that some random nobodies or political rivals have claimed he used chemical weapons. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Here come the Suns (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Accusations or has it been proven

That Assad used chemical weapons? Here come the Suns told me to see the Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War, which does not say that it has been proven that president Assad used Chemical weapons, it says the he is suspect which is exactly the opposite what he is claiming . NOTE: he also showed some WP:HOUNDING behaviour when he went and reverted another edit he found in my contributions.(see Religion in Morocco) Which makes me feel that he has a personal issue against me.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

read the above quote form the article, specifically this line: "[UN-OPCW] declared that they had composed a list of those responsible for using chemical weapons in the war. The list, which has not been made public, is divided into three sections. The first, is titled "Inner-Circle President" and has six people, including Assad" . Here come the Suns (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Here come the Suns, The source that is used there (not very known indian newspaper[70]) is making extraordinary claims which requires extraordinary sources not "source, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue." Also having evidences doesnt mean that they proved who are responsible for the attack. This is a violation of BLP --SharabSalam (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Here come the Suns, The source that is used there (not very known indian newspaper[71]) is making extraordinary claims which requires extraordinary sources not "source, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue." Also having evidences doesnt mean that they proved who are responsible for the attack. This is a violation of BLP --SharabSalam (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It is a Reuters story, which could be sourced to a dozen other newspapers. See [72] Here come the Suns (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Here come the Suns, the source is someone who's not identified and the claims he is making are very serious. We need a real list from a UN official inspector not someone "who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue." as the source you provided said.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Also I have removed it based on WP:EXCEPTIONAL because the source is saying "according to the source, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue." and the claims are very serious therefore it requires solid sources--SharabSalam (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

And I have restored it, as it is sourced material that has consensus. Take your concerns to that article's talk page.Here come the Suns (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Also at that time Gabbard was not aware of these reports so at that time they were accusations.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard has continued to express skepticism that Assad used chemical weapons into 2019. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Why are you creating a separate talk page section about thia when there is literally a section about this just above?[73] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Who cares? As long as the TP header is neutral, it's no biggy...

Regarding the substantive question, I've added a new quote that clears up what her position at the time was. I don't think her BLP is the place to have this fight about what was "alleged" and what wasn't in a war zone far from Gabbard's workplace. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Definitely, probably, according to UN investigators, has been accused of, maybe, according to Trump administration officials. There are shades of nuance and there is an ethical obligation to get it right. I don't think the wording of the OPCW is that they have proved that Assad used chemical weapons. In any case, their report has come under question in mainstream sources, for example by Robert Fisk in The Independent in "The evidence we were never meant to see about the Douma ‘gas’ attack" TFD (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, The source there says that according to unnamed source, the UN has a list of those involved in the attack, the list includes Assad and his brother as well as three other top Syrian officials. This claim is from an unnamed source that is directly saying that these people are responsible for the attack. The paragraph in Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War was in violation of BLP. Per WP:CRYSTAL: Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Also, exceptional claims require exceptional sources.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

We can state what unnamed sources say if they are reported because it is part of the story. The article about the Watergate scandal for example would have to mention Deep Throat. What we cannot do is express what the unnamed source said as fact. While it may be frustrating to some editors, it can take a long time to establish facts, if they are established at all. TFD (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

sourcing to Heathen07@Shadowproof

An article written by Heathen07 for Shadowproof was added here (Sept 2019). I have removed it as unnecessary to support the claim that she won the Democratic primary in 2002. It spends a lot of time digging up dirt on SIF (there was a big push for this type of thing on en.wp around September 2019 as I recall...) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

REFSPAM and an unreliable source. I don't know why it wasn't removed immediately. --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Unacceptable POV wording in lede

