Talk:Science of Identity Foundation

The statements here are all sourced to reliable sources, and there's nothing here that is particularly negative and only a brief mention of a specific individual. I understand why the nominator may have concerns about how this article may develop (I share those concerns, and I absolutely don't think it should be a coat rack for stuff about Gabbard) but this is simply not an attack page by any plausible stretch of the imagination. Nblund ^talk 23:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's a stub and should be improved, not deleted.Localemediamonitor (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the article should be improved, but not deleted. It has over 15 WP:RS sources and reliable sourced content. Further, I agree that it should not be more balanced and consider WP:BLP along with WP:NPOV to have neutral content. RogerYg (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've recently removed a sentence as an insufficiently sourced extreme BLP claim. I've asked the person who added it to take their source to either BLP/N or RS/N for further discussion if they wish to include it. I suspect not too many people are watching this newly-created page and it would be wiser to ask there. I admit I am curious what might get said about bylinetimes.com, especially given that the author of the piece regularly writes for Middle East Eye. I gather he's not thought to be the most neutral on Hindu matters, though.

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

And I've removed content that was disputed at Tulsi Gabbard. I don't know why anyone would think it would be appropriate here instead. --Ronz (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I removed a source that was a 1970 article that was used to support the statement, "The Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) is a socially conservative religious organization based in Hawaii, United States, founded by Kris "Chris" Butler (also known as Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, Siddha Swarup Ananda Goswami, Paramahamsa, and Sai Young) in 1977."

Samp4ngeles reverted saying, "Nonsense deletion. According to WP:RS AGE, "With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing."[1] While that may be true, sources written about events before they occur are not reliable particularly in this case, where they say nothing about the information which they are supposed to support.

TFD (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is entirely possible that an article from 1970 could be a valid source for the "also known as" part of the sentence.

That said, since these are offline/paywalled sources, it would be reasonable to ask Samp4ngeles to provide quotes of the specific parts that support the statements here. You could use {{Request quotation}} for that. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

It would only be relevant if that was a previous name, rather than a previous group. But the only way to know the relationship is from a source following the adoption of the name SIF in 1977. TFD (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The "also known as" part refers to the person, not the group. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I may just be blind, but this entry contains a reference titled "Rick Reed's Inner Self" dated August 12, 1992 for which a pdf is given as the url. There is no article on page 1 (or anywhere I saw on pages 1-12) by this title in the linked newspaper pdf (mostly about sharks). Can someone clear this mistake up? The article is being used as a source for five or six statements.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have removed this as by all appearances it is a fake source.(diff). Sourcing will be needed for the multiple claims allegedly found in the article about Rick Reed.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

For future reference, the link above to the sharks article appears to have been from another section of the same alternative weekly tabloid. It appears the paper started the summer before. Samp4ngeles fixed the link to the proper section after I removed this. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@HaeB: Ronz requested when reverting Samp4ngeles's edit that included this cite, "please get consensus on talk page per BLP”. Samp did not do so but simply reverted the deletion.

Consideration of whether the value of including this cite outweighs the risk of harm to reputation from introduction of irrelevant controversial language seems mandated by BLP as I understand it. Please clarify your argument. Humanengr (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why the reference was removed. --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Given the title, access to the source material would seem to me necessary. As long as the ref doesn't let the reader weigh the source, it should stay out. If there's evidence of "something", provide it, don't hide behind a headline. cf. Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard/Archive_4#Paper-only_sourcing 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

So, what is it being used to verify that's not in other refs? --Ronz (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The article is promotional as of today. In the deletion discussion, users have shared links for Honolulu Magazine (2004) Stuff NZ and The New Yorker (2017). The Honolulu Magazine includes a lot of details about the org that should be included into this Wikipedia article. Venkat TL (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Those look like good suggestions, and the recent expansion once again made the article highly promotional. --Hipal (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

He’s bound to be quite elderly now, if so. Does he still maintain the same level of control over his followers that he used to when he was younger? LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Criticisms are referred to as "libelous", "unsubstantiated" and "malicious" despite being substantiated and widely reported. This whole article reads like it was written by a member of this organization (which I and many others consider to be a cult) with PR in mind. Needs serious work to bring it up to an encyclopedic standard. Throbbing (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, I came here to see if anyone had thought the same thing. Given the groups relevance now with Tulsi, I suspect there are greater active efforts to clean the image of the group. The section does not let the criticisms stand on their own, its clearly biased.

