Talk:Progressive utilization theory

Edit Protection

I thank the WP admins for protecting this page. Over the years, it has been systematically stripped of content by Bob Rayner and some others. Once again, he is engaged in that same practice. Clearly, he has a negative obsession with all things related to what he calls the "Sarkarverse" or "Sarkarsphere". See for example his recent nomination for deletion of "Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3)"-Discussion for deletion. I welcome constructive assistance to any article that I work on. But massive deletions of entire sections or even multiple sections in an article that has been rated "B" on the quality scale of two portals and is awaiting rating on five other portals strikes me as extreme. If anyone has a dispute about content, I will be happy to discuss that dispute and work to correct the problem. But I cannot appreciate wholesale destruction instead of discussion or constructive assistance. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia and specially the articles related to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. But, if you can add some secondary reliable sources, the article will be in much better condition (in my opinion). --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of just restoring problematic content unchanged - which fails WP:BURDEN anyway - it would be better to rewrite the content so that it reflects the mainstream view and what independent sources say. If the content isn't actually true or can't be supported by independent sources, don't add it back into the article. Simple. bobrayner (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This can not be said "the content isn't true", since no reference has been provided that shows these information are incorrect. And it can also be assumed they are doing good faith edits. But, yes, it is a pillar of Wikipedia encyclopedic content must be verifiable! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, it can be assumed that Bob's edits were in good faith. WP:AGF will not solve this for us. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 22:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Tito.

First of all, Bob, PROUT obviously does not "reflect the mainstream view", and it is not always consistent with what "independent sources say". Does that mean that I cannot present PROUT as it has been propounded?

Second, everything that I said about PROUT is true. I have tried to describe the theory. If you think that parts of the theory are wrong and have independently sourced material to support that position, why not add that to the Critiques section of the article?

As I see it, there is no justification for the wholesale and indiscriminate destruction of the PROUT article by Bob Rayner. See for example, the section on Economics. Sarkar presented economics in terms of four dimensions which I tried to explain. Bob simply deleted one of the dimensions altogether, making the entire section appear incomplete and incapacitating a section of the associated graphic that was mapped to that section. It is one thing to request additional sources and another thing entirely to delete material that is best or only sourced to the propounder of the theory. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Opinions from uninvolved editors

From Location

I am responding here in response to a notice placed on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Progressive utilization theory request for further input. Previous to this, I had never heard of Progressive utilization theory or Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. My first observation is that the vast majority of the material in the article cites Ananda Marga Publications, which is "a global spiritual and social service organization founded in 1955 by Shrii Shrii Anandamurti (Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar)." As is, I imagine that this violates a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:SPS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG) that indicate that article should be based upon "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Unfortunately, it's not enough to assert that the theory passes WP:GNG and then build the article upon primary and/or self-published sources. The extensive list of sources in the "References" section has similar issues and without attribution to specific article content it could easily be interpreted as a case of Wikipedia:Bombardment. In my opinion, if substantial secondary sourcing cannot be provided within a reasonable period of time (discuss) to warrant the split, then the article should be redirected back to the individual's article. Location (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

From North8000

Took a quick look. At first blush it looks like a new philosophy/religion/social theory where the content and sourcing of the article is just the proponents talking about what they are promoting. I see zero wp:rs coverage of this. And such a flood of self-"sources" obscures whether it has any real secondary wp:rs's by making such a review a Herculean task. May I suggest that the next step be that article proponents point out a few sources that satisfy wp:notability (if they exist) I.E. substantial coverage of this movement by reliable secondary sources. If those can't be produced, I'd suggest AFD'ing the article. If they CAN be produced, then suggest building and sourcing the content mostly from them not from statements/writings by the proponents. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

From Itsmejudith

Coming from the notice at WP:FTN (which does not count as canvassing). The article is definitely far too much written up from proponent sources. My guess is that it is probably notable but that does need to be shown. Then it needs rebuilding from independent sources. This seems to be part of a walled garden of articles that needs to be cleaned up firmly and efficiently. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Opinions from involved editors

From the article's latest editor

Well, it looks like Bob has been doing some sort of canvassing here. :)

• To "Location" and "North8000":

Yes, certainly more secondary sourcing should be in the article. But the split is warranted on a number of grounds that are all quite valid in a Wikipedia context. Take a look at the Chronology section of the article. Even though you may not have heard of it yet, Location, this is not just a small, fringe theory we are dealing with here. Can you name another "fringe theory" that is as extensive as PROUT? As for "substantial secondary sourcing" and a "reasonable period of time", both of those concepts are relative and subjective. It is hard to say what is "substantial" in this case and also how long or short is "reasonable" in this case. Obviously, it is easy to get a lot more secondary sourcing for theories that are as old as capitalism and communism. PROUT is much newer than they are. But does that mean that Wikipedia should document only old and possibly outmoded theories? Furthermore, PROUT is a theory that has been almost entirely developed by one person... at least at this point in time. So, like Marxism (in its early days), accurate content necessarily requires extensive references to the writings of the theory's propounder.

As to notability, I think that hurdle has already been crossed. One or another version of this article has been up on Wikipedia for over 8 years. But why not wait and see how the article is rated by the various portals that are concerned before suggesting another (rather absurd, IMO) AfD? :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not an Afd, so it's not canvassing to request the input of other editors. Compliance with Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing is mandatory, so the reference to a "reasonable period of time" is a good faith allowance for you to get the article in line with them. That is, the burden is on you. You are correct that certain other interpretations may be subjective and Wikipedia frequently works by consensus on those. A consensus is starting to develop that this article needs more reliable secondary sourcing, so that should be addressed. Notability within Wikipedia depends on reliable secondary sourcing and notability for a stand-alone article are different things. Do you intend to point out those types of sources per North8000's request? [Edit: BTW, my reference to not having heard of the theory or the person behind it was only to demonstrate that I post here without any bias regarding the article.] Location (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello guys, I think you have been too quick to judge about "notability" and "absence of secondary sources". I'm no expert about PROUT, and I've very short on time these day, otherwise I would help out to demonstrate and to better the article, however PROUT definitely passes notability. Famous people like Ravi Batra, Sohail Inayatullah, Noam Chomsky and many others has spoken, commented and/or written about PROUT. At least two very famous books of Ravi Batra (Great Depression of 1990, if I'm not wrong, is one of them) mentions, interprets and comments on PROUT. There is a small community being built up in Brazil, similar to the early Kibbutzim, but with PROUTistic ideology. Therefore I'm a 100% convinced that this article is notable and just if the web and the sources are searched well, there are many secondary sources, which can be used to better the article. Unfortunately I'm not so sure that there is a neutral and tertiary source writing about PROUT. But, helas, WP is, or supposed to be, a neutral and tertiary source! So Bob, instead of just deleting, why don't you be more constructive and find some sources, or tag them as "needs citation"? And one last note, without saying which I would feel silence imposed on me, it is always easy attacking articles that are being built by one or few people, whereas heavily biased and bombarded articles for real (unfortunately they do exist in WP), such as Palestinian people and others, are being protected by strong communities, this is injust and should not be permitted in WP. With PROUT though, this is not the case.--Universal Life (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Btw, other writers such as Dr. Susmit Kumar, Garda Ghista, Rodney St. Michael, Edward Quinn, Carl Davidson, Sarah Strauss, B Marie Brady-Whitcanack and many more wrote about PROUT and most of them are secondary sources, though some primary and some tertiary sources. There are secondary sources about PROUT even in many other languages than English, such as French, German and Finnish. --Universal Life (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not checked all the sources, but Garda Ghista published by AuthorHouse is a WP:SPS. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 22:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Two minor corrections:

• This is not canvassing; it is legitimate use of a noticeboard to seek help from uninvolved editors. That's what noticeboards are for. This is canvassing, and this is canvassing, because they are handpicking favourable editors to intervene in a debate on your behalf. Abhidevananda must stop canvassing.
• This section is for uninvolved editors. Looking at the article history, Abhidevananda appears to be the article owner, not an uninvolved editor.

It is frustrating that Abhidevananda misrepresents things so often. Please stop doing that. bobrayner (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

From CorrectKnowledge

On a cursory glance this article looks like an ideal case for blowing it up and starting over. Both WP:RS and WP:V stress that articles should be based on reliable third party sources. Most of the sources which include Ananda Marga and PROUT published material are self–published non–independent sources. Sections of the article further appears to violate WP:NOR. WP:PRIMARY suggests— "Policy: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them". The article extensively uses Sarkar's books (obviously primary sources) and often appears to synthesize/interpret his statements. For instance the sentence, "However, in most societies, many adults are uninterested to vote or lack the political awareness to make an informed choice. According to PROUT, such a condition enables capitalists to manipulate elections and control social policy" in the article is interpreted from the following statement in Sarkar's Human Society: The capitalists like democracy as a system of government because in the democratic system they can easily purchase the shudra-minded shudras who constitute the majority. It is easy to sail through the elections by delivering high-sounding speeches. No difficulties arise if election promises are not kept later on, because the shudra-minded shudras quickly forget them. Unfortunately, other stuff exists, personal knowledge etc. are not valid arguments to keep this content. If there are reliable independent secondary sources on this, then this article needs to be rewritten from those. Otherwise, it can be redirected to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar#PROUT: progressive utilization theory. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 22:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Five points in respect to the remarks by "Correct Knowledge" (CK)

1. The header on this section is "Opinions from uninvolved editors". Of course, one may interpret the word "uninvolved" in many ways. But, from my perspective, CK is far from being "uninvolved". I have had several run-ins with him in respect to the Sarkar-related articles, essentially because of his efforts to destroy them, similar to the actions of Bob Rayner. See, for example, the revision history to the Ananda Marga article, where... by the way... Bob Rayner is right now engaging in his accustomed destructive "editing".
2. To witness the extent to which CK is not at all "uninvolved" but rather in collusion with Bob Rayner, have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Abhidevananda/Archive. Presumably because I have stood up to their bullying, they joined forces in bringing a false accusation against me. Does it not stretch the assumption of good faith to the breaking point for us to imagine that CK just happened upon Bob Rayner's false sockpuppet complaint by chance and then similarly by chance appeared here to offer his "uninvolved opinion"?
3. As indicated in (1), CK's "edits" in respect to the Sarkar-related articles have been consistently destructive (just like the "edits" of Bob Rayner). The suggestion that the PROUT article should be "blown up and restarted" only confirms CK's regular habit and the reason why this article is now being protected.
4. Please note that I have requested ratings from seven portals. Thus far only two portals have responded, but both of them have rated the PROUT article as "B-class" quality. (The earlier version of the article that Bob Rayner would like to go back to was rated as "Start-class" quality.) It seems to me that two ratings of "B-class" quality from genuinely "uninvolved" editors should supersede the opinions of individuals who clearly have an axe to grind (as demonstrated in my first three points above).
5. If there are any issues with the PROUT article - for example, too much primary source material or not enough secondary source material - those problems may be addressed in time. Wholesale destruction of an article on an undoubtedly notable topic is hardly merited, and the effort to achieve such a mischievous end only tends to discourages participation on Wikipedia by new editors like myself. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have taken your suggestion and moved both your and my comments to a new section. For the record, I have never actually edited PROUT and have openly disclosed by contributions to Ananda Marga on other forums. I pointed out in my comment that other stuff exists and personal knowledge are not valid arguments to be used in discussions on Wikipedia. Ad hominem, though not formally acknowledged as an invalid argument, is not a great way or arguing your case on WP either. It is a bit ironic that you keep attributing bias to other editors when you're the only person here with any real conflict of interest (keep WP:COS in mind when citing your own work). Please also note, any editor can change article ratings without any prior notice. If I were you, I wouldn't stress this point too much. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 09:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Second response to CK

It is amusing that someone who has just colluded with Bob Rayner in a false accusation of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry against me would comment on the propriety or impropriety of an ad hominem argument. When the sockpuppetry accusation was dismissed, they begged for meatpuppetry! :) However, leaving this brazen hypocrisy aside, I find it absolutely shocking that CK would go to such lengths as to threaten me - or threaten this article - for having pointed out that genuinely uninvolved editors from two portals have recently rated this article as B-class quality (elevating the rating from Start-quality). Isn't that point exactly what this discussion is about? But CK - after posing as someone with no axe to grind (no conflict of interest) - only responds to that point with: "Please also note, any editor can change article ratings without any prior notice. If I were you, I wouldn't stress this point too much." Does anyone really believe that CK has offered this advice to me out of genuine concern for my welfare, the welfare of Wikipedia, or the improvement of this article? Regrettably, CK makes Wikipedia sound more like a mafia than an encyclopedia. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Votestacking and meatpuppetry accusations were admitted as reasonable even if inconclusive, but that's besides the point. I didn't bring that up here, neither have I threatened you. However, your refusal to address the violation of core Wikipedia policies and personal attacks on other editors are getting disruptive. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Currently, we have a broken article - links that go nowhere, sections that make no sense, and so on. As the discussion is going nowhere, I offer a proposal. I propose that we revert to the last complete version of the article and then go through the article section by section to discuss changes and hopefully arrive at compromises that will satisfy everyone. --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This proposal I can agree with. Let's go back to the version on 2 October 2012. Any subsequent changes to the article should be first discussed on the talk page so that editors can reach a consensus on the proposed changes keeping in mind Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 11:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, CK, I am glad you can agree with the proposal. But, obviously, that is not the version that I was talking about. More than 200 hours of work went into improving that Start-class article. And there is not enough material in that version to warrant discussion. The version I was referring to is the "last complete version of the article", namely the version from 2013-01-08, [1], which had a much improved B-class rating from two portals. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Building a consensus on the exact version to which we can revert would be a start. My reasons for reverting to an earlier version tally with my comment above. I'll wait for comments from other involved/uninvolved editors. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 12:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I was not directly working on this article, but since it is related with the project dedicated at the extensive work of Shrii Shrii Anandamurtijii, sometimes I give a look at this talk. If my opinion is well accepted. First of all I noticed a step forward in the discussion. Abhidevananda agrees with the proposal of CorrectKnowledge to discuss all points of the article. Of course he cannot agree to delete all of is long work. If you agree I propose to maintain all the work of Abhidevananda discussing all the parts and inserting all the secondary sources that it's possible to insert.--Cornelius383 (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of the problematic content was added in October-December 2012; so going back to a version at the start of October would solve most of the problems immediately. bobrayner (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Second request for reliable secondary sources independent of the subject