"Her decision to meet Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and expressions of skepticism about his use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War attracted controversy" is clearly pov and biased, thanks to the unequivocal wording "his use of chemical weapons". It needs to be changed to "claims of his use of ..." or "allegations of his use of ..." or something similar. Identical pov wording exists in the body of the text, but its existence in the lede is of course far more serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.117.11 (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. From the source: "She opposes military interventions abroad with a rare credibility of intent, even going so far, in arguing against foreign interventions, as to repeatedly cast doubt on the wealth of evidence that the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, used chemical weapons on his own people."[74].- MrX 🖋 02:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

MrX, the source doesnt broadly say that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack(Most people in the ME know that it was staged attack, me one of them). Read what you said "cast doubt on the wealth of evidence" it should be changed to skepticism about the evidences that Bashar used chemical weapons, instead of this pathetic wording which suggest that it has been confirmed that Assad used chemical weapons.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. The use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War has been confirmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, by Bashar Al-Assad? Any proof?--SharabSalam (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, yep. The United Nations says so. See the article I linked. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu could you show us a reliable source that says that? Dont tell me that you were fooled by this this addition, and which I have challenged and see what an admin said in response [75], I am still waiting in the talk page and the editor has disappeared since then. Again show us a reliable source and dont source wikipedia.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, we have multiple articles covering this such Douma chemical attack. The sources are linked in the reference sections of those articles. No one is obligated to spoon feed them to you. - MrX 🖋 03:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

MrX, again bring one source, Wikipedia is not a reliable source as I showed you that the addition was based on an anonymous source and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences. There is no source that Assad used chemical weapons. Even the source that you cited above says "evidences" and doesnt suggest that it has been confirmed that Assad used chemical weapons.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, those are Wikipedia articles with reliable sources in them. But here, for posterity, is a source.[76] – Muboshgu (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, the source that you are citing is attributing(not even in its voice) to a study by a freaking think tank Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi). Your definition of international consensus is broken. You also said earlier that the UN has confirmed it. Again show a source that say that.-SharabSalam (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, I'm not very familiar with the subject matter here, but a quick Google search turned up this. – bradv🍁 03:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, see earlier discussion about this. This is a 2016 source that is attributed to anonymous sources. As previously said extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources not "According to unnamed source that refused to give his identity".--SharabSalam (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, that looks like a pretty solid source to me. Whose word would you be willing to accept on the matter, if not the UN's? – bradv🍁 03:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, [77][78]. Now accept reality. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, Could you please show us where it says that it has been confirmed that Assad used chemical weapons?--SharabSalam (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, you mean beyond the headline "Both ISIL and Syrian Government responsible for use of chemical weapons, UN Security Council told"? I've done more than I have to. It seems to me like you're going to use any excuse you can find to not listen to common sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I don't need to. - MrX 🖋 03:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the UN actually assigned blame in the chemical attacks and apparently the final report left out dissenting opinions about the Douma attack. In any case, accusations against Gabbard were made before the report was released. TFD (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, Agree Muboshgu is just throwing sources randomly without even having any clue what they are saying. The report doesnt confirm that the government has carried nor that it accuses Bashar al-Assad. Instead, it is showing just evidences which is nothing.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Another thing see what the paragraph in the article says:Her decision to meet Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and expressions of skepticism about his use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War

The source says She opposes military interventions abroad with a rare credibility of intent, even going so far, in arguing against foreign interventions, as to repeatedly cast doubt on the wealth of evidence ... Bashar al-Assad, used chemical weapons

The source doesnt say that she doubt that Assad used chemical weapons, it says that she doubt the evidences. Two different things.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a distinction without a difference. - MrX 🖋 04:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Per OED: scepticism | skepticism, n. (2) "… doubt or incredulity as to the truth of some assertion or supposed fact". One expresses skepticism about the truth of an assertion. She was doubtful about the truth of assertions / allegations / evidence that Assad used chemical weapons, not that Assad's use of chemical weapons [did something unstated / was done for some unstated purpose / … ??]. @MrX, If it is a distinction without a difference to you but it is to others, then I suggest we change it for clarity. Humanengr (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference. Gabbard said Assad should be prosecuted if there is sufficient evidence. Since the ICJ has rules of evidence, it's crucial that any case brought would meet the standards to commit to trial under the judicial systems of most advanced countries such as the U.S. or UK. When a prosecutor declines to prosecute due to lack of evidence it does not mean that they believe a suspect is innocent or that they are an apologist or that they support what the suspect did. A responsible prosecutor will however prosecute when there is a reasonable chance of conviction, which is what Gabbard advocates. TFD (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Nothing

about connections with RSS/Hindu Nationalism? ∯WBG^converse 09:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

There was a few months ago.[79]. It looks like it was scrubbed clean.