I also find it weird that the section is criticisms and defense. Usually in similar articles its criticism and controversies, it seems to be structured specifically to down play those. 47.55.186.231 (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The fact that it calls him “Mr. Butler” and not “Butler” is a dead giveaway that a member/employee wrote it. It looks like a lot of information was removed from the section too, but that information wasn’t well-written either in my opinion. 2600:1700:B038:2EE0:24A9:C786:5816:7847 (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have restored most of the original language from Special:Permalink/1212475187 § Criticism into the current "Reception" section. I have removed the non-neutral language originally added in Special:Diff/1224100092, Special:Diff/1224100838, and Special:Diff/1224101264, including the words "unproven", "libelous", "unsubstantiated", "unproven", "malicious", and "legitimate", none of which were supported by the cited reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 03:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am no defender of Butler, but I take WP:BLP seriously. I think WP:BLP applies to this article as SIF is closely linked to Butler. Most of the discussion above is disregarding WP:BLP considerations. In WP:BLP articles, words such as ''unproven", ''unsubstantiated'' can be added to provide WP:NPOV and neutral view against unproven charges being put on a Living person. Many charges in the source are potentially "libelous" charges, which has not been proven in any court of law. Infact, as cited in the sources, Butler has never been charged with any offence, and has been cleared of the charges. My intention in adding those words was WP:NPOV based on source "Christensen, John (November 23, 1982). "Chris Butler: About this guru business". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. p. B-1.". Again, my intention was only to follow WP:BLP sincerely, along with WP:NPOV and WP:Neutrality. Anyway, I am happy to follow the consensus on the issue, and open to healthy discussion. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, WP:BLP does not allow an editor to add words such as "unproven", "unsubstantiated", and "libelous" to cast doubt on cited reliable sources, when such words are not supported by any cited reliable sources. Per WP:NPOV, neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Original research ("material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists") is prohibited in Wikipedia articles.

A 1982 Honolulu Star-Bulletin article cannot possibly justify using words such as "unproven", "unsubstantiated", and "libelous" to describe coverage in reliable sources published in 2019 and 2022, as the latter articles did not exist in 1982. — Newslinger talk 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks for clarifying about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. My earlier language was guided by my previous view of WP:BLP, but I am happy to follow the consensus view. Thanks again for the detailed information on these WP policies. RogerYg (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem. If any new reliable sources that refute the allegations emerge, they can be included in the article. — Newslinger talk 06:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Newslinger, I want some advice.

SIF is a cult and, as has been accurately portrayed by several RS-es, is Islamophobic and homophobic. Also, Butler had founded the movement within the Gaudiya Vaishnava ecosystem and a large part of his "teachings" are still moored to certain tenets of the theology. So, how to cover all this in lead without allowing a reader to draw away the inaccurate conclusion — relying on association by guilt, etc. — that the Gaudiya Vaishnava theology is Islamophobic / homophobic / ...? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi TrangaBellam, it would be helpful to have reliable sources that explain the relationship between SIF and Gaudiya Vaishnavism more clearly, or differentiates Butler's views from those of Gaudiya Vaishnavism practitioners in general. Among the currently cited sources, I think the New Yorker article does this most effectively with the following:

• "At times, Bhaktivedanta admonished Butler for non-orthodox teaching..."
• "Butler de��mphasized age-old Indian texts and practices..."

Using this source, I would write something along the lines of "Upon founding the SIF, Butler distanced himself from the Indian traditions and writings of ISKCON and introduced novel views and practices in his teachings, including [...]." I believe this should clarify that former SIF followers' criticism of Butler's teachings do not apply to Gaudiya Vaishnavism in general. — Newslinger talk 16:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I removed The Byline Times notes him to have branded Islam as a "dog-shit" intolerant religion that was spread through sword — and hence, should not be tolerated by others — in one of his speeches.^[1] with edit summary Byline Times not RS for controversial claim (WP:BLP). TrangaBellam reverted with edit summary And why?.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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