As alluded to above by three uninvolved editors, the article is lacking significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. These types of sources are imperative in order to maintain the existence of a stand-alone article that fulfills the criteria set forth in WP:N. A request was previously made for evidence of these types of sources, but thus far none have been provided. Please provide them here so that we can have the material necessary to re-build the article. Thanks! Location (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In many independent and reliable secondary sources PROUT finds no more than 2–3 lines in a section on Ananda Marga, Sarkar etc. (such as in this book). A few self–published sources from iUniverse, lulu.com and others do mention PROUT in some detail, but we can safely ignore those. Lewis, James R. (2011). Violence and New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press. pp. 258–263. ISBN 978-0-19-973563-1. is a reliable secondary source which describes PROUT in some detail (another version of the book). From what I can see, there aren't that many reliable independent sources on this topic and following summary style should lead us to an article of far lesser size than the current one which contains lot of original research based upon primary sources. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 23:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Inayatullah, Sohail (2003). "Planetary Social and Spiritual Transformation: P. R. Sarkar's Eutopian Vision of the Future". In Shostak, Arthur B. (ed.). Viable Utopian Ideas: Shaping a Better World. New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc. pp. 208–215. ISBN 9780765611055. appears to lean to the positive side of neutral, but it does appear to be from an academic source and grant significant coverage to the subject. Location (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments: Proposals

Progressive utilization theory is currently protected due to an edit war. Concerns have been raised that the article has an overabundance of primary and/or proponent sources. Some proposals have been offered below to address these concerns and others. Please indicate your opinion about the discussion. - 21:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Proposal by Titodutta
2. Proposal to replace current content
3. Proposal to integrate the secondary material collected by Location into the current article

Proposal by Titodutta

It is being proposed that–

Wikiquette

• Proposal #1 A: Ac. Abhidevananda's edits were good faith edits and should not be negatively tagged (see proposal #2 before commenting)
• Proposal #1 B: Bobrayner etc tried to follow Wikipedia policies, so there edits should not be tagged as vandalism or non constructive edits either (see proposal #2 before commenting)

Wikipedia policy

• Proposal #2: Ac. Abhidevananda's edits were good faith edits, but actually those do not match with Wikipedia guidelines (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FIVE etc etc..).
  • There are possibilities that their philosophical/religious theories are/will be highly helpful for mankind/society etc.
  • It is also possible that Ac. Abhidevananda's work on PROUT or Neohumanism etc are really high standard work or even one of best works ever.
  • And we can not doubt on Ac. Abhidevananda's personal expertise on these subjects who is researching on these subjects for 40+ years.
    BUT
    In Wikipedia, we don't do this. We don't judge what is right and what is wrong. "Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia, not a manifesto or even a journal". (see last part of proposal #3 A for an example)

So,

Content

• Proposal #3 A: it is being proposed to keep only those content which are supported by independent scholarly works. Again, this is not an attempt to defame the organization or the editors. This is just Wikipedia policy. For example, if Einstein comes to Wikipedia and says he wants to publish a new theory on "Super special relativity" (sounds interesting, is not it? ), most probably we are going to say the same thing what we are saying here "No, Mr. Einstein, Wikipedia is not a platform for such original research."
• Proposal #3 B: We can discuss on Wikipolcies, but, we will not attempt to assess or judge Parabhat Ranjan Sarkar's or Ananda Marga's works in general.
• Proposal #3 C: (needless to say) they obviously can start their own Wiki and collect content from Wikipedia articles under CC SA license or they can write e-books using lulu.com etc. If we can we'll provide them technical suggestions. --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Support

• Support Proposal #3 of Tito Dutta who is obviously speaking from a lot of experience at WP:AAU. :) Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 04:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support proposal 3A and 3C; it looks like a direct route to much higher quality content, bypassing the problems we've seen recently. I'm not convinced that "scholarly" is essential here - there may be non-scholarly sources that are helpful in certain areas. "Independent" can be problematic too - for instance, people closely associated with PROUT &c have been used as "independent" sources on related articles. However, in general, I think 3A and 3C are helpful. But what is proposal 3B for? Can you clarify? bobrayner (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

See below --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support 3a. I was summoned by the RfC bot so haven't been involved before, and this seems like the least amount of original research. Dreambeaver(talk) 20:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support 3a. I had thought the RfC was for the content replacement proposal below. This is just a restatement of policy. Garamond Lethet
  c 17:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support #3a But a bit of compromise is OK too. All of the rest of the items aren't really specific proposals. North8000 (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support 3a. This appears to be the only true proposal put forth by Titodutta, but I support it as a start to getting the article back into line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding reliable sources. Location (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. I find it difficult to agree with proposal 1A (and, hence, part of proposal 2), considering the personal attacks, the repeated violations of wikipedia policies after they'd been pointed out by other editors, the incompatibility of some of Abhidevananda's actual edits with their claimed intent, and so on. But, hey, let's try to move forward - it's possible that things could be different in future. I'm not bothered about individual editors; what matters is the content. Serious problems have been found in the content; the content should be fixed. bobrayner (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: These strike me as not so much proposals as a series of dogmatic statements, based on a false premise and leading to an absurd conclusion (see new section created). --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Tito Dutta: Thank you for your neutrality and your efforts to attempt to resolve this dispute. I understand the need to recognize that everyone is working in good faith, however, the only actual proposal above appears to be "keep only those content which are supported by independent scholarly works". My point of view is that some use of material from primary sources or sources not independent to the subject may be allowed but that the article should first be built upon secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Achieving this end by working backwards is frequently a difficult proposition. I think we should formulate a couple different options for specific actions on what should be done with the article as it currently exists. One option is to do nothing and leave it as it is. As we have seen, this will not work as edit wars will resume immediately after it comes off protection. Another option is to send it to Afd. This may settle the issue if it is deleted, however, it will not if it survives. A third option that has been presented is to revert to some version in the past. A fourth option is to start over with a short paragraph build upon reliable secondary source material. A proposal to userfy the current material could be included with these other proposals to address the concern regarding loss of content. There may be others options, too. Location (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Another option is to send it to Afd..

a) Rationale/criteria? b) notability is not an issue c) are you suggesting WP:TNT? --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject indicates that notability is an issue. Whether or not this should be a stand-alone article is one issue still to be resolved here. I imagine that blowing it up and starting over would be closer to the fourth option I mentioned, but a fifth option would be to merge and redirect. Location (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a trip to AfD is viable. Regardless of the problems with the content, which currently seem impossible to resolve with normal editing, any AfD would surely get a lot of keep !votes. bobrayner (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. We can chalk that up as an "oppose" for sending to Afd. Some sort of action needs to be taken. What do you propose? Location (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I would propose that we remove content which is untrue, overly promotional, or can't be supported by independent sources. However, it is difficult to do this without somebody hitting the revert button. All alternative suggestions welcomed... bobrayner (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Your method has led to an edit war which resulted in a locked article. That is the first option noted above. I have already noted four alternative suggestions. Location (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can think of an alternative solution which removes the problematic content but which will not get automatically reverted, I would be deeply impressed and very grateful. bobrayner (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The draft below looks excellent. If everyone agrees, the current version can be replaced with that version after doing some more work. I collected some JSTOR documents on Ananda Marga etc. I have saved those in Google Docs. Tell me if you need those, I'll send you the Google Docs link! --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The draft at User:Location/Sandbox10 could use a few suggestions and references. Please contribute there. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 03:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the draft below, and the version at User:Location/Sandbox10 are both far better than the current article; I would be happy with either. THey would also appear to solve the problems identified by other uninvolved editors. bobrayner (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Location's sandbox article looks very good! --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I totally support Location's idea to prepare the PROUT article in a user's subpage to keep the edit wars out. To create such a draft and grow it with time was also in my mind for a while so that we could produce an excellent and neutral basis by secondary reliable sources and later to enrich it by the cautious use of primary sources, without analysing them. I didn't have the time until now but I think this is a very good way of resolving conflict. Thank you Location for not taking sides, trying to make peace and resolve the problem, without deleting an important article. I'll try to help with the sandbox as soon as I find time and I think to protect the main article as it is, for a longer period might be helpful for few reasons, such as edit wars and others --Universal Life (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I've just realised that the article was already protected again :) --Universal Life (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Giving credit where credit is due: The draft in my sandbox is essentially what CK has prepared below, but in a format that might be a bit easier to visualize as an article. Location (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

An initial draft of what PROUT would look like summarized from Violence and New Religious Movements by James R. Lewis (pp. 258–263):

PROUT, Sarkar's socioeconomic and political theory, is summarized in the fifth chapter of Ananda Sutram. PROUT divides the society into four classes sudras (labourers), ksatriyas (military–minded individuals), vipra (intellectuals) and vaisyas (capitalists).[Footnote on Hindu varna system would be required here] Each of the four classes dominate society cyclically, for a period of time, in an infinite social spiral. To prevent any social class from clinging to political power, Sarkar proposed the concept of Sadvipras (etymologically sat – true, vipra – intellectual).

Sadvipras were supposed to be a classless group of intellectuals and spiritual elites who would apply varying degrees of force on the society to allow power to be transferred from one class to another. The resulting change would be revolutionary in case of great degrees of force or mildly transformative if lesser degree of force was used. Nevertheless, Sarkar felt that a sudra revolution (worker's uprising) would always be necessary to wrest power from the capitalists (vaishyas) whom he saw as "immoral anti–social" exploiters. Sarkar further thought that "in most cases [such] popular emancipation is blood soaked". The Sadvipras were to be organized into legislative, judicial and executive boards which would be governed by a Supreme Board. Sarkar saw all countries in the world as being in different stages of the social cycle. He therefore wanted to establish a global Sadvipra society from disgruntled middle class intellectuals and military minded people. Since the establishment of such a society on a global scale would take time, Sarkar also advocated "blind physical force" to establish rule of the Sadvipras.[There is more content on Paramilitary activity proposed by Sarkar and secret military pacts with other organizations. I am not sure how relevant it is to PROUT and social cycle theory itself, so I'm leaving it out for now.]

PROUT's economic model envisions a world where key industries or public utilities are non–profit, a decentralized industry run by sociolinguistic unions (samaj) provide people's bare minimum necessities, and most of the economic transactions are through producers' and consumers' cooperatives. It distinguishes itself from Communism by proposing an incentive based economy where surplus in the society is distributed to people who serve the society.

Feel free to add/remove content/references. Please strike off the changed content so that the modifications are easily visible to other editors. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This is good stuff built from the sources that Wikipedia requires. Using some of this, I have also placed an initial draft in my sandbox for comments and suggestions. Location (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This version looks very good! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment on #3b It proposes not to assess those content or their real life works unless those are clearly related to Wikipedia discussion, personal opinion/feelings on those concepts, why we think those are right/wrong etc! --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Other comments

Result: Has gone dead with no resolution or decisions. Efforts on this have been and/or should be focused elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus was misleading, so I've changed the title to other comments. Dead or not RfC discussions need to be closed by uninvolved editors unless involved editors have reached a consensus before the 30 day period. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedias (including Wikipedia)

Brockhaus Enzyklopädie

Right or wrong

According to Tito, above: "In Wikipedia, we don't do this. We don't judge what is right and what is wrong. 'Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia...'". This statement is somewhat ambiguous, but it seems to imply a lack of concern with accuracy. Hence, I would ask: What use is an encyclopedia if it does not convey accurate information? See the Wikipedia article, Encyclopedia, whose graphic I borrowed. (Presumably, if Tito can use meaningless graphics, then so can I.) Does the Wikipedia article on encyclopedias state anywhere that there is no concern for "what is right and what is wrong"? Absolutely not! Rather, a major concern - perhaps the major concern - of every encyclopedia throughout history has been to convey accurate information. Yes, Wikipedia may have its own set of rules, but if those rules result in a suppression of knowledge or the replacement of knowledge with mere propaganda, then those rules run contrary to WP:FIVE and should be opposed on the basis of the fifth pillar, WP:IAR.

Reliable sources

Can it be rightly said that secondary sources are always more reliable than primary sources? Obviously not. And that is not what we find stated at WP:RS. What is said is only: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."

In respect to PROUT, it cannot be stated that Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar is not a reliable source. Rather, he is the most reliable source. PROUT is a theory propounded by a single individual and copiously set out by him. There are many supporters of PROUT around the world. There are some "research institutes" established to investigate PROUT (for example, in India, Denmark, and Venezuela). There is even a "Prout College" based in Australia as part of the "Prout Institute of Australia" (PIA). (For what it's worth, the "Prout College" used to have a separate article on Wikipedia until Bob Rayner eliminated that article as "non-notable" and redirected the link "to its nearest relative".) But, despite the existence of "institutes" and a "college", to the best of my knowledge, no one has yet added or subtracted anything substantial in respect to the theory. Hence, to reduce an article on PROUT to only "those content which are supported by independent scholarly works" [sic] would only lead to an article that either does not represent well or effectively misrepresents PROUT. Of what benefit is that to anyone who comes to Wikipedia in search of information on the subject? The answer is that we do a disservice to them rather than a service (again, a violation of Wikipedia's fifth pillar).