Controversies
Days before it began, Gabbard reiterated she was withdrawing from the 2018 World Hindu Congress, expressing concern over a "significant number of Indian partisan politicians [...] playing an important role" at the event. She had earlier written to an organizer of the event to voice concern that it was "becoming a platform for Indian partisan politics." In January 2019 The Intercept published an article claiming Gabbard had links with Hindu nationalist organization Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America, and the Hindu American Foundation. An earlier version of The Intercept's article searched Gabbard's donor list for "names ... of Hindu origin" to "show Gabbard's broad base of support in the Hindu-American community". In an op-ed, Gabbard criticized this as religious bigotry, saying that Christians would not be subject to such scrutiny based on their names. She also condemned religious intolerance in politics, media, and society in general. The Intercept removed the sentence with an apology, saying that it was not intended "to question the motives of those political donors" and apologizing "for any such implication". Gabbard also rebutted claims she is a "Hindu nationalist", calling it "religious bigotry", and writing "My meetings with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India's democratically elected leader, have been highlighted as 'proof' of this and portrayed as somehow being out of the ordinary or somehow suspect, even though President Obama, Secretary Clinton, President Trump and many of my colleagues in Congress have met with and worked with him."

Sources

- MrX 🖋 13:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The connections to Hindu nationalists should be covered in the article. There are old talk pages where I bring RS to the table that highlight the connections, as well as indicate DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, there's this long-form piece and a lot more articles, obviously it's DUE. I don't agree with the above version, FWIW. ∯WBG^converse 16:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe that what happened is that 1) I moved the "controversies" section to the India section of political positions of Tulsi Gabbard, which was then 2) split onto its own page. Soumaya Shankar's Intercept article has gone from being the single most-cited source on Gabbard's BLP to being completely absent from the entry! Somewhere in between these two POV poles would be a happy compromise. I agree this should not be "scrubbed", though I don't think the word "scrub" is an AGF portrayal of what happened. Having friendly relations with Indian leaders is not "unclean". But yes, Kashmir...

Anyway, one mention that probably could be made fairly easily without too much dissension: the presence of Ram Madhav at her wedding, bearing gifts from Mr. Modi (from the Caravan article above).

Mention could also be made of Clinton & Kerry at Mukesh Ambani's daughter's wedding at her en.wp entry. Oh wait, someone would have to create Isha Ambani (as more than a redirect to her father's entry). Isn't having a $100m wedding notable in and of itself?

There is related recent discussion on this talk page. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

College education

Sources disagree as to whether Tulsi Gabbard has a bachelor's degree in business administration or international business. Tulsi's own House website says international business. The Hawaii Pacific University website says business administration. ABC News says international business. Politifact says business administration. The confusion seems to stem from the fact that the degree offered by Hawaii Pacific University is a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (abbreviated as BSBA), but there are nine possible concentrations including international business. I have changed the article to be unambiguous.

As an HPU alumnus myself, I know that the BSBA abbreviation is used frequently at the school. One could potentially read the degree as either a BS in Business Administration or a BSBA in International Business. In the latter reading, BSBA is treated as a single entity equivalent to a Bachelor of Business Administration. --JHP (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

It is quite common to say that someone has a bachelor's degree in [area of major concentration]. I agree that when it is capitalized, the exact degree should be cited, but this is not necessary when it is not. At Oxford for example, all first degrees are BA, while all first doctorates are DPhil, regardless of discipline. In other schools they would receive a BSc or DSc. But if someone studied physics, it would be informative that they had a bachelor's or doctoral degree in physics. TFD (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2019 (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 [80]. Related policies: WP:COATRACK, WP:GUILT, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, see also Sippenhaft. Xenagoras (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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).

