Talk:Science of Identity Foundation

Potential refs

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

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

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

• Young, Robin (September 25, 2019). "2020 Hopeful Tulsi Gabbard: The U.S. Needs To 'Stop Acting As The World's Police'". www.wbur.org.
• Kaneya, Rui (March 16, 2015). "Krishna Cult Rumors Still Dog Tulsi Gabbard". Honolulu Civil Beat.
• "Science of Identity Foundation business information on the website of Hawaii State Department of Commerce & Consumer Affairs". Hawaii State Department of Commerce & Consumer Affairs, Business Registration Division. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
• Wolf, Alice (July 28, 1970). "One man rules Haiku Krishnaites". The Honolulu Advertiser. p. A-1. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
• "Krishna Group to Get Hearing on Feb. 25". The Honolulu Star-Bulletin. February 2, 1971. p. A-6.
• Scott, Nadine (December 17, 1977). "Siddha decries recent tales of Krishnas' 'lawbreaking'". The Honolulu Star-Bulletin. p. A-4.
• Wright, Walter (April 26, 1980). "Beamer says Nishiki failed to 'play by the rules'". The Honolulu Advertiser. p. A-3.
• "Science of Identity one of founders". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. July 1, 1991. p. A-4. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
• Wright, Walter (August 29, 1977). "The secret spiritual base of a new political force". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. p. A-1. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
• Wright, Walter (August 22, 1977). "Hawaii's 'other' Krishnas". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. p. A-1. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
• Bolante, Ronna (August 1, 2004). "Who is Mike Gabbard?". Honolulu Magazine. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
• Christensen, John (November 23, 1982). "Chris Butler: About this guru business". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. p. B-1.
• Ronck, Ronn (December 9, 1983). "Arts Scene". Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
• Reflections on Hindu Demographics in America: An Initial Report on the First American Hindu Census. J. Gordon Melton & Constance A. Jones. A paper presented at the Association for the Study of Religion, Economics & Culture meeting in Washington, D.C., April 7–10, 2011. p. 14.
• Swami B. A. Paramadvaiti (1999). Our Family — the Gaudiya Math. A study of the expansion of Gaudiya Vaisnavism and the many branches developing around the Gaudiya Math. VRINDA The Vrindavan Institute for Vaisnava Culture and Studies. p. 58. ISBN 3-927745-90-1.

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

The AfD lists some as well:

• Lerer, Lisa (2019-10-12). "What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
• "Did Tulsi Gabbard's National Ambitions Just Suffer a Political Hit?". www.honolulumagazine.com. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/68483000/disciples-deities-and-development
• https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-krishna-cult-rumors_n_6879588

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

• https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/01/is-tulsi-gabbard-a-mystery/681398/ --Hipal (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/27/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-trump-national-intelligence.html

  Subsequently included. --Hipal (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/12/senators-urged-to-examine-gabbards-deep-and-intense-ties-to-hawaii-sect/ --Hipal (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
• https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/tulsi-gabbard-science-of-identity-qi-group-ed51c890
• https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/tulsi-gabbard-senate-hearing-sect-b2688454.html --Hipal (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Subsequently included. --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democrats-attacking-tulsi-gabbard-wrong-reasons/
• https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/the-mystery-of-tulsi-gabbard --Hipal (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/november-2019/whose-side-is-tulsi-gabbard-on/ --Hipal (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Subsequently included. --Hipal (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• https://www.civilbeat.org/2025/01/tulsi-gabbard-met-with-bipartisan-skepticism-in-confirmation-hearing/ --Hipal (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit suggestions

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

1. Infobox

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

• Founder
• Founded at
• Type 501(c)3 organization
• Tax ID
• Headquarters
• Website

References

2. Intro

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

3. Intro

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

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

I agree with the suggestion that instead of the phrase "A secretive group", I suggest we add "Since 2019," for context and to avoid wp:recentism, and as previously mentioned "secretive group," claim is neither referenced there nor covered in the article. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I've restored "secretive". I agree that it needs to be addressed in the article body. Please read the main references at least. --Hipal (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more in line with WP:LEAD to remove the "secretive" claim as long as it's actually not supported elsewhere in the current version of the article? /Urbourbo (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for my not adding some basic coverage to the article body yet, based upon the main references. It appears to be an aspect of their notability. --Hipal (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I have moved the references for "secretive group" to the article body, and found theology section appropriate.