Verifiability

Is the material in the current PROUT article verifiable? Of course it is! Some reference information may have been inadvertently omitted, but great pains were taken to provide the necessary citations. Where the necessary citations are omitted, this may be remedied. If a remedy is not possible, then that content can and should be removed. But let's be clear about one thing. Nowhere in WP:RS and WP:V do we find anything so draconian as Tito's: "It is being proposed to keep only those content which are supported by independent scholarly works." Indeed, as mentioned above, such an approach would only lead to a great disservice to the public.

Imagine a courtroom where the judge refuses to hear any testimony from the accused party or from eyewitnesses but instead insists on hearing only hearsay evidence. Would that trial of fact be given any credibility? Absolutely not. But, in effect, this is what Tito recommends for the article on PROUT. In my estimation, the result of such an approach - as clearly demonstrated by the short alternative "articles" by "Correct Knowledge" and "Location" - is completely ludicrous. Tito may applaud, but I am confident that many would be appalled. There is a reason why Wikipedia, huge in content and popular online as it may be, is still given short shrift by many if not most serious intellectuals. Perhaps, a lack of concern with purveying accurate information and an overly rigid preference for secondary sources have something to do with that assessment.

Although this objection was not stated by Tito above, let me add here that that the rejection of material published in books by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar on grounds that this material might require a small investment to access it is absolutely untenable. According to WP:V: "Other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. This implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may only be available in university libraries." In the current article on PROUT, relevant books are cited, often with the exact quotation. Those books are available in the market place, and - for what it's worth - they are relatively cheap (although not as cheap as a free online source).

No original research

Tito has implied that what I have written is original research, per WP:OR. That is not at all the case. According to WP:OR, "The term 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." But, as indicated above, there are reliable, published sources for what is stated in the article on PROUT.

Tito gives an example: "If Einstein comes to Wikipedia and says he wants to publish a new theory on 'Super special relativity'... most probably we are going to say the same thing what we are saying here 'No, Mr. Einstein, Wikipedia is not a platform for such original research.'" Flattering as that example may be, I am no Albert Einstein. And there is no such original research presented in the article on PROUT. PROUT is a theory with many thousands of pages of documentation on it by its propounder, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. I am not P. R. Sarkar. All that I have done is to set out - in brief and with references - various key concepts of Sarkar's theory (PROUT). What I have presented is neither a "manifesto" nor a "journal". It is, for the most part, an alphabetical listing of some essential and well-documented elements of PROUT along with a short explanation - not promotion but just explanation - of each. I am confident - rather, I am certain - that this is entirely within the purview of any encyclopedia, including Wikipedia.

Conclusion

No doubt, I have less experience working with Wikipedia than Tito and most other editors here. But I do not have less experience working with encyclopedias in general. And I can read Wikipedia policies. From everything I have read, I see no significant breach of policy. Moreover, there certainly has been no intentional breach of policy. My impression is that some editors who prefer long-established and essentially mainstream concepts have become accustomed to applying some policies of Wikipedia in a rigid fashion. That may work well in respect to their preferred point of view, but it may not work well when presenting a relatively recent and much newer perspective. Wikipedia should not suffer - and the public should not suffer - just because some established editors with establishmentarian views happen to be allergic to anything and everything in the "Sarkarverse".

I am happy if anyone wants to improve the article on PROUT. If anyone wants to add one or more sections to the article, that is certainly okay with me. But we should not forget that this is primarily an article about a theory - the Progressive Utilization Theory. This is not an article about organizations, much less "religious sects". Accordingly, if anyone wants to add a section about organizations or religious sects, even if their name contains the word, "prout", I think that this might best be accomplished in a separate article. (A search for "prout" in Wikipedia brings up a disambiguation page with many links. This could be one more link.) But whether or not such material is included in another article or merely appended to this article, I propose that care should be taken to present accurate and informative content rather than merely parroting inaccurate or insubstantial remarks from an ill-informed or non-neutral source (primary or secondary, scholarly or not-so-scholarly).

--Abhidevananda (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Book/eBook/journal/own institution publication etc are the platform for such explanatory and/or research and/or original work. Not Wikipedia. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Tito, I have clearly stated - and it should be readily apparent - that the PROUT article is neither "research" nor "original work". However, I did indeed state that for the various key concepts a "short explanation" was appended. This is entirely in conformity with Wikipedia policy. For reference see WP:EXPLANATION, where it is stated: "This page in a nutshell: If you are using a term that is not familiar to the article's target audience, or which is used with an inusual [sic] or potentialy ambiguous meaning, you have to include a brief explanation of the term in the same article. A wikilink to the definition is not a substitute for that explanation." Pardon me, Tito, but I believe that this discussion would prove more fruitful if you would kindly support your opinions with credible policy links rather than just stating your opinions (sometimes cloaked as "proposals") as if they are incontrovertible fact. Have a look at the article on Capitalism. There is a lot of explanation in that article. The article is also mostly about theory. And, yes, the article even includes a lot of primary sources (for example, Adam Smith on Adam Smith, Milton Friedman on Milton Friedman, and so on). --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This article has so many primary sources that it does not look like an encyclopedic entry! Are you working on collecting secondary scholarly sources? --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, to the extent that this is practical and possible. Hopefully, I am not alone in that task. But I have already explained in detail above that scholarly - and neutral - secondary sources are much easier to find for older and conventional concepts than for relatively new and unconventional concepts. Perhaps your experience is primarily with articles related to the former type of concepts, and hence you find it difficult to comprehend or appreciate what is required in order to present an accurate article for the latter type of concepts. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In your talk page etc, I have mentioned multiple times, I am happy with the look and writing style of the article, but not at all with the sources and therefore the content. Multiple requests have been made in AFDs or as in here etc to present reliable neutral sources which are unanswered and/or unsolved. In Wikipedia we don't work on this policy "add content and sources later.."! --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Come on, Tito. Please don't misrepresent my position and then declare Wikipedia policy against that straw man. No one has suggested that we should "add content [now] and sources later..." I have done my level best to reference all of the material in the PROUT article with entirely reliable and entirely verifiable citations. You may question the neutrality of my main source (being primary), but it is absurd to question the reliability of that source. As for "neutrality", that is a very subjective concept. Yes, there are indicators that suggest neutrality, but those indicators cannot and do not ensure neutrality. Hence, none of those indicators should be rigidly required (per WP:IAR). In this case - in an article that sets out to describe a theory but carefully avoids any attempt to evaluate that theory - I don't see any conflict of interest or threat to neutrality when quoting the primary source. Indeed, from what I can see in Wikipedia articles that primarily discuss theory (for example, the article on capitalism), quoting the primary source of a theory seems to be a regular and well-accepted practice on Wikipedia. Presumably, that is so, because it is the most practical and most credible way to present accurate - and entirely neutral - information about the theory. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliability etc of those primary sources are not being questioned (read proposal#2 above) which you are continuously misunderstanding! The thing we are asking is "reliable secondary sources"! Both "reliable" and "secondary"! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"Proposal 2", as I read it, says nothing at all about the reliability of primary sources. And "Proposal 3A" insists on having only secondary sources. Obviously, I totally reject that proposal (3A). In my estimation, it is irrational, and it does not conform with either Wikipedia policy or Wikipedia precedent. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is better than that, that proposal like all other proposals seek only support of some "reliable secondary sources"! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but both of the alternate articles that you appreciated employ only secondary sources. And both of those alternate articles are riddled with inaccuracies. The article that we have now employs a combination of primary and secondary sources, and its content is - to the best of my knowledge - entirely accurate. Tito, I cannot say what you consider to be "reliable", but I don't consider any source that provides inaccurate information to be "reliable" (regardless of the author's reputation, the author's classification as "secondary", or the documentation's publishing house). To get good results, sometimes we need to temper our preferences (or policies) with Wikipedia's fifth pillar WP:IAR. In an article that describes the theory of a particular individual, the best and most reliable source is generally the writings of that same individual on that same subject. In such cases, relying mainly on secondary sources only tends to degrade the quality of the article by ranking opinions and interpretations (generally non-neutral) over facts (generally neutral). --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

We are going round and round. In stead of collecting reliable secondary sources you are trying to feed the dead horse! If you are busy for some reason, send those to me, I'll try to incorporate those! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Besides, "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." In practice this boils using no more than quotes and bare minimum statistics from primary sources because almost anything else will require interpretation, analysis, synthesis etc. It is a bit strange that you are using WP:IAR to justify flouting all policies. Maybe WP:IAR?#What "Ignore all rules" does not mean will help. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not a strawman. Abhidevananda's recent edits to the article have added large volumes of unsourced and badly-sourced content. You are entitled to your own beliefs but not your own reality. bobrayner (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have made no significant "recent edits to the article". All that I did was to undo a series of edits by you, Bob - edits that effectively crippled the article. My main objection to your edits is that they are extreme and reckless. They tend to eviscerate an article or leave it with either no content or content that is obviously incomplete. Where another editor would ask for references, you simply delete any and all content that you do not deem suitable (by whatever standard). So, maybe some citations have been unintentionally omitted in the PROUT article. I never denied that. And I also said that either those citations should be supplied or the material removed. I never endorsed the intentional insertion of content without citations. Unfortunately, the article got protected once more before I could get a chance to review any sections that might require additional citations. I will be happy to do that when the article is once again open to edits. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Now what? A year's full protection?

I have requested full protection for this article twice in hope to reach a consensus– first time it was protected for 1 week, second time for 1 month! Now what? A year's full protection! I am no seeing no sign of reaching a consensus! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I expect that CorrectKnowledge or I will make a proposal in a day or two. Location (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's be optimistic guys, I think a month is a good time to finish the draft that Location started and to reach a consensus. (It might not happen but I think if we're optimistic and if we work with good volonty, it will be done) --Universal Life (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Tito, we are still a long way from reaching a consensus here. But the current protection has been imposed for 30 days, and we are still only 3 days into that journey. So, let's be patient here. We have had various proposals. Personally, I prefer to examine the current article section by section and discuss how each section may be improved once the protection is lifted. I am not at all in favor of any TNT approach. As I have mentioned repeatedly, the current article has already been rated as B-class quality on two portals. Even if it were demoted to Start-class quality, that would not justify WP:TNT. Any claim that the current "article's content is useless (including all the versions in history)" is simply unreasonable. As such, I consider the alternate articles by "Correct Knowledge" and "Location" to be non-starters. Regarding protection, you should also know, Tito, that you were not the only person to request it. I made the same request to admin as soon as the article was - in my estimation - prematurely unprotected. So, yes, currently there is a 30-day protection, and - if need be - I would not oppose a one-year protection. But, for now, let's get through this month. Hopefully, we will make some progress toward consensus; and, hopefully, the article will not be unprotected once more prior to the attainment of some consensus. --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

As redundant as it sounds, I am wondering if there would be any support for a proposal stating that all edits to add or remove content must first have consensus. Consensus to have a consensus would put a stop to edit wars when this comes off protection. Violators would quickly find themselves blocked under WP:3RR. That, or consensus to abide by WP:1RR for 30 to 90 days or so. Location (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• a) As a reviewer myself, I know while reviewing we first see the length of the article. Those two B class assessment are wrongly done. b) 1RR sounds good! --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hang on! 1RR? Isn't the article protected? --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, Location, I support a proposal stating that any addition or deletion of content must have prior consensus. What I don't agree with is TNT. I think that such an approach is entirely unwarranted, regardless of whether the current article be classified as B-class, C-class, or even Start-class. As to 1RR or 3RR, I'm cool with even 0RR... as long as everyone - including those who have not participated in any discussion on this Talk page - is compelled to adhere to the consensus rule. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Third request for reliable secondary sources independent of the subject

Wikipedia:No original research is a policy. The section regarding primary, secondary, and tertiary sources states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Primary sources may be reliable and some may even be included, however, the construction of an article based primarily on primary sources is explicitly not allowed. Even if the information is correct, the construction of an article based primarily on primary sources gives undue weight to the subject as an encyclopedia topic and likely violates other policies including advocacy (i.e. WP:SOAPBOX). The entire philosophy need not be presented here as external links to some primary source material is permitted. With very few exceptions, Wikipedia runs by consensus and the consensus here appears to be that the article has way too many primary sources connected with the subject and not enough secondary sources that are independent of it.

The far, the following sources have been located that provide significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject:

• Lewis, James R. (2011). Violence and New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press. pp. 258–263. ISBN 978-0-19-973563-1.
• Inayatullah, Sohail (2003). "Planetary Social and Spiritual Transformation: P. R. Sarkar's Eutopian Vision of the Future". In Shostak, Arthur B. (ed.). Viable Utopian Ideas: Shaping a Better World. New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc. pp. 208–215. ISBN 9780765611055.

Are there any others? Location (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I had made some research and found some more but I didn't have the time to right them here in WP. Give me some time and I'll add them here. --Universal Life (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Location, pardon me, but I believe you are misstating Wikipedia policy. You have quoted one sentence from a policy, and then you added several statements of your own without providing any source. You claim: "The construction of an article based primarily on primary sources is explicitly not allowed." I would ask you to show me where that is stated explicitly. In fact, there is a specific policy given at WP:PRIMARY that seems to contradict your statement. In other words, your statement of policy is more extreme than what is written at WP:PRIMARY. Let me quote that policy for you in full:

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.[3]

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.