@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)

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 You inserted material when there was no consensus as to form. You did so without responding to my response to your confusing unsigned response above.

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)

@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? Humanengr (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Humanengr (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The addltlon of thls[81] 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)

References

Paper-only sourcing

Samp4ngeles, apparently you have access to the Honolulu Advertiser, as I've seen you add dozens (or at least tens) of references to this paper without providing links for the reader (on various pages). It would be helpful if you could clip the articles so readers have something to verify. As is there is precisely zero turning up for "SARS Tulsi Gabbard" for example, or for "AeroVironment Gabbard". Neither of Jennifer Hiller's articles seem to be available on the web, and you don't provide an author name for the Toronto SARS article. Much of this seems undue and smells like asides being blown up into front page news from p. A5 & A9. I did find the Independent article by the same name as the first. No mention of Gabbard...

...advocated quarantining travelers to Hawaii who had symptoms of SARS, was one of several legislators who won significant nonpriority projects for school construction, and was one of nine legislators who proposed legislation for a special purpose bond that would have encouraged AeroVironment to build drones in Hawaii.

I don't see the relevance of the information. The CDC recommended "isolation" of all persons who had symptoms of SARS.[82] (Note - isolation not quarantine is the correct term when the subjects show symptoms.) The World Health Organization said: "Contacts of persons under investigation for SARS should be traced and quarantined until SARS has been ruled out as the cause of the illness."[83] In fact travellers who had symptoms of SARS were isolated in Hawaii.[84] This is typical tendentious editing where information is added without any explanation in order to advance a narrative, in this case that Gabbard is paranoid or xenophobic. TFD (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed the mention of SARS and the editor reverted with the note "notable, provides information related to a different topic, and does not "lack weight". I take it they are unfamiliar with the policies of WP:NOTABLE and WP:WEIGHT: Notable is about article creation. And weight says, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." TFD (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Pinging @Samp4ngeles: with this request. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Paper-only sourcing is fine, although it is preferable to have it easily verifiable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is fine, but it needs to meet weight, which apparently Samp4ngeles does not understand. Could you please explain why it is significant that Gabbard thought people with SARS symptoms should be isolated when no sane person disagreed? We don't add to the Hillary Clinton article that she believes that water is wet, the sea is blue or grass is green. TFD (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, TFD, for adding the articles above showing conclusively that the first of the three is a non-issue. Still waiting for links to the other two articles, which may be likewise spun as negatively as possible. User:Samp4ngeles, you should probably *self-revert* and provide links to the two articles to help us see they are contributed in good faith and not with the intention of only adding negatively formulated claims. Looking at your contributions, I notice that for about 6-7 weeks now, this account has been overwhelmingly focused (nearly 100% of your numerous contribs) on the Gabbard family and the SIF. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The Honolulu Advertiser's archives back to 2001 are online: https://www.staradvertiser.com/back-issues/. - MrX 🖋 13:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Since the article does not mention Gabbard or Hawaii and they have not replied, I will post to the editors talk page. I have raised the issue at BLPN. TFD (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you MrX. I haven't read the first article yet as I haven't found either the first or the second (at all) in the archived version. (TFD, did you read it at newspapers.com?) I did find the third article referenced in the archives, and it bears little resemblance to the summary in WP voice (and not Jennifer Hiller, but Nelson Daranciang is given author credit in the archive). 02.14.09. In my opinion all three of these pseudo-issues should be binned for being pin-WP:WEIGHTed. Maybe the 4ngeles asleep on the pin will wake up and self-revert? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Select publication year then choose the April 29 on the 2003 calendar. "SARS travel warning to Toronto lifted" is the first story.[85] You can alter the date on the web address too. I found the school story too. Each year the Department of Education prepares a priority list, which the legislature reviews and adds too, then the governor approves. Gabbard got 4 pr 5 million for projects that were not on the list. Non-priority however implies that they were unnecessary. TFD (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I came here after seeing the BLP notice related to this topic. I agree that there is no reason to mention that Gabbard supported a CDC recommendation for isolation. Adding it to the article without context does imply that this was somehow an epidemiologically questionable action and might have been motivated by something less than reasonable caution. I support removal based on lack of WEIGHT. It has no weight as a non-controversial action and "negative" weight as it could imply something negative about the BLP subject that isn't supported by a review in context. Springee (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Well whatever else, the info should stay out until we have a source which mentions Gabbard. A paper source would be okay if it provides sufficient info to be able to find the source. (This is not to say I support adding it back with a source.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The editor again re-inserted the text saying, "Sorry, TFD, but if you read the citation that it clearly wasn't the CDC's position -- and if you go to your own source on the talk page (the CDC link), you'll see that it said, "In the United States , where there was limited transmission of SARS-CoV during the 2003 SARS outbreak, neither individual nor population-based quarantine of contacts was recommended." See [86]"[87]

