Talk:Progressive utilization theory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This article should be re-formatted to encylopedia -format. The five fundamental principles here do not need to be elaborated deeply. Rather the theory of prout should be discussed properly.--82.181.71.113 09:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It reads like a manifesto rather than an objective account of the history and importance of this intellectual tradition in a wider context. kerim 08:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Major cleanup

I came upon this while looking at another olf AfD nomination. To my dismay, this article got radically worse since it muddled through its last AfD. It has besically turned into a big manifesto, not an encyclopedia article. I was about to re-nominate it again but instead I decided to strip out a ton of material that seemed to be either opinion, speculation, or advocacy. —dgies^t_c 16:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Recurrent problem

Unfortunately, this article seems to have gained huge volumes of content which relies on primary sources - ie. stuff written by Sarkar - and takes them at face value. I understand that some people really believe in PROUT, but this reads more like a manifesto, not an encyclopædia article. Much of this content couldn't possibly be supported by reliable secondary sources. Why are we inflicting this on readers? bobrayner (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Bob, what is stated at face value is the theory. PROUT is a theory. The point of this article is primarily to present the theory accurately, not to substantiate it. If substantiation were a requirement, we would have to remove a huge number of articles on Wikipedia, including just about everything on capitalism and communism. :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If a theory has been discussed by independent sources, then we can write neutral content. If it hasn't been discussed by independent sources, how do you suppose it passes the GNG? bobrayner (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Bob, a presumption does not guarantee anything, positive or negative. As I understand it, WP has no hard and fast rules per WP:FIVE. How independent would someone have to be to satisfy you? How many independent people would be required to satisfy you? If PROUT has been commented on by Ravi Batra, Sohail Inayatullah, Leonardo Boff, and Noam Chomsky... are any of them really independent? Indeed, are any of them more independent than I am? And just because they commented on it, would that mean that their comments are really neutral, much less correct? The simple fact is that this theory is extensive and penetrating. Its alleged ability to resolve problems that capitalism and communism cannot makes it notable to many... if not to you. I could not develop such a theory, and I doubt that you could either. Hence, my goal in this article has been to present PROUT as accurately as I can, rather than to merely parrot what others have said about it or how others have chosen to interpret it. I have also tried my best to maintain a neutral approach in that regard. I believe that I have done so in accordance with what is set out in WP:FIVE. The information I provided is both verifiable and authoritative. Just because I support PROUT does not mean that I cannot discuss it in a dispassionate fashion. As I see it, a rational socioeconomic theory should be able to stand on its own merits. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the bulk of this article based on independent sources, or is it based on your understanding of prout? bobrayner (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Bob, it seems that you did not understand a word that I said. Either that or you purposefully ignored what I said. Either way, I don't have time for such type of non-communication. May I suggest that you drop your obsession with this article and all things in the sarkarverse. Why not move on to some other pages where your contributions will be less likely to be deemed disruptive? Pardon me for saying this, but if there is any "recurrent problem" in respect to the PROUT article at this stage, it is only you. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I second that. Even though there's still some room for development in the article, PROUT definitely passes the GNG. The article does rely on verifiable and authoritative sources. I think a "constructive" suggestion would be to add some more materials from the books of Ravi Batra, Sohail Inayatullah and some acaryas, as there are plenty of sources. That's a huge work, but I might help in the future with that if I have time. Coming to your question Bob, the article relies definitely on independent sources. If you're looking for articles with a lot of non-reliable and non-authoritative sources, unfortunately there are many of them, delibarately created for political manipulation, unlike PROUT. If you deal with them, you'll have my 100% support. But PROUT is not the case. --Universal Life (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when I remove badly-sourced content - some of which has substantial neutrality problems - Abhidevananda just hammers the revert button and calls it vandalism. It's going to be impossible to improve this article, and related articles, until editors either start using sources or stop hammering the revert button. bobrayner (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Protected

Due to the obvious edit warring that is going on, I have protected the page from editing for 1 week. Please spend the week discussing changes and come to a consensus, and don't simply wait for the protection to be over to restart the edit war. If that happens, blocks will be issued. KTC (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, KTC. Please note that I welcome constructive changes to the article, but - to avoid just this situation - have always requested that they be discussed on the article Talk page first. If you examine the history of this article over the last 8 years, you will see that Bob Rayner has repeatedly made wholesale deletions in respect to the article. As he has begun doing the same thing again - and as he appears to have a penchant for trying to delete just about anything connected with P. R. Sarkar (see for example "Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3)"-Discussion for deletion), my repeated suggestion to him - and my request to the admins - has been that he keep a distance from topics related to P R Sarkar on Wikipedia.--Abhidevananda (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, instead of helping solve the problem, Abhidevananda just reverted the problematic content back into the article after the protection ended. This is a bad thing. Please stop adding unsourced, poorly-sourced, and WP:FRINGE content back into the article. bobrayner (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Progressive utilization theory → Progressive Utilization Theory – That's how it is written everywhere and that's how it makes the acronym Progressive Utilization Theory--Tito Dutta (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

JSTOR

1. JSTOR 20751800
2. JSTOR 10.1525/nr.2008.12.1.26

Google Books

1. 01
2. 02

Official website

1. proutistuniversal.org
2. www.proutglobe.org
3. prout.org

--Relisted Although there are two supports and no opposes, User:Noetica raises valid points in the application of WP:MOSCAPS. Further discussion would be helpful in determining consensus. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC) --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Though I have been told that this renaming might not fully conform with Wikipedia policy about capitalization, I fully support this move. The simple fact is that, outside of Wikipedia, I have never seen the proper name of this theory written in any other way than with capitalization on the first letter of the three words. "Progressive Utilization Theory" is a proper name. While it is a fact that the "Progressive Utilization Theory" is a "progressive utilization theory", it strikes me as bizarre and a bit irritating that PROUT should be titled as "Progressive utilization theory" on Wikipedia. In other words, despite any Wikipedia policy on capitalization of political theories, I would invoke the no firm rules exception in this case. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Here the topic is not some public-domain academic theory with wide acceptance, so it may not fit easily under the relevant provisions at WP:MOSCAPS. See also WP:MOSTM, relevant to this proprietary entity. The article associates the theory with a logo, even. I could understand dissent from this view, from various stances. If the theory did become respectable as common currency in scholarly use, there would be strong grounds for lower case. On a detailed point of research into usage, note that several of the resources appealed to in the proposal hardly use the expanded term at all, preferring the acronym "PROUT"; and in introducing an acronym, many sources go against best practice and highlight the letters involved by capitalising them. Compare "Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) is ...", where "ultra-high frequency" is stylistically superior in general use, as all major style sources agree. Noetica^Tea? 23:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. While it is a bit unusual, a quick Google Book Search seems to confirm that capitalized version is more common than not in this instance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A "quick Google search" is not helpful, Piotrus; unless you produce the exact search and show how you excluded headings and titles in title case (that is, contexts in which major words are temporarily capitalised). Such occurrences may dominate, for this term. And "PROUT" is routinely substituted after the initial occurrence of some version of "progressive utilization theory". Noetica^Tea? 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.