So, this policy - which is clearly directed in relation more to events than the highly exceptional case of a comprehensive social theory that is essentially the work of just one person - explicitly states that primary sources may be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". This is exactly what has been done. There is a statement in that policy that reads: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Again, I believe this is what has been done (except perhaps in one instance - the section on Criminology - where an overly long passage consisting of five subsections is based on a single primary source citation, something that I would rectify if the article is unprotected for a couple days).

Nevertheless, and just to be clear about this, I am not at all opposed to secondary sources. As pointed out, there are many secondary sources. However, as has also been observed by others here, most of those secondary sources limit their comments to very brief "evaluations" or "synopses" of large and complex aspects of the theory. As such, they often amount to little more than opinions. There are, of course, some exceptions, for example, Ravi Batra in respect to Sarkar's theory regarding social cycle. So, clearly, secondary sources exist, some of them more reliable than others; and those secondary sources deserve reference in the article on PROUT. However, with respect to the bulk of this article - "straightforward descriptive statements of fact" about key concepts of PROUT - the fact remains that the most reliable and most appropriate source can only be the primary source that has been used. Any other approach only invites error. See, for example, the short alternate article put forward by "Correct Knowledge" and his discussion with "Location" about the short alternate article that "Location" constructed in his sandbox. Even "Location" was obliged to reference the primary source in order to counter the error that "Correct Knowledge" wanted to introduce into the article based on his reading of a secondary source. In other words, "Location" points out to "Correct Knowledge" that one point which CK's short article emphasized was in fact explicitly contradicted by Sarkar himself. However, we do not find in the short article by "Location" the accurate information. We only see an absence of information. These two proposed "articles" are just a few paragraphs long, but they already project obfuscation and even significant error. If I were to evaluate their worth as articles on PROUT, I would have to say that they amount to little more than a short catalog of secondhand opinions. That is not at all what I would expect from an encyclopedia nor is it likely that I would consult an encyclopedia to discover such type of information. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Location was only correcting me from the same secondary source that I had used. Your long arguments are not going to alter Wikipedia's policy of relying on reliable secondary sources. A "comprehensive social theory that is essentially the work of just one person" is not an exception to the policy. There are no exceptions to it. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 21:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Abhidevananda, Wikipedia:No original research pertains to all subjects. It explicitly states: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." The consensus here is that the foundation of this article (i.e. its base) is indeed primary source material. Of course there is smattering of secondary sources in this article (e.g. Abraham Lincoln, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, Armen Alchian, Ronald Dworkin, Lawrence Lau, Martin Cooper (inventor)), but none of them discuss PROUT and all are used in manner consistent with original research. Location (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just for the record, "independence" is a subjective evaluation. So, Location began this section by requesting "reliable secondary sources independent of the subject" and stating that he had located two such sources: James R. Lewis and Sohail Inayatullah. But if we examine those two sources closely, we discover that they are not very independent at all, and reliability may also be in question even if "secondariness" is not.

Regarding the 2011 James R. Lewis book that Location mentions, a close examination shows that the pertinent section of the book in question is word-for-word the same as an earlier published article by Helen Crovetto, entitled "Ananda Marga and the Use of Force" (2008). Why the sections are word-for-word the same is not known to me. I only noticed this recently. Perhaps - hopefully - the James R. Lewis book is merely a compilation of articles by various people. However, regarding Helen Crovetto (the actual author of that section of the book), according to what I have heard (and I apologize if this information is wrong), she was once a nun of Ananda Marga who subsequently got married (to Raphael Voix, if I am not mistaken). Certainly, she was once a member of Ananda Marga. As such, to what extent is it reasonable to classify her as either independent or reliable? Persons in such category often have an axe to grind... see, for example, Martin Luther.

Regarding Sohail Inayatullah, to my certain knowledge, he is - or was - an initiated member of Ananda Marga (having the Samskrta name, Subodh); and - at least until recently - he has been closely associated with the "Prout College", which is part of the "Prout Institute of Australia". So how then does he become particularly "independent"?

As I see it, independence and reliability are highly subjective concepts. As to the notions of "primary source" and "secondary source", these concepts are relative in nature. Hence, we can only do our best to get at the truth through a judicious examination of all information. There are no easy shortcuts. Just quoting a secondary source whose books are sold by a reputable publishing house is no substitute for study. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Some Secondary RSs

1. PROUT is an acronym for Progressive Utilization Theory.
2. Economics of Liberation: An article about PROUT from the executive director of WESPAC, Nada Khader. The article includes many sub-titles such as "An Overview of PROUT", "Building Communities", "New Definitions of Economic Progress", "Economic Democracy", "Three Tiers of Enterprise", "Globalization", "How Will it happen?" and "Personal Change".
3. A magazine called "Carnegie Newsletter" from Vancouver, Canada published an article about PROUT in its October 1990 publication. It seems that the article is an interpretation of Sarkar's work on PROUT.
4. A book by the famous South African Desmond Mpilo Tutu, a social activist and a retired Anglican bishop, Experiments With Peace has a chapter called "Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Global Financial Crisis" by Sohail Inayatullah. In that chapter Inayatullah explains the "narratives that frame" and one of them is called Eco-spiritual renewal - A window of opportunity. According to Inayatullah, this narrative combines the works of Eckhart Tolle, Sarkar and Galtung and that PROUT is the solution to the problems created by capitalism according to Sarkar, Hazel, Henderson and Galtung. See details.
5. Denis Bellamy, Professor Emeritus of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy in the University of Wales and the chairman of the UK Conservation management system has written a pile of articles in his website Cultural Ecology. There he wrote a chapter on PROUT.
6. An article by Arun Srivastav, after an interview with Bhaveshananda writes about PROUT.
7. An Ohio Republican Party politician Bob Taft wrote about PROUT in a Yahoo Groups message. I wouldn't take it as a serious writing if it wasn't written by Mr. Taft himself.
8. The PhD Dr. Gopala Sastry writes an article called "What is PROUT?".
9. These are some that I found by searching google.com with "Progressive Utilisation Theory". There are more and I'll use other variations while searching. And there also books by Ravi Batra, Inayatullah, Tolle and other that might not be online. These are really good secondary sources. I'll add in this very place as much as I can. --Universal Life (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is helpful. I'll take a closer look at them later. Thanks! Location (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

#1: The "Terms of Use" page contains some disclaimers that concern me, however, I think the sourcing for the acronym is already covered in other reliable sources. #2: The author is affiliated with PROUT and the information was submitted by a PROUT organization (i.e. not independent of the subject). This one would need to go through WP:RSN to find out if there is a specific context in which this information could be used. #3: Various concerns regarding it's reliability and republishing (i.e. photocopying) of possibly copyrighted material. #4: This one may be acceptable; however, I cannot access whatever discussion pertains to PROUT. #5: The author appears to be an academic, but the material appears to be self published. Not sure, so I put it up on WP:RSN. #6: This one would also need to go through WP:RSN. #7: Forum posts are general not reliable. #8: This one would also need to go through WP:RSN. I cannot find anything about the author. #9: I forgot about the British English spelling. There does appear to be a few more sources with brief mentions in GBooks. Location (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: #5 should be OK per the discussion on WP:RSN. Location (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Great! Unlike James R. Lewis, who turns out to be no source at all (as the article in question was actually written by Helen Crovetto and not Lewis) and unlike Sohail Subodh Inayatullah (whose material is highly supportive but not entirely independent), Dennis Bellamy may actually be independent, may actually have written something, and what he writes might also be accurate in relation to PROUT. So this is definitely a source that I would be happy to incorporate into the current article, for example, in the sections on Cooperatives, Economics#General economy, Democracy#Economic democracy, Minimum Requirements, Self-sufficiency, Socioeconomic Zones, and perhaps even the section on Unemployment. This is good stuff. Very helpful. Let's keep it coming! --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Bellamy. He says the material he is positing is a reprint of an article by Sarkar "PROUT was conceived by P.R. Sarkar in 1959 who in the article below outlines some of the basic features of a decentralised, cooperative economic system built upon the principles of PROUT." So it isn't a usable source, because Bellamy himself never discusses the theory. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to replace current content

Proposal

I hereby propose that all content in the current article be removed and replaced with the content in the above draft. For 30 days after this change, the addition or removal of content that is challenged or likely to be challenged should be brought to the the talk page for discussion and consensus. This includes the sections pertaining to "External links" and "See also", as well as images, templates, and categories. Location (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Support

• Support as nominator. Various Wikipedia policies and guidelines do permit the inclusion of primary source material, self-published material, and secondary source material not independent of the subject. I have no strict objections to the inclusion of this material provided that it is done by consensus. Location (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Looks good, needs expansion and segmentation! --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Moving to "Neutral" --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support A good sound start instead of the current article which is not only problematic, but which is such that it would make an evolutionary fix too difficult if it did not cause the article to get deleted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Big improvement. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support; big improvement - doesn't have any of the problems of the current content. bobrayner (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support: I would like to see this become a much stronger article and this looks like the best way forward. GaramondLethe 22:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Garamond, the way as it appears at a first look might look like the best way forward (I was also deceived at first look), however the first two sources are completely biased, inline citations have not been made where they needed to be made and this draft was really rushed and not made properly. --Universal Life (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable independent sources are not required to be neutral or even-handed. That is why we have such a detailed NPOV policy in the first place. If you think that an assertion by one or more sources is biased, present reliable sources that offer a different POV and we can balance the section appropriately. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 23:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Universal Life, inline sources can be fixed and I hope you'll stick around to help edit this draft. As to sources being biased, to paraphrase Correct Knowledge, the best way to drive out bad secondary sources is with better secondary sources. Were there any reviews of Lewis's book that commented on the bias? Has any follow-up work been done? GaramondLethe 23:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"The best way to drive out bad secondary sources is with better secondary sources." What an absurd proposition! The best way to drive out bad secondary sources is by painstakingly verifying the accuracy of the content of those secondary sources. As to "balancing of a section", that is not a big issue. Balancing of an entire article, however, is a big issue. Until I pointed out that the article in Lewis's book that essentially treats the organization, Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha - not PROUT (the social theory) - seemed to be word-for-word the same as an earlier Helen Crovetto article, no one here apparently realized that the words being cited were not written by Lewis himself. Yes, Crovetto does include a couple pages of remarks about PROUT, the social theory. But did Location - or anyone who supports Location's draft - ever take the trouble to actually verify any of Crovetto's assertions about PROUT. No, they did not. But, hey, the book in which that article appears was published by Oxford University Press, no less! :)

The simple truth is that Crovetto's remarks - which, as Universal Life rightly observed, are clearly the primary source for Location's draft - are merely a smattering of speculative, highly biased, and often completely wrong or misleading comments. Crovetto even gives worthless citations for non-existent quotations, perhaps expecting that her readers or reviewers would never take the trouble to verify those quotations and citations. Crovetto is not at all neutral and - it would seem - not even honest. So her remarks can in no way substitute for accurate and informative quotations from Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar.

As none of the supporters of Location's draft seem in the least bit inclined to read any material by P. R. Sarkar, it is pointless for me to list all of the bogus quotations and citations. However, if anyone wants proof of Crovetto's lack of neutrality, s/he only needs to read one short paragraph in Crovetto's article (though I could offer many more examples). Crovetto writes: "A bloody incident occurred in April 1982 near the Kolkata suburb of Tiljala, which involved local residents and zealous Ananda Marga sannyasis. The sannyasis were attacked and seventeen were killed. This episode, described below, may have been due to Ananda Marga’s proselytizing." What actually happened is that sixteen peaceable monks and one peaceable nun of Ananda Marga happened to be crossing a bridge in taxis on their way to the organizational headquarters in a Kolkata suburb. How Crovetto ascertained that all of those seventeen persons were "zealous" is, of course, never revealed. As to the rest of the story, you can read about this incident on Wikipedia at Bijon Setu massacre. Just to sum up regarding Crovetto and her account of events, the way she describes this incident, the victims were responsible for the crime. It is the equivalent of saying that the unfortunate woman recently raped and ultimately murdered in Delhi was responsible for her grievous mistreatment, because she had no business traveling on a bus, even if she was accompanied by a male friend! As Crovetto would have it, how dare those Ananda Margiis cross a bridge in taxis in broad daylight!

Okay, Garamond asks a question: "Were there any reviews of Lewis's book that commented on the bias?" The answer to that - as might have been discovered by Garamond himself (preferably before he cast a vote) - is Yes. A google search by myself just now quickly turned up this book review, which asserts numerous allegations of bias and also misrepresentation of fact. But accusations of bias against James R. Lewis are nothing new. We even have a Wikipedia article that alleges the same thing in respect to another book of his, Scientology (James R. Lewis book).

So, again, let me point out that the draft proposed by Location is highly defective. The language of that draft - not just the one-eyed choice of references and the extreme over-reliance on that one-eyed choice of references, but even the language of Location herself/himself - is entirely POV. This renders that draft as thinly disguised OR based on absolutely no genuine study whatsoever of the subject purportedly under discussion. I questioned whether Location has read even a single article on PROUT by Sarkar, the eminent authority on the subject, and I received no response. For the record, there are many hundreds if not thousands of such articles. Hence, to call such a draft a sound basis for an article about PROUT is simply ridiculous. To support this cheap junk just because it is entirely hearsay that might not have been countered by more hearsay is even more ridiculous. And to ignore direct and far more reliable evidence to the contrary of that hearsay is not just more ridiculous still; rather, it is treacherous. It betrays the primary mission of every encyclopedia (hopefully including Wikipedia) for the last 2000 years. That mission is to correctly and comprehensively inform and ultimately educate the public. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's the relevant part of the book review you located.