Gabbard however did not recommend quarantine of contacts who did not have symptoms, but isolation of people with symptoms of SARS, which is what the CDC recommended.

TFD (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the content as UNDUE. Absent additional sources talking about this as something notable there is no reason it needs to be in this article. Springee (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

If we want to get technical on the language, really what Gabbard and her father were advocating was "mandatory isolation." So, the best language to use here would be "advocated mandating isolation of travelers to Hawaii who had symptoms of SARS." This is notable and [[WP:DUE] for someone running for office that oversees the CDC, particularly as the notion of involuntary isolation (or what the was referred to in the source as quarantine) went beyond the recommendations of the CDC and Hawaii Department of Health and was a controversial stance at the time. When referring to this idea, the source said, "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has the power to quarantine people against their will but has been relying on voluntary isolation of suspected cases. 'I don't think we have any evidence that anything beyond voluntary isolation is needed at this time,' Rosen [the Deputy Health Director for Hawaii] said." As I previously pointed out, this is one of only a handful of issues for which Gabbard was mentioned in the press during this term in office.Samp4ngeles (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUE says, "neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It does not allow us to add material based on our personal interpretation of its significance.

Since the story does not meet WP:DUE, there is no reason to debate the facts. Gabbard never said the CDC should impose mandatory isolation. Whether she was right or wrong and whether it is relevant to her fitness for the presidency are issues that editors cannot determine.

Also, the article does not say that Gabbard recommended mandatory isolation of persons with SARS symptoms. And the one patient with SARS symptoms had been isolated. So it's not clear how Gabbard wanted to go farther than what the state was doing.

TFD (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment vote

Notable that Gabbard broke with her party and voted "present" for both impeachment articles against Donald Trump. Architeuthidæ (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, her fence-sitting deserves a brief mention. - MrX 🖋 18:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you think you can comment on article content without providing your personal commentary? If I want to know what your opinions are I'll follow you on twitter. TFD (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't accept the premise of your question, but thanks for following me on Twitter. - MrX 🖋 20:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Fence sitting means, "supporting both sides in a disagreement because you cannot make a decision or do not want to annoy or offend either side." (Cambridge Dictionary)[88] Whether or not that was her motivation is a matter of opinion. In case you don't remember, the issue of voting present was brought up in the Obama talk pages. See Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 52#State legislator: 1997–2004 - repeated inappropriate and disruptive edits for the last time the issue was raised. TFD (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, in this case, we have Gabbard's statement to help explain why she did what she did. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. She said she "could not in good conscience vote either yes or no."[89] "Fence-sitting" is defined as "a state of indecision or neutrality with respect to conflicting positions".[90] - MrX 🖋 23:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"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 [91]) 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)

Template:U@ 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)

