Talk:Science of Identity Foundation

Contested deletion
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)


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

Due BLP attention
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)


 * 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)

1970 article
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." 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The "also known as" part refers to the person, not the group. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Reference?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Weighing appropriateness of including 'Krishnas' lawbreaking' cite in consideration of BLP
requested when reverting '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)
 * I don't understand why the reference was removed. --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 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 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 21:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So, what is it being used to verify that's not in other refs? --Ronz (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Promotional article
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)

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

How old is Chris Butler; is he even still alive?
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)

"Criticism and Defense" Section Wildly Opinionated
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I have restored most of the original language from 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Okay, thanks for clarifying about 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)
 * 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)