Part III continues with Ananda Marga, PROUT (Progressive Utilization Theory), and the Use of Force by Helen Crovetto who offers an excellent summary about the history of this quasi-fascist movement. Founded by P.R. Sarkar (1921-1990) using Manichean principles of a “never-ending struggle between good and evil” (264) underscoring the Margiis’ “ideological totalism” as the answer to all the world’s problems (267). Sarkar preached that violence is useful for establishing a proper society that he called “benevolent dictatorship of the Sadvipras” (259) or spiritual elites of his choosing. Crovetto assures us that Sarkar and the Margiis were not inclined to terrorism but to “revolution” (268). Any “incidents of extraorganizational violence…were an aberration” (268) while Sarkar was in prison.

I didn't find any "allegations of bias". Which passage were you thinking of? GaramondLethe 07:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Garamond, have you forgotten that you asked for "reviews of Lewis's book", not reviews of one essay within the book? I am sure you could see that this review of Lewis's book clearly alleges bias as well as distortion of facts. And I am sure that you could also see that the review of another one of Lewis's books - a review here on Wikipedia - also alleges bias. Regarding the bias in Crovetto's essay, her description of the Bijon Setu massacre alone should establish that quite well for any rational person. There is no need for a google search and someone else to tell us what should be readily apparent to any honest and intelligent person. But let me say here that I find it very disappointing that you would ignore virtually everything that I said, acknowledging none of my points but merely coming back with a specious response like this. I would submit that it is this type of close-minded and argumentative communication that has prevented any consensus in this discussion and that has impeded constructive work on improving the current article (in accordance with the request of the Wikipedia admin who protected the article and Wikipedia policy). To the best of my knowledge, there is no Wikipedia policy or even any Wikipedia norm that endorses the hijacking of an article when neither AfD nor TNT is likely to succeed. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for finding the review. It has increased my confidence in the citation in the proposed new version. As to the rest, I find your arguments to be deeply unpersuasive. For the moment I believe that's all that needs to be said. GaramondLethe 09:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• If you do Ctrl+F in the review and write words such as "bias", "fact", "scientology", "allege", you can see quite a critique of the writer in these senses. --Universal Life (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support This is a good start to finding a way to approach the article and to avoid the overweight use of primary sources. Dreambeaver(talk) 20:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support No Brainer. Massive improvement over the piece of crap that is the current article (no offence). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose for the same reasons expressed above by Abhidevananda.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for many reasons:
  
  • If you see my previous comments I actually supported the collection of secondary sources. However, I supported as a means to prepare a good article through a well-edited and encyclopaedic synthesis of secondary sources with the current article. I think Location really rushed to remove and replace the article.
  • I said "rushed" because a) we have time until the 18th of February and b) There are many more and much neutral secondary sources thus if we rush like this the result will be replacing a good but perhaps not-well sourced article with a well-sourced draft. I support 100 % the use of secondary sources. But I do not support TNT at all. I support synthesis. Everything that is really worth encyclopaedic should be kept and not deleted and if we do TNT, it does not benefit the Wikipedia at all.
  • The first two references by Helen Crovetto are non-neutral and biased articles, explicitly prepared to take deliberate passages from P.R.Sarkar in order to create an false image of violence about Ananda Marga. To rely the first sentences of the lead to such a suspicious source is not acceptable.
  • We can use all this info in the article and/or we can enlarge the draft but I definitely oppose it as it harms the WP to do so. --Universal Life (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: First, my thanks to Cornelius for pointing out that consensus on this proposal by Location was always a non-starter. As I had already indicated to Location in discussion prior to his submission of this proposal, there is no way that I would support any backdoor attempt to impose WP:TNT here. As Universal Life also seems to suggest - and as I would stress - WP:TNT simply cannot be justified. Furthermore, as even Bob Rayner has stated, an AfD is also bound to fail. So, realistically speaking, this proposal appears to be nothing other than an attempt to hijack the article on PROUT (for whatever reasons, good or bad). Let me also reinforce the observation of Universal Life that, despite assertions to the contrary, this proposal by Location reflects an apparent desire to impose an article based 100% on secondary sources, in particular, one secondary source who is not at all independent or neutral or reliable. The end result, as seen in the content proposed by Location above, is a weakly disguised and essentially POV (not NPOV) 'book review about a book review'. In the final analysis, nothing is effectively well-sourced or very reliable in Location's proposed content, because we are not provided with any means of actually verifying that what is stated about PROUT is accurate. (I particularly note several sentences in Location's draft that are worded as if they are facts when in truth they are merely opinions - the opinions of a disgraced and defrocked nun.) In my estimation, implementing the proposal of Location would not just significantly lower the overall standard of the article on PROUT, but it would also lower the overall standard of Wikipedia.--Abhidevananda (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral Moved from !Support after reading the arguments of Universal Life. --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Since Location's suggestion had such broad support, and it obviously doesn't have the problems that the current article text has, I've made another attempt at updating the temp page to reflect this proposal. bobrayner (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that got reverted again. Nonetheless, Location's proposal seems to have broad support on this talkpage, and clearly complies with policy; I think it would be a good idea to update the article accordingly, if only Abhidevananda would stop reverting. bobrayner (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to integrate the secondary material collected by Location into the current article

The secondary material collected by Location is pertinent to the current article on PROUT. As such, this material should be incorporated into the current article either as part of an existing and relevant section or as part of a new and dedicated section. (The new section might replace the current "Critiques" section. It could perhaps be entitled "What others say about PROUT".) These two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Both could be carried out, even if that entails some duplication of content. It is therefore proposed that we collectively work on the appropriate wording of this secondary material (as well as any additional secondary material that may be collected) and that we identify the appropriate sections (existing or new) within the current article for its insertion.

Support

• Support as nominator. I see no inherent problem with including content from secondary sources (favorable, neutral, or antagonistic). Rather, I have always welcomed and supported that. However, as Location stated in his proposal (preceding): "Various Wikipedia policies and guidelines do permit the inclusion of primary source material, self-published material, and secondary source material not independent of the subject." As such and given the nature of this article, I believe that the current article is sound. I also believe that the current article would be enhanced by judicious insertion of material from secondary sources. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support: I agree with Abhidevananda.--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Agreed. It seemed the current article was not adverse to improvement along Wikipedic standards. Only against the observable dogmatic fashion in which the previous edits were handled - minus any subtlety for their intention provable by the rush of negative proposals put forward. In my mind, derogatory towards the subject and Wikipedia. Granted most have their biases - acknowledged or not - yet there are ways for improvement that are in a neutral fashion. More importantly, they are helpful in order to relate accurate information about a subject. DezDeMonaaa (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)— DezDeMonaaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support: I agree with the statements above. --Universal Life (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. The main problem with the article is that the current content is seriously flawed. Adding more good content does not fix that problem. bobrayner (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. An RFC was initiated that drew in three uninvolved editors who all agreed that the article is heavy on primary and/or proponent sources and should be rebuilt from reliable independent secondary sources. All of these editors eventually supported the proposal to replace the current article with the proposed draft, and integrating secondary sources does not address the issue of the overabundance of primary and/or proponent sources already in the article. Furthermore, there were three requests to provide sources consistent with the clause in WP:GNG that refers to “significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject.”[2][3][4] The only one agreed upon that sort-of-presents the philosophy in a neutral way is self-published. Without that sourcing, this article is a perfect candidate for Afd. Location (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This question has a hidden question as an implied premise, which is to not make significant changes to the material that is in there. Significant changes are needed to the existing material. North8000 (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: North, actually what is being proposed is going step-by-step. If you see User:Abhidevananda's comments below, he does support to make significant changes to the article through the addition of secondary sources and inline citations. So, this proposal is just the first step to do that...it's like saying, let's start by adding those secondary sources that Location used in his draft, with inline citations, but it also implies to improve (make significant changes) - however, going paragraph by paragraph. Unlike this idea, Location's draft and Bob's deletionist behaviour was to cripple the article into something extremely short and somewhat misleading. I'm always open to new ideas, however to delete almost an entire article, while it could be improved through collective efforts, is in no way to the benefit of WP. --Universal Life (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason I weighed in on deleting the current material is because of the large amount of changes combined with that the advocates might be fighting every change. With that combo, it would take forever to fix it in that environment. And by "fix" I don't mean favoring one opinion over another, I mean fixing immense policy violations. Below I put out another compromise-type idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposal violates Wikipedia's long standing policy of relying on material from reliable secondary sources. Content summarized from secondary sources cannot be placed as an afterthought, or in a separate section. In light of Universal Life's comment above, I'll leave a detailed reply on how content based on primary sources can be added to Location's draft without violating any Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• As Bob has stated his opposition, let's look at the alleged "serious flaws" in the current article. Other than what some people consider to be an over-reliance on primary sources (but which I would view as only the desirability of more secondary sources) and some missing citations, I really don't see any other substantive objections. Yes, some concern has been expressed regarding neutrality and verifiability. But when I look at the extremely short, proposed content of Location, I see a preponderance of non-neutral and unreliable content as well as uncited and - even when cited - unverifiable statements that are merely opinions presented as if they are fact. So if Location's material represents the standard of neutrality and verifiability that is sought here, I can only express my firm conviction that the current article far exceeds that standard. Since there will be no consensus for WP:TNT, I suggest that we look at the current article section by section and try to improve it. Instead of wasting time on recriminations and blanket condemnations, why not work cooperatively to produce a better article? This does not have to be a confrontational either-or situation. I believe, as Universal Life recommended, that we can synthesize all of our content into a GA-quality and highly informative article. I believe that this should be our objective here. I believe that this is the way to build Wikipedia. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• I tried removing unsourced and poorly-sourced content; you just hammered the revert button. Attempts to discuss the issue on this page have been fruitless - other uninvolved editors are surely capable of scrolling up. Just how many times do other editors have to explain which policies you're failing? bobrayner (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Bob, let's try to move on. Let's try to get beyond recriminations. Please consider the bigger picture. The fact is that many times times you have made edits - mostly deletions that I don't agree with - but still I did not undo them. --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Location, please pardon me for saying this, but it really seems to me that the remark attached to your vote comes close to gaming the system. Yes, Bob did post a notice to the "Fringe theories" board. And maybe his choice of noticeboards and the wording of his announcement and subsequent remarks there - and also your numerous announcements and subsequent remarks there - were all more or less neutral (though, of course, I am not saying that this was the case). And, yes, some people who watch or participate on that particular board did come to this discussion to cast a vote. And, yes, all of that may be permitted conduct on Wikipedia. But perhaps we would have seen something else if I had been an active participant on that particular noticeboard (or on any noticeboard). Had I posted a notice on a board where I am known to some participants - or on a board that is perhaps more inclined to support alternative theories - then maybe we would have seen a much larger number of "uninvolved" votes that went in favor of my views. But, regardless of all that, let's be clear about one thing. Without violating an assumption of good faith, it is not unreasonable to question the level of previous uninvolvement, independence, and reliability of anyone's views, including the views of those who may have came to this Talk page from the "Fringe theories" noticeboard. I do not mean to cast any aspersions here. I am just pointing out a simple fact - a fact that I could easily substantiate but prefer not to in the hope of calling a halt to pointless and unpleasant recriminations. Finally, regarding your opinion that "this article is a perfect candidate for Afd", you are, of course, at liberty to make such a nomination. You have already submitted and supported AfDs on some other material "located" in the Sarkarverse, so you may certainly add this article to your portfolio. However, it does seem strange to me that you would comment like this after having spent your time writing and submitting a proposed draft for this very article. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This article has substantial conflicts with Wikipedia policies

I don't remember how I ended up noticing this article ....If I remember right, I coached the primary author(s) during the AFD process on this one or related ones. This article has substantial conflicts with Wikipedia policies.

• As tagged, this article is written almost entirely from primary sources....this is is direct conflict with core policies.
• The lack of secondary sources also means the lack of content that is covered by secondary sources. As a result, the only thing that this article covers is self-descriptions of the tenets of this philosophy / belief set as described by its proponents. So what should be about 40% of the article has been expanded to about 100% of the article, and the other 60% is missing.
• The "references" section is such a mis-used mess that it obscures and violates wp:verifiability instead of providing compliance with it. It uses the split format which is supposed to be for providing cites with individual page numbers for references that have multiple uses (without having to repeat the detailed information for each cite) as an intermediary to a second section which provides detailed information on the references which would allow someone to go to it for verification. Instead the first section seems to have been used as a place to insert wikipedia-editor-generated text. Labeling wikipedia-editor-generated text as a "reference" is problematic. Then the second section has become the first mention of the reference instead of the required detailed info on the reference. And there is little or no info on what the particular references are.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments here, North. I was not aware that you had been previously involved with this article.

• Regarding your third bullet, this is the first time that I have heard that the format of the "References" section is so bad (a "mis-used mess"). Of course, I had heard a comment - from Tito, I believe, and possibly in respect to another article - that the format for my references is not consistent or perhaps up to standard. Nevertheless, regarding your critique, I believe it is a matter that can be rectified. For example, one of the things you seem to call for is a reversal of the order of the first two sections. That's not a difficult thing to do.
• Regarding your first two bullets, they seem to be very similar in nature - a complaint that the article relies too heavily on primary sources. I believe that is the main issue that keeps coming up in this discussion - the main issue that we are trying to remedy, at least to some extent, in accordance with the template that appears at the top of the article that is now protected.