Dakota Access Pipeline -- section restored

I restored the section header on the Dakota Access Pipeline. It had a separate header since the section on political views was created by Samp4ngeles almost a month ago and has stuck. Yesterday it was deleted by Jamesy0627144 with a comment that they were "already sort of combined", "but the formatting was messed up". The edit where they were "sort of combined" was this edit by SashiRolls. I'm not convinced SashiRolls was trying to combine them, but, instead, to simply rearrange them. I prefer to see them with separate section header lines, since the Dakota Access Pipeline was its own substantial event having to do just as much with Native American land rights of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. See Standing_Rock_Indian_Reservation#Dakota_Access_Pipeline--David Tornheim (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi David. Before I made the edit I looked at the two references as well as the Dakota Access Pipeline protests article, to make sure the subject matter pertained mostly to environmental issues. It did appear that the subject matter mostly pertained to environmental issues, so I went ahead with it. I do realize that is not the totality of the issue, but further supporting the edit is Tulsi's quote in the HuffPo article:

In a statement to the Oceti Sakowin Camp Gabbard said, “I’m participating in the Dakota Access Pipeline protest because of the threat this project poses to water resources in four states serving millions of people.”

Addressing the universal issue of water quality, Gabbard said, “Whether it’s the threat to essential water sources in this region, the lead contamination in Flint, Michigan, or the threat posed to a major Hawaii aquifer by the Red Hill fuel leak, each example underscores the vital importance of protecting our water resources.”

So I think it's pretty reasonable to put the Dakota Pipeline material under Environment, in the same way that it's reasonable to put the Green New Deal under Environment, even though that pertains to other issues like the jobs and the economy. It also seems kind of strange to have one short sentence as a standalone section... so if there is a way to fit the sentence in somewhere else I think it is worth doing.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies, while alphabetizing I lost a linebreak during a cut & paste. I thought the subsequent combination was logical. It's true that a lot of detail has gone missing since the political positions part was spun out. The DAPL info is in two short paragraphs in environment over there. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I will restore. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Done here. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Pol Pos §

This edit, which split the Political positions §, did so for the stated purpose of expanding on one issue (LGBT).

That expansion was UNDUE and the split has had the clearly foreseeable unhelpful consequence of selective expansion on particular issues, putting us well on the way toward a partial re-creation in generally biased form of the Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard page.

This is a disservice to our readers.

Either we have a short section as existed prior to that edit or move — or better, transclude — the current Political positions page back into this section.

Regarding the original concern re length of the BLP pol pos §, I note that the Sander's BLP pol pos section has 4354 words whereas Tulsi’s pol pos page has 3001 words.

Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

"In her teens and early twenties"

Per the Kacynzki cite: Gabbard ‘worked' for ATMV when she was 17; she is quoted in a press release on the ATMV site defending her mother shortly after she turned 19, but that does not necessarily indicate she was 'working' for ATMV; at a later age, she cited her work at age 17.

(The Christensen cite does not reference Tulsi. I will ask Samp4ngeles to remove this cite as they inserted it.)

The Dunford cite does says that she was “speaking on behalf of” the ATMV while a legislator in 2004 but it is not -certain- (though it is arguable) that “on behalf of” means that she was ‘working' for ATMV at the same time she was a legislator.

As WP:BLP urges cautions re claims re living persons, I edited conservatively by changing to "At age 17, …".

I am leaving this text in for now although I agree with Xenagoras that "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.” Humanengr (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Abercrombie

[placeholder]