I have summarized & paraphrazed the relevant content from NY Times: The Science of Identity Foundation, a secretive offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement... Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks both for constructive responses here. Given the strong source support, I can't argue against including "secretive" in the body text, and I appreciate the (indirect) attribution ("has been considered"). However, is it really and objectively a prominent enough trait of the subject to merit inclusion in the lead as well? Perhaps we could reach consensus to satisfy with the mention in the Theology chapter? Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Reading up on WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, I believe that the "secretive group" opinion needs in-text attribution to stay policy compliant. Hence, my suggestion would be to switch the phrase "SIF has been considered a secretive organization" to: "SIF has been considered a secretive organization by authors in The Atlantic and The New York Times".

Also, I can't find support in the references for the second half of that sentence about SIF obfuscating its views. Hence, unless I'm missing anything here it seems we need to remove that part of the sentence, also considering that Butler's relation to islam is already mentioned earlier in the same paragraph. Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest reading more of the sources to start. This article has a long history of editors removing proper sources (See Talk:Science_of_Identity_Foundation#Potential_refs) in order to steer the POV against policy. --Hipal (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I used obfuscate is in the context of denying, from the New Yorker article. i can add that ref.

I guess, disavow is better based on the sources. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Circling back to my WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV question here. Any feedback on my suggestion above from May 5 would be appreciated. I believe your responses only related to the second part of my latest message. Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what statement is your concern, and possible suggestions. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) RogerYg (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, happy to clarify. The point I'm trying to make is, that the "secretive" phrase is an opinion rather than factual, and hence needs to be attributed in the text, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. But I'm now realising that in order to suggest more specific wording that makes sense, I need to understand which of the sources that support "disavows" - but some of the sources were paywalled. Any chance you could clarify which source you drew that from? /Urbourbo (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi /Urbourbo,

Actually, I agree with you that "secretive group" is more of opinion, rather than factual, and therefore I suggest adding a qualifier: purportedly secretive group

We could also use reportedly or supposedly.

Regarding "disavow", I used the New Yorker article, which mentions that Butler denies the charges of homophobia and Islamophobia.

The New Yorker What Does Tulsi Gabbard Believe? By Kelefa Sanneh, October 30, 2017

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Whose opinion is it, and how is it presented? We should be careful not to change the pov against sources to meet coi requests. --Hipal (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks @RogerYg, to add "purportedly" as per your suggestion sounds like a reasonable solution to me. Would it work to change these phrases:

• "Since 2019, the secretive group has come under [...]"
• "SIF has been considered a secretive organization that disavows [...]"

...to:

• "Since 2019, the purportedly secretive group has come under [...]"
• "SIF is purportedly a secretive organization. They have disavowed [...]"

/Urbourbo (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Just to be clear, I have already accepted that several reliable sources have described the organization as secretive. I am not suggesting that these should be ignored or downplayed, and it's good that this is now supported by inline citations.

My suggestion was simply to add attribution in the text so that the characterization is clearly tied to the relevant sources. However, I was also happy with @RogerYg's alternative suggestion to use the word "purportedly" instead, or another similar wording that clarifies that the characterization originates from sources.

I'll leave it to uninvolved editors to determine whether attribution or a similar qualifying formulation would improve the wording. /Urbourbo (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

You're both wasting time by ignoring the past discussions. --Hipal (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources, not anonymous editor's personal views, determine whether content in those sources is factual or opinion. The notion the group is secretive is stated as fact in the sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Now done. /Urbourbo (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

4. Association with Tulsi Gabbard

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

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

Not done: No consensus could be obtained for making the requested change. 🄻🄰 13:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Godly Gov't para

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

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

Political party, where?

"In 1976, Butler's disciples launched a new political party, the Independents for Godly Government, presenting themselves as a "multifaith coalition of conservative-minded reformers", and ran candidates for the House of Representatives and mayoral elections" -What country did this happen in? Many have a House of Representatives. In what cities did they run mayoral candidates?--Hugh7 (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Found it. Hawaiʻi. Hugh7 (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Butler, Gabbard, need more work

Chris Butler (guru) needs his own page, carefully monitored. He is reclusive and has reportedly issued instructions to Tulsi Gabbard through intermediaries, instructing them not to write his name. Much of the material in this page's History section belongs on that page. Some of the material about his connection to Gabbard would be better on her page, which itself has suspiciously little about this connection--Hugh7 (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I expect it won't be possible to separate the Butler from SIF. I doubt if any sources can be found that do.

Gabbard's article deserves significant expansion regarding her relationship with SIF, as the sources used and discussed here show. --Hipal (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)