North, clearly there is some disagreement regarding the requisite or appropriate percentages for primary and secondary references in this article (assuming that there are any hard-and-fast rules here). However, I would point out that the total absence of primary sources that we saw in Location's proposed draft resulted in content that was entirely dodgy. Indeed, it was so dodgy that I would go so far as to suggest that the secondary sources effectively became primary sources. For example, Location wrote sentences that included phrases like "Sarkar thought" or "Sarkar supported" or "Sarkar formulated" or "according to Sarkar", but he did not provide any direct source to substantiate such claims. So, we cannot verify whether the claim is correct or incorrect, and - even if the claim happens to be correct - we are given no means of considering the context. To be accurate, what Location should have written is "So-and-so claims that Sarkar thought, formulated, supported, or said". And, given the fact that Location did not do that, might we not also wonder whether Location's draft did not amount to a violation of WP:OR? I quote: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." While I am confident that Location wrote his draft in good faith, I don't believe that Location's draft meets that standard. Rather, what he wrote only made me wonder how anyone who has apparently not read even one original book on PROUT and possibly not even one original article on PROUT (and there are many hundreds if not thousands) in any way qualifies to write a Wikipedia article on the subject. Do we really want Wikipedia to be a place where the blind lead the blind by passing on gossip as if it is gospel? --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as an experienced impartial editor, when I read the current article what I say to myself "whew, that is so big and misses the mark by so far on being encyclopedic article that the only way to fix it in a reasonable time frame is to delete it and start over". And when I look at locations proposal, I say to myself "It's short and needs growing, but THAT is an encyclopedic article on the topic." Probably a good compromise solution would be to condense the material in the current article to about 1/2 of its length and to bring in locations draft as the "framework" of the article, with the condensed material from the current article becoming 1-2 sections within that framework. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said anything about reversing the order of the sections in the references section. The first step for a fix would be to remove all wiki-editor-written verbiage from the references except for the actual material defining the references (page number, name and type of publication, publisher, author, etc.) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, North... and perhaps a bit tongue-in-cheek... does Wikipedia award certificates of "impartiality"? Actually, I would not be surprised if it does, but I don't know how much weight I would give to those certificates. And how experienced does an editor need to be to "speak as an experienced editor"? For what it's worth, perhaps I also have a bit of experience now with respect to editing of Wikipedia articles. And I certainly consider myself to be impartial. Yes, I have views, just like you do. But I try to speak in a balanced and rational fashion. And both of us have a history of involvement with this article - you, from what you have said, for much longer than I.

North, I understand why you consider the current article to be "big". But perhaps what you don't understand is that the topic is actually much bigger. Speaking impartially, PROUT is a theory that encompasses more dimensions of social life than any other social theory that I am aware of. For example, many of the "key concepts" in the PROUT article would make little sense in an article about, say, capitalism. That is because, as a theory, capitalism is mostly about economics and has few specific and authoritatively sourced guidelines in other respects (except perhaps an explicit or implicit view on property rights). But, personally, I don't see why the size of the article should be a major concern. The article is structured in such a way - an encyclopedic way - that readers would not need to go through the entire article from start to finish but could easily jump to those sections that are of specific interest to them. Yes, we could certainly break down the topic of PROUT into multiple smaller articles on various subjects. But I have no doubt that this would only result in an accusation of attempting to proliferate articles in the Sarkarverse... and then there would be many more time-consuming AfD discussions, and so on.

Regarding Location's draft, whose "framework" you are recommending, I have to say that I don't see any significant framework. There is just a lead and then a See Also. As to the content of that draft, it is not at all impressive to me in terms of neutrality, reliability, and - most important - informativeness. And now that Location has declared his opinion that an article on PROUT might be "a perfect candidate for Afd", I certainly do not consider him to be adequately impartial to write anything at all on this subject. But, North, as you did not address any of the points I have already made about Location's draft, it seems pointless for me to merely repeat those points or add new ones. This is not yet a dialogue.

As to the question of citations, I must have misunderstood your point. I apologize for that. I admit to being somewhat confused as to what you were actually saying there. However, perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves by discussing citations when the main content is still in dispute. After we have resolved that dispute, I would certainly appreciate your help in any necessary repair work on my citations. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Long story short, roughly speaking, an article is supposed to contain what secondary sources said about the topic, with primary sources used only on a very limited basis. This whole article is the exact opposite....it consists of what the creator of the philosophy says about it. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

All quiet on the Western Front?

Or just– all quiet? This article is protected till 18 February! I strongly suggest to try to reach a consensus this time! So, wake up, Sid! --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll put up an Rfc to get more input. Location (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've placed a notice to get an administrator to find the appropriate place for the Rfc header. There are multiple proposals and walls-of-text on this page, so it might be difficult for people to find the two recent options. Location (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Titto, how do you expect anyone involved in editing this article, be able to try to find any sources, while 8 articles that they created have been almost simultaneously proposed for deletion. I find it quite discouraging actually, especially this kind of behaviour performed towards such newbies. About the RfC, the reason you mention is no reason to put it below one proposal and on the top of your proposal. And ideally, someone that hadn't given a proposal should have made the RfC.--Universal Life (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Since you're self-identifying as a newbie, I'll point out that if those articles are deleted there will be no bar to reconstituting them later (hopefully after they have been improved). You're not on a deadline, unless it's self-imposed. GaramondLethe 01:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As things stand, there is no reason not to get more uninvolved editors into the discussion. The only reason I put the Rfc header before my proposal was because it was the first of the two main proposals offered; and the header did not hide the fact that there were two below it. With all due respect to Titto, I didn't think people were still concerned with his proposal. Since you think people are, I'm fine with where you placed the Rfc header. Otherwise, take it to WP:ANI if you think I've done anything inappropriate. Location (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Garamond, how you are twisting my words!! I'm not self-identifying as a newbie, rather I'm a WP admin, (though not on the English WP). I'm well aware of your (and others') tendency to groupify people with the mentality "or you're with us, or with the enemy" - creating two opposing camps etc. However, I do not belong to any group, neither am I partial to any group, rather I go far beyond this groupist tendency and here, on WP, I try to do my best as to serve WP. Moreover, if I see injustice somewhere, people trying to defame another etc., I try to stop that, not only because it should not happen in WP, but also because it's inhuman. You also do not need to teach me that there isn't any deadline etc. (plus that's no guideline, just an essay) I'm also aware of WP policies. The only few things I wasn't aware of, perhaps, were some informal processes of the English WP, such as the RfC etc. So, don't try to play the smart alec with me. And don't twist my words! --Universal Life (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've picked up two of Batra's books that describe PROUT that aren't on the current reference list: PROUT and Economic Reform in India and the Third World and PROUT and Economic Reform in India. As a gratuitious aside: $DEITY in $AFTERLIFE but he's a terrible writer. "Prout is an acronym that Sarkar gives to his econimic, social and political philosophy. It derives from what he calls Progressive Utilization Theory, that is pro taken from progressive, u from utilization and t from theory, together make up Prout." Ok....

I also have a hard copy of Crovetto's VaNRM article. It's excellent. There's an earlier one that I hope to get a copy of on my way out of the library. I'm happy to make pdfs available to anyone who is interested. Looking forward to the results of the RFC. GaramondLethe 01:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• See here #Now_what.3F_A_year.27s_full_protection.3F, the article was protected for 1 week, and now for 1 month and we are no way near the shore! Hark Columbus, where is land? --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Garamond, that's your personal thought. This terrible writer was New York Bestseller. And of course you would call Crovetto excellent, because she selectively chooses out-of-context phrases from Sarkar to defame Ananda Marga. --Universal Life (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

RFCs or just another attack?

This is a continuation of the previous section, set out as a separate section for greater clarity. I apologize in advance for the length of my remarks, but the previous section raises many points of concern.

In principle I have no objection whatsoever to RFCs. Indeed, I am confident that no one would have objected to RFCs. However, due to the hasty and unilateral action of Location - taken without any attempt at achieving prior consensus - an unnecessary and undesirable cloud now hangs over the entire process that has been started. Reasonable questions have already been raised by Universal Life as to the way in which the RFCs have been carried out by Location. I also find it remarkable that Location would take it upon herself/himself to make these RFCs, when s/he is clearly non-neutral, and her/his earlier RFCs - or announcements - at Fringe/n were nothing but a thinly disguised form of canvassing. Universal Life is absolutely correct in asserting that the RFCs should have been made by a neutral person or, at least, by prior consensus. And Universal Life is also correct in asserting that the timing of these RFCs (in tandem with an assult by Garamond Lethe and Location on the AFD "front" [word borrowed from the title of Tito's previous section]) is entirely antagonistic and contrary to the objective of consensus. Below, I will amplify these points and offer some additional points.

Timing of the RFCs

Universal Life points out that there are numerous ongoing AFDs right now, and this is naturally a distraction, to say the least. Let's look at those AFDs for a minute. The last six (6) AFDs were all filed by Garamond Lethe. They were all filed on very new articles, and all of these AFDs are still open, as they were all filed only about four days ago. The two (2) AFDs just before Garamond's AFDs were filed by Location. I believe that at least one of Location's AFDs is still open. And there may also be some of the immediately preceding AFDs filed by Bob Rayner that are also still open. Regarding Garamond's AFDs, no doubt there is nothing he would like more than to have those AFDs sail through without any substantial opposition. Hence, in an entirely self-serving fashion, Garamond writes: "I'll point out that if those articles are deleted there will be no bar to reconstituting them later." How convenient for him! He says: "You're not on a deadline." Well, what was his deadline for filing six (6) AFDs on very new articles while the discussion here was still going on? Indeed, one of Garamond's AFD nominations is directly connected with this discussion. It concerns his nomination of the 26-volume PROUT In A Nutshell series (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PROUT_in_a_Nutshell). This is an amazingly weak AFD nomination, in which the nominator (Garamond) effectively admits the notability of the series in his very nomination. Obviously, that AFD nomination has a direct connection with the discussion here as the series is cited repeatedly in the PROUT article. So how can that AFD nomination be ignored? Another even weaker but still current AFD nomination filed simultaneously by Garamond is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prabhat_Samgiita. What makes this nomination particularly pertinent here is that it exposes the fact that Garamond Lethe and Location are joined at the hip. Garamond supported Location's AFD nominations, and so Location supported Garamond's AFD nominations. Look at the current AFD nominations for matters connected with the 'Sarkarverse', and one will see the very same people we find here. They all seem to have come here from Fringe/n, and they all seem to vote as a bloc. These people never contradict or even correct each other. And they never concede a single point. So, I repeat: What was the rush to make RFCs just now? Garamond created six new AFDs that will probably expire in the next four days, whereas the protection on this article is still in place for another 15 days.

Non-neutral language in the RFCs

The language in these RFCs was non-neutral. I quote: "Progressive utilization theory is currently protected due to an edit war. Concerns have been raised that the article has an overabundance of primary and/or proponent sources. Some proposals have been offered below to address these concerns and others. Please indicate your opinion about the discussion." The fact is that other very important concerns have been raised, but they are effectively swept under the carpet by the language of the RFC (hastily written, presumably by just one person with an obvious COI and without that person making any attempt at prior consensus). Regarding those other concerns, first, there is a strong concern that some editors have been deleting material carelessly, without regard for the impact upon the coherence of content in the article. That is the main factor that led to the edit war which resulted in the article being protected. Second, there is a strong concern that editors who are largely ignorant of the subject are seeking to hijack the article by imposing a form of WP:TNT without any justification for TNT. Third, there is a strong concern that those same editors would bury the entire subject of the article by creating an article that is little more than a critique of PROUT and, even more, a critique of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha. Due to the non-neutral language of the RFCs, persons who have a look at this discussion are likely to be biased before even reaching this Talk page.

Choice of boards for the RFCs

We could have - and should have - discussed which boards the RFCs should be posted to. For example, I have no idea why the RFC was posted to "Religion and philosophy". And I also am somewhat astounded that no RFC was posted to a board on economics, given the fact that the article is probably around 50% about economics. Clearly, the choice of boards where this RFC has been posted was also biased. For the record, PROUT is not a religion, and it is not a philosophy either. It is a socioeconomic theory. A look at the Categories at the bottom of the article shows: Social theories, Economic ideologies, Political ideologies, Law, Criminology, Sociocultural evolution, and Revolution. This should have given someone a hint as to the appropriate boards on which to post an RFC, but how many of those categories were covered? And if that hint were not enough, then a look at the portals where a rating has been requested might also have been illuminating. Those portals are: Economics, History, Crime, Sociology, Human rights, Law, and Politics. How many of those portals were covered? And where in any of those categories or portals do we find anything like "Religion and philosophy"? The very fact that an RFC was posted there suggests that the poster still has no concept at all about the article on which s/he has been commenting for weeks.

Placement of the RFC announcement on this talk page

Universal Life questioned Location's biased placement of the RFC announcement on this Talk page. Location replies: "The only reason I put the Rfc header before my proposal was because it was the first of the two main proposals offered." Location then goes on to argue that no one is currently considering Tito's prior proposal. But the fact is that the first serious proposal that was made came from me. It is found at Talk:Progressive_utilization_theory#Proposal. That proposal is still on the table, and it remains pretty much the position taken by several persons in this discussion. So the RFC announcement should have been placed much further up on the page. It should have appeared before the very first proposal.

Benefit of some cleanup before the RFCs were made

One last point worth noting is that it would have been good to do a bit of cleanup on this page before inviting further comments. For example, we all know now that North8000 is not really an uninvolved editor. By his own admission, he was involved with one of the earliest versions of this article. But he is still listed along with Itsmejudith and Location in the section entitled Talk:Progressive_utilization_theory#Opinions_from_uninvolved_editors. Of course, at this stage, it is also rather ludicrous to describe Location as an "uninvolved editor". Perhaps Itsmejudith is an uninvolved editor. But her/his remark was also inspired by the fact that s/he came here from Fringe/n and merely saw what s/he expected to see. S/he commented that this article "seems to be part of a walled garden of articles", which only demonstrates that s/he did not look carefully at the article under discussion. Even a cursory examination of the article would prove that it can in no way be characterized as "part of a walled garden of articles". So, that old section is rather meaningless, but it is also misleading. I would suggest that North8000 and Location be moved to Talk:Progressive_utilization_theory#Opinions_from_involved_editors, and we can just leave Itsmejudith where she is.