@David Tornheim, thank you for invite to discuss. Am researching further; will return. Humanengr (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr:, @Michael E Nolan: I decided to rewrite the paragraph and include the former mayor's criticism but with fewer words. I added balancing text found in one of the articles that indicate her absences are not at all unusual for a member of Congress running for president--a question that immediately came mind when I saw the criticism: "Is that typical when running for higher office or not?" I removed the claim that it was a "serious challenge", which I did not find in the articles. I changed to past tense, to avoid the need to rewrite in the future. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Humanengr: this is a hatchet job against Gabbard by the Kai Kahele congressional campaign. Neil Abercrombie is co-chair of Kai Kahele's congressional campaign to take Gabbard's seat.[92] Abercrombie failed to declare his partisanship relative to Gabbard and Kahele in that press conference about Gabbard. 11 minutes 45 seconds into the press conference, after several questions from various reporters, one reporter asked Abercrombie if he is not worried that others might see his attack on Gabbard as a ploy to help Kahele's campaign.[93] Abercrombie endorsed Kahele already in February 2019.[94] (Kahele would have it easier to win this seat if the election is earlier because there would be less competitors.) Gabbard's share of 40% missed votes between January 29 and December 25 is way below the share of missed votes of several other candidates that are still running for the 2020 nomination or dropped out recently (Booker 66%, Sanders 65%, Harris 63%, Warren 55%, Klobuchar 40%). Booker, Sanders and Warren missed 100% of their votes for at least one month.[95] The fact that Gabbard is the only candidate being attacked for missing votes shall tell you everything you need to know about this issue. I recommend removing this "critique" by Abercrombie and Kahele altogether. Xenagoras (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and publish Gabbard's reply. All campaigns involve accusations about the poor job the incumbent is doing and all office-holders who aspired to higher posts are criticized for missing votes. It is unusual to suggest that a office-holder should resign before their term ends, and that deserves to be in the article.Michael E Nolan (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Various outlets published articles about missed votes by the 2020 candidates. The consensus is that nobody cares about these votes because they do not change the outcome of votings and it is expected that the candidates have little time left beside campaigning. The hill, Politico, Boston Herald Xenagoras (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: Your argument is well taken that this is an "hatchet job" probably originating from Kahele's campaign--I wouldn't be surprised if their campaign did focus groups that found that was the most effective criticism. I was not aware of the connection of Abercrombie to Kahele, which makes Abercrombie's voice less significant. If that is the case, I could see simplifying the criticism to make it clearer that both voices are from the same campaign, or just eliminate Abercrombie and say "Kahele's campaign".

I don't see any need to publish Gabbard's reply and make a bigger deal about this criticism that does indeed seem unevenly applied just to her. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Apropos connections: Think-tank President Neera Tanden [96], member of Hillary Clinton's "inner circle" of advisors during the 2016 campaign [97], has been raising donations for Kai Kahele and wants him to defeat Gabbard in a primary challenge [98] [99][100] although the DCCC warned it will cut off business with firms that support primary challengers to incumbents.[101] Tanden also publishes all types of smears against Gabbard that Hillary Clinton has published. Xenagoras (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Xenagoras, apropos characterization, and great catch on the video. Gabbard’s Press Secretary tweeted a similar statistical compilation here where the graph is from this, commenting "But any honest journalist who does their due diligence would likely include these facts."Humanengr (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank's Humanengr. The statistic you cited is from August 2019 and the 2020 candidates have increased their campaign efforts significantly since then, resulting in increased share of missed votes. Here is the current data: [102] Xenagoras (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

RS

National Review

Regarding the removal by Humanengr edit summary says, "removed cite as non-RS; WP:UNDUE", I disagree that National Review is "non-RS". National Review--although even more conservative than most mainstream American news--has been around a long time, and I have never heard that it had a serious problem with factual reporting. See what is written about it in WP:RSP. However, because the line already had two sources justifying the sentence, I think it was WP:UNDUE to add another, especially from a news reporting entity that would clearly be anit-Gabbard. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Your full para provides a better rationale. Would it make sense for me to revert my edit so you can ensconce your rationale in an edit summary? Humanengr (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No need, unless other editors have something to say. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#National_Review

I don't understand why the ref was added. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It was added here along with some CRUFT and a weak rationale. Humanengr (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sierra Blog

I reverted the addition of a Sierra Club blog entry as WP:RS. It might be possible to include it as WP:RS; however, I would like to see a defense of why it is WP:RS. Of the two edits, I think the National Review is probably more reliable than the Sierra Club blog entry. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Just saw this — re Sierra Club, see section immediately above. Thx, Humanengr (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2019 (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)