--Abhidevananda (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Crovetto's article

In the section of this talk page entitled Talk:Progressive_utilization_theory#All_quiet_on_the_Western_Front.3F, Garamond Lethe announced: "I also have a hard copy of Crovetto's VaNRM article. It's excellent." No, it's not excellent... unless your mentality is such that you favor blaming victims for the crime, as I have already pointed out. But since, Garamond is doing a little research... still using only secondary sources and hence not getting a very broad or even largely accurate concept of PROUT... let me offer not just Crovetto's original article (from Nova Religio) but also some additional information about the Bijon Setu massacre that Crovetto introduces with the following words: "A bloody incident occurred in April 1982 near the Kolkata suburb of Tiljala, which involved local residents and zealous Ananda Marga sannyasis. The sannyasis were attacked and seventeen were killed. This episode, described below, may have been due to Ananda Marga’s proselytizing." If that paragraph is still in the VaNRM version of this article, then Crovetto's bias should be obvious even to a blind person. But there are many other problems with Crovetto's article. For example, she makes additional claims that are also highly suspect, being inconsistent with independently published information; and some of her quotations from Sarkar appear to be illegitimate. Nevertheless, coming back to Bijon Setu as it pertains to the reliability of Crovetto's article, for a more neutral and reliable coverage of this incident (including some clippings from Bengali and English newspapers), download this archive. As mentioned, the archive also contains Crovetto's original article for comparison purposes. --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The newspaper accounts in the archive support Crovetto's account: it was the (unfounded) accusations of child-stealing that precipitated the event. You can, if you like, read a "blame-the-victim" interpretation into Crovetto, but no disinterested reader is going to see that. GaramondLethe 16:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, Garamond, but read what Crovetto claimed. She says: "A bloody incident occurred..., which involved local residents and zealous Ananda Marga sannyasis". What evidence does she give that the sannyasis who were murdered were "zealous"? She then follows up with the statement: "This episode... may have been due to Ananda Marga's proselytizing." What is the connection between "(unfounded) accusations of child-stealing" and "proselytizing"? Even if there is a reasonable link, she certainly skipped quite a number of steps in her argument, effectively blaming the victim for the crime. When Crovetto tries to fill in the logical gaps in her speculation, she wanders over to Portugal (no citation) and back to India with a lot of "If this was the case, then such and such might be..." Absolutely worthless speculation! If you are running a children's home, and someone falsely accuses you of stealing children and then others kill you for that reason, what type of person would argue that you were killed due to your "zealous" social service rather than that you were killed due to a mob being incited against you with false accusations? I think we all know the answer to that. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not in the VaNRM text. Here's what I have.

During the 1970s and 1980s the organization's sannyasis were very active proselytizers, teaching what by many accounts was a very effective system of spiritual practices free of charge to all who were interested. Credit should be given to the movement for the spiritual and social services it provides. Its social service projects are often set up among the most disadvantaged people and maintained despite a wide variety of challenges. ....

However, the missionary zeal of a number of sannyasis to establish social service projects may have turned into a liability in at least one case. On April 30, 1982, residents near Tiljala attacked and killed seventeen sannyasis in broad daylight as the Margiis attempted to cross Bijon Setu, a local bridge. The Margiis claimed that the renunciates were murdered by Communist Party of India Marxists (CPM) from West Bengal (Ananda Marga 2008). This accusation revisited a long-standing tension that Margiis say has persisted between Bengali Communists and themselves since their movement first became popular in the 1960s. A Kolkata newspaper reported that the local residents accused the sannyasis of kidnapping children (Sil 1988b). note 15: See Sil (1988b) for an explanation of the Bengali folk attitude toward "child lifting".

These accusations may have come about as a result of the sannyasis' trying to increase the number of children in their movement's schools and children's homes. Ex-workers report that during the 1970s and 1980s such service projects were expected to show regular increases in enrollment and that sometimes quotas were set (interview with a former organizational worker, June 1, 1988). In the early 1980s, a small children's home was established in southern Portugal for children whose parents could not afford to feed or care for them. When the situation of these families improved, they sought the return of their children. The Ananda Marga workers fought to retain them because the children's release would (and in fact did) force the closure of the project. If overzealous missionary tactics were to blame near Tiljala, it is easy to understand how they might have appeared threatening to the locals. pp256-7.

I believe this version fixes the issues you raised. I'm happy to use this version in the article rather than the earlier version you were referencing. GaramondLethe 19:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me for asking, Garamond, but are you sure that the quote I gave is "not in the VaNRM text"? In the NR version of the article, it appears about two paragraphs above the section that you have quoted. But, regardless of whether that preceding paragraph is present in the VaNRM text - even if Crovetto or Lewis chose to omit the preceding paragraph in the VaNRM version - it only means that some concealer was applied to cover up a pimple.

Garamond, you say that you are happy to use this passage from Crovetto in the PROUT article. But why would you want to do that? There is no mention of PROUT in the passage, and the passage seems to shed no light on the socioeconomic theory. All that this larger (and subsequent) passage does is establish my points: (1) that Crovetto's article contains a lot of unsupported, poorly supported, or falsely supported speculation (2) that her speculation sometimes amounts to an effort to blame the victim for the crime (which in turn indicates a very strong bias). In the passage that you quote, Crovetto not only speculates, but - to buttress her speculation - she leaves India and goes to Portugal. Does Crovetto offer any citation to back up her allegation about Portugal? Not in the NR version of her article. Do you see any citation to back up her claim in the VaNRM version? I am fairly certain that you do not, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this regard. For all of the above reasons, my opinion is that Crovetto's article is a far cry from being "excellent", as you asserted. Rather, I would say that Crovetto's article is not at all reliable. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion moved to WP:RSN. GaramondLethe 20:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Garamond, before moving the discussion to RSN - another unilateral action without consensus - it would have helped if you had answered my questions. I ask these questions, because I only have the earlier NR version of the article. I do not have the VaNRM version of the article that you are using (although you did offer to post it for everyone). So let me repeat and amplify my questions to you here, and I would appreciate a reply to each of them: (1) Are you sure that the quote I gave - the quote indicating bias (as you seem to concede) - is "not in the VaNRM text"? (2) Why would you want to use in an article on PROUT a passage from the Crovetto article that makes no mention of PROUT and seems to have no bearing on the socioeconomic theory? (3) In the passage you extracted from the Crovetto article (a passage seeming to be little other than speculation regarding motives for a crime), is there any citation that Crovetto offers to substantiate her remarks about an incident that she alleges occurred somewhere in southern Portugal? (4) Even if she did provide such citation (although I am sure she did not), what connection do you see between a hypothetical incident somewhere in southern Portugal and a massacre on a bridge in Kolkata? --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You said I would say that Crovetto's article is not at all reliable. If that is the case, then these questions are moot. If we agree that Crovetto's article is reliable then they might be relevant. Please summarize why you think the article is unreliable at WP:RSN. GaramondLethe 21:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Garamond, I have already provided a summary of sorts. But at RSN someone seems to be asking for detailed examples. I will do that also; but, as it will require a lot of time, I will do it in installments. Frankly, this is not a high priority for me. My main concern is with the article on PROUT and not with proving the unreliability of an article by Helen Crovetto that is at best only marginally related to the PROUT article. In the meantime, however, you clearly think that the Crovetto article is reliable. And you also claim to have a different version of it than I do - a version that you have offered to provide. So please provide your version of the article for everyone's reference here, and kindly answer my four questions. (1) Are you sure that the quote I gave - the quote indicating bias (as you seem to concede) - is "not in the VaNRM text"? (2) Why would you want to use in an article on PROUT a passage from the Crovetto article that makes no mention of PROUT and seems to have no bearing on the socioeconomic theory? (3) In the passage you extracted from the Crovetto article (a passage seeming to be little other than speculation regarding motives for a crime), is there any citation that Crovetto offers to substantiate her remarks about an incident that she alleges occurred somewhere in southern Portugal? (4) Even if she did provide such citation (although I am sure she did not), what connection do you see between a hypothetical incident somewhere in southern Portugal and a massacre on a bridge in Kolkata? --Abhidevananda (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

As the Crovetto article is the best secondary source on PROUT that we have so far it will be playing an integral role in the rewritten article (unless, of course, you can come up with a convincing argument as to why it is not a reliable source). I will provide you a pdf of the article once I get it scanned in. You might want to think about retracting your claim that the article is unreliable until you've actually read the article. In fact, I think reading the article will provide answers to all four of your questions. If you'd rather not wait for me you can find the article (or most of it) on google books. GaramondLethe 23:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you are getting ahead of yourself, Garamond. We are trying to reach a consensus here, and - as Tito has repeatedly pointed out - we are a long way from doing that. So, while waiting for you to scan the PDF (which could incidentally make it very hard for anyone to copy and paste material from it), why not just answer my four questions? In case you missed them, let me repeat those questions yet again: (1) Are you sure that the quote I gave - the quote indicating bias (as you seem to concede) - is "not in the VaNRM text"? (2) Why would you want to use in an article on PROUT a passage from the Crovetto article that makes no mention of PROUT and seems to have no bearing on the socioeconomic theory? (3) In the passage you extracted from the Crovetto article (a passage seeming to be little other than speculation regarding motives for a crime), is there any citation that Crovetto offers to substantiate her remarks about an incident that she alleges occurred somewhere in southern Portugal? (4) Even if she did provide such citation (although I am sure she did not), what connection do you see between a hypothetical incident somewhere in southern Portugal and a massacre on a bridge in Kolkata? --Abhidevananda (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

1) Yes I'm sure.

2) I don't recall asking that this incident be included in the article, although it will probably eventually end up in the Ananda Marga article. Crovetto identifies the sannyasis as "Margiis", which I believe refers to members of the Ananda Marga organization only.

3) Yes, a citation was provided. I even typed out the citations when I quoted the passage in full, above.

4) Covetto made the connection clear. There was an institutional incentive not to surrender children who had been placed in the care of Ananda Magra. As this was an organization with central control, it's reasonable to think that the incentives documented in Portugal were not isolated there. In addition, Corvetto cites a contemporary newspaper report that carried accusations by residents of Ananda Marga kidnapping children. Given the strength of this evidence, Corvetto concludes that the accusations may have been a result of the sannyasis' attempt to maximize the number of children in their care, and if the murders were caused by "overzealous missionary tactics" then the reaction of the community is understandable. Crovetto does not give any hint that the murders were justifiable.

3 & 4 could have been gleaned from the passage from the book that I transcribed above. #1 could have been accomplished with a search in google books. As I don't recall suggesting that this incident be cited in this article, I'm not sure where #2 came from.

GaramondLethe 03:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

First, thank you kindly, Garamond, for answering my four questions. Now, if I may, could I presume upon your goodwill to please go the extra mile and reconfirm that the paragraph that I cited does not appear in the VaNRM text in the place that I mentioned (about two paragraphs above the passage that you quoted)? I ask this because the little that I have seen of the VaNRM text appeared to be almost word-for-word the same as the earlier NR article. And as Crovetto gave no citation for her allegation regarding an incident in Portugal in the NR version of the article (also virtually word-for-word the same as what you quoted above), could you please reconfirm that the citation you mention is actually connected with the alleged incident in Portugal? Finally, I have one last request. Would you kindly post a link to your scanned PDF of Crovetto's article in VaNRM, just to remove all doubt? --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Found the bug

First, yes, "zealous" does appear in the previous section. I was in error in not looking there as well.

I think I've located the source of your complaint: I believe you've confused zealot and zealous. From my OED:

• • zealous: 1. Full of or incited by zeal; characterized by zeal or passionate ardor; fervently devoted the promotion of some person or cause; intensely earnest; actively enthusiastic.

• • zealot: 1. A member of a Jewish sect... 2. One who is zealous or full of zeal; one who pursues his object with passionate ardor, usually in disparaging sense; one who is carried away by excess of zeal; an immoderate partisan; a fanatical enthusiast.

Had Crovetto used the word zealot then yes, that would have been considered at the very least inflammatory. You would have had an open-and-shut case of non-neutrality simply by reaching for your dictionary.

I believe this also explains why multiple people have been telling you there's no bias in the article. The rest of us took "zealous" with its intended meaning and and saw Crovetto giving these victims quite a bit of respect.

Since there's no non-neutral language at issue here, I think the "blaming the victim" complaint disappears as well.

As to the rest of your questions: I don't have access to the interview she conducted and I don't yet have access to the Sil articles. Let's assume the worst: Crovetto provided no citations for the incident in Portugal. The reviewers of the article didn't think that was a problem, so under wikipedia policies I'm free to cite Crovetto for the incident she described. If you can find a source of similar or better quality that gives a different account then we can use that, too. But you're not going to be able to impeach an article by holding it to a higher standard that the peer review in that field. The quickest way for you to get the Crovetto and Sil articles might be WP:RX.

There's a lot more that needs to be said, but I think that's enough for now. GaramondLethe 18:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• You are absolutely right, Garamond. There is "a lot more that needs to be said". So let me say it.

You claim to have "found the bug": in short, that idiot, Abhidevananda, must have confused zealous with zealot (confused an adjective with a noun). Sorry to burst your bubble here, but I made no such error. So I think we need to look a little deeper. I asked you four questions, and your replies to all four of them now seem to have been well off the mark. And even now, I still don't see much greater accuracy. Let's examine my four questions and your answers.

(1) I asked you whether an entire paragraph appears in the VaNRM article. You said it does not. I told you where to look, and then I asked you if you are sure that it is not there. You replied: "Yes I'm sure." Above, you talk only about a single word, whereas my question - my objection - was to an entire paragraph. So now I am confused. Are you sure, or are you not sure? But while waiting for your answer to that question, let's just examine Crovetto's use of the word, "zealous". Let's see how she uses the word in that earlier paragraph, still not confirmed to exist in the VaNRM version, and let's see how Crovetto uses that word in the paragraphs that you quoted for us with praise. Let it be clear that my problem is not with the concept of zeal. My problem is with Crovetto's biased use of the concept. In the earlier paragraph, still not confirmed to exist in the VaNRM version, Crovetto characterizes the 17 persons who were murdered as "zealous". How on earth could she know that? Did she ever meet them? Did she do interviews with them or their friends? And did she provide any citation at all to substantiate her claim? All that we really know about these 17 murdered individuals is that they were Ananda Marga sannyasis, peaceably riding in taxis, who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Again, what evidence does Crovetto give to show that any of those specific 17 Ananda Marga sannyasis were "zealous" or any other character trait whatsoever? The answer is "no evidence at all". She might just as well be claiming that all Christians are crusaders. Yes, I completely agree that the word "zealous" is not intrinsically derogatory. But in the context of the paragraph that I quoted - the paragraph still not confirmed to exist in the VaNRM version, the paragraph that you, Garamond, earlier conceded is problematic - that word "zealous" does come across as derogatory. And when we go to the additional paragraphs that you quoted, her derogatory use of that word gets reinforced. In the paragraphs that you quoted, Garamond, we don't find the word "zealous" there. Rather, we find something much more objectionable. In that passage - the passage that you claim "fixes the problem" - Crovetto does not say "zealous" but rather "overzealous"! Tell me, what meaning do you find in your dictionary for "overzealous"? At dictionary.com, I see only derogatory meanings. The related words listed there are fanatic, fanatical, and rabid. And when we look at the sentence in which that word is used - the sentence in the section that you quoted and that you apparently want to use as a reference for this article or the article on Ananda Marga - we see only circular reasoning of a highly offensive and prejudicial variety. I quote: "If overzealous missionary tactics were to blame near Tiljala, it is easy to understand how they might have appeared threatening to the locals." As soon as Crovetto says "were to blame", she again makes the victim responsible for the crime. And, obviously, if anyone is "overzealous", they tend to annoy others in one way or another. But Crovetto did not establish that this was the case, and she only asserted without any evidence (two paragraphs earlier) that the 17 sannyasis who were massacred were indeed "zealous". So, yes, you now have my dictionary, and I believe - as you have implicitly conceded - that this is an "an open-and-shut case of non-neutrality". But this is just the tip of the iceberg in respect to the Crovetto article. Many of her quotations and citations are thoroughly misleading and even, on occasion, entirely inaccurate. But let me not get into that just now. If anyone would like me to substantiate that claim, I will be happy to do that in spades. But, for now, let me continue by examining the other three questions that I asked.

(2) My second question was: "Why would you want to use in an article on PROUT a passage from the Crovetto article that makes no mention of PROUT and seems to have no bearing on the socioeconomic theory?" Your reply was: "I don't recall asking that this incident be included in the article..." So let me refresh your memory by simply scrolling up a few paragraphs. Right after you quoted three paragraphs from the VaNRM article - the three paragraphs wherein Crovetto uses the word "overzealous" - you wrote: "I believe this version fixes the issues you raised. I'm happy to use this version in the article rather than the earlier version you were referencing." Does that not sound like you want to use this biased and irrelevant material in the PROUT article?

(3) My third question was: "In the passage you extracted from the Crovetto article (a passage seeming to be little other than speculation regarding motives for a crime), is there any citation that Crovetto offers to substantiate her remarks about an incident that she alleges occurred somewhere in southern Portugal?" Your reply was: "Yes, a citation was provided. I even typed out the citations when I quoted the passage in full, above." But now you have written: "Let's assume the worst: Crovetto provided no citations for the incident in Portugal." Well, earlier you categorically asserted that she did provide a citation. You even claimed to have typed it out for us. So which one is it? Did she or did she not provide the citation? It seems that you would now sidestep this question by taking shelter in the fact that other reviewers have not yet pointed out this lapse. "The reviewers of the article didn't think that was a problem, so under wikipedia policies I'm free to cite Crovetto for the incident she described." Well, maybe Wikipedia policies allow for such type of unethical, yellow journalism. But my conscience, as an honest intellectual, finds such an excuse thoroughly repugnant. We all have a choice here. We can try to report the truth, or we can just report whatever biased views seem to match our personal prejudices. I opt for reporting the truth.

(4) My fourth question was: "Even if she did provide such citation (although I am sure she did not), what connection do you see between a hypothetical incident somewhere in southern Portugal and a massacre on a bridge in Kolkata?" Your reply was: "Covetto made the connection clear. There was an institutional incentive not to surrender children who had been placed in the care of Ananda Magra. As this was an organization with central control, it's reasonable to think that the incentives documented in Portugal were not isolated there..." Well, first of all, no incident in Portugal was reliably documented, what to speak of any "incentives" being reliably documented. Even if - and this is a big "if" - there was a one-off incident in Portugal, that would not amount to proof that there was "an institutional incentive not to surrender children" (see affirming the consequent). That would only mean that in Portugal, someone did not want to surrender children for some reason or another. Oh, yes, Crovetto tells us what the reason was. She claims that the reason why someone somewhere in southern Portugal allegedly did not want to surrender some children was "because the children's release would (and in fact did) force the closure of the project". But here we have to assume three things with no evidence to back any of them up. First, we have to assume that the alleged incident that Crovetto describes actually took place. Second, we have to assume that Crovetto somehow knows the inner, psychological motive for the alleged reluctance to surrender children in the alleged incident. Third, we have to assume that Crovetto is correctly reporting the alleged motive for allegedly not surrendering children in the alleged incident that allegedly took place in southern Portugal. And all we have to go on here are Crovetto's own statements to that effect. How does such type of material meet any rational standard of reliability? Oh, wait, some people here are not interested in rational standards... they are only interested in what they consider to be Wikipedia standards. "If we can get away with it, we will."

After giving those four answers to my questions, you wrote: "3 & 4 could have been gleaned from the passage from the book that I transcribed above. #1 could have been accomplished with a search in google books. As I don't recall suggesting that this incident be cited in this article, I'm not sure where #2 came from." Well, obviously #3 could not be "gleaned from the passage from the book that [you] transcribed above". As to #4, it takes an awful lot of "gleaning" to get to a conclusion like yours; and, pardon me, but I don't think I'm up to such a task. Regarding #1, it seems that not only could it not have been accomplished with a google search, but it was even very difficult for you to do it with the very document in hand and a clear pointer to where you should look in that document. Finally as for #2, may I respectfully suggest that you try using Ctrl+F. That can be very helpful at times. --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to impeach the Crovetto article, do it at WP:RSN. I won't be making any further response here. GaramondLethe 04:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Garamond, I think you missed the point of my remarks in this section of the topic (created by you). Here I was not impeaching the Crovetto chapter of VaNRM. I was merely impeaching your remarks about it and about me. Actually, up to a few hours ago (much less than a day), it would have been very difficult for me to impeach the Crovetto chapter of VaNRM without any assistance from you. Up till now, we were all largely dependent on you for information about what is or is not contained in the Crovetto chapter of VaNRM. And, as we see above (in this section as well as in its containing section), the information that you have given us is highly unreliable. Over three days ago, you offered to provide a PDF of the VaNRM chapter to anyone who is interested. I quote: ""I'm happy to make pdfs available to anyone who is interested." Thus far, however, you have merely reneged on that offer. And this latest statement from you seems to suggest that you would continue to renege on that offer. By good fortune, I now have in my possession a full copy of Crovetto's chapter of VaNRM. I make it available to everyone here. And now that Crovetto's chapter of VaNRM is available for all to read, I will go on to provide a more detailed critique of that chapter of VaNRM in a new section of this topic. I will do that here, because the Crovetto chapter of VaNRM has been made an issue in respect to this PROUT article by various persons in this discussion, notably Location and Garamond Lethe. Whatever weight may subsequently be given to this chapter of VaNRM in any future version of the PROUT article, my remarks will be on record here on the Talk page of the article. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Unreliability of Crovetto's chapter in VaNRM

As stated above, I will review some poignant aspects of Crovetto's article in VaNRM that expose the bias of her remarks and the unreliability of the entire article. As this will be a lengthy process, I will do it in installments. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph 2

At the end of paragraph 2 - not page 2, but just paragraph 2 - Crovetto writes as follows:

In many people’s minds, those who belong to Sarkar’s movement are simply terrorists. The mere mention of Ananda Marga is enough to send some South Asians literally running from the room.2 The view that all Ananda Margiis are terrorists is untrue and an unfortunate oversimplification. It would be more precise to describe them as revolutionaries with an extremely idealistic or utopian sociospiritual agenda.

Any competent and neutral intellectual will carefully avoid hasty generalizations. After all, is it not naive to claim that all Christians are crusaders and all Muslims are suicide bombers? Rational people naturally tend to shrink from making sweeping generalizations about the activities or inclinations of all members of any large group. So when Crovetto says that "the view that all Ananda Margiis are terrorists is untrue and an unfortunate oversimplification", one would be inclined to appreciate what appears to be a rejection of overgeneralization. Unfortunately, Crovetto's next sentence comes as quite a shock. She writes: "It would be more precise to describe them as revolutionaries with an extremely idealistic or utopian sociospiritual agenda." So Crovetto's objection was not the obvious one. She was not objecting to the sweeping generalization about all Ananda Margiis. She was only objecting to the specific characterization. Instead of labeling them all as "terrorists", she prefers to label them all as "revolutionaries". This quickly exposes Crovetto as someone who commits the same fallacy as those she criticizes. And so, naturally, we look deeper to see if that fallacy - hasty generalization - appears elsewhere in her article. In fact, we do not need to look far. We only need to examine the preceding sentence in that same Paragraph 2. Crovetto stated that "the mere mention of Ananda Marga is enough to send some South Asians literally running from the room". Well, that claim is really not very extraordinary. I suppose that the mention of ice cream or pizza might also cause some South Asians to run from the room. But Crovetto provides an endnote to support her rather insignificant claim. So let's now look at Note 2. What we find there is just a personal anecdote. I quote:

This incident occurred as I began presenting a paper on Ananda Marga at a meeting of the North American Hindu Association of Dharma Studies (NAHADS). Two individuals who were present gasped audibly at the first mention of Ananda Marga, looked at one another, and simultaneously raced for the door. The NAHADS held what is called an “additional meeting” at the conference of the American Academy of Religion in Atlanta, Georgia, in November 2003.

The first thing to observe about this personal anecdote is that the event described took place in the United States, not in South Asia. Yes, it was a Hindu association, but Crovetto does not state that the two individuals who allegedly "gasped audibly at the first mention of Ananda Marga, looked at one another, and simultaneously raced for the door" were in fact South Asians. Are we to assume that everyone who attends any and all meetings of the North American Hindu Association of Dharma Studies (NAHADS) is a South Asian or that the mere attendance at a NAHADS meeting automatically confers the status of "South Asian" on one? Is Helen Crovetto a South Asian? So, for all we know - and apparently for all Crovetto knows - these two individuals might have been born in the USA and lived there all of their lives. For all we know, they might even have been White Anglo-Saxon Protestants who were just attending a lecture out of intellectual curiosity. And even if they did gasp at the time when Ananda Marga was first mentioned, does this establish a causal connection between the two events? Certainly not. One of them might have just received an alarming text message. As Crovetto was giving the lecture - engaged in her own activity and presumably at some distance from the two persons in the audience - it seems highly unlikely that she would be able to gauge why they happened to gasp, much less "race for the door". So here, even in her endnote associated with a sentence in Paragraph 2, Crovetto engages in multiple logical fallacies, including the highly dubious and hasty generalization that everyone who attends a NAHADS meeting is a South Asian. The simple fact is that we don't know why two persons gasped or why they raced for the door. And the simple fact is that we don't even know that those two persons were South Asians. So this endnote in no way substantiates Crovetto's claim in the article in chief.

In brief, Paragraph 2 exposes Crovetto's bias as well as her reliance on data that is entirely inadequate to substantiate her claims. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Abhidevananda, I do not accept your rationalization of how she wouldn't/couldn't have noticed this or characterized the people in question. You manifestly weren't there, so you don't really know how hard it was for her to notice this behavior or roughly characterize the apparent origin of those reacting. Hell, she may very well have known the people in question! As someone who lives in the middle of a highly mixed community and who has had numerous Indian co-workers over the years, I can assure you that in a small room I at least would have no difficulty picking them out of an ethnic lineup, and while an extremity of concentration is sometimes a positive, I think I would have noticed if someone jumped out of their seat and left while I was making a presentation. Now, for what it's worth, I do not necessarily take the anecdote at face value. I see no reason to doubt that the incident happened exactly as she describes, but I would agree with you that it doesn't prove anything. But it seems to me that you are trying to insinuate that it didn't happen that way because there was no reason for anyone to react that way. Likewise, I find that your interpretation of her "not terrorists but revolutionaries" remark is biased by an apparent insistence that everything about Ananda Marga is nonviolent. In particular, I don't interpret her use of the word "revolutionary" the way that you do. You'll get farther here if you show that she makes wrong statements than if you keep trying to go down the path of showing that she doesn't share your biases. Mangoe (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

My point was about hasty generalizations. It was a simple point, demonstrated by two examples in close succession. Crovetto first declared: "In many people’s minds, those who belong to Sarkar’s movement are simply terrorists. The mere mention of Ananda Marga is enough to send some South Asians literally running from the room." When we examine her citation, we discover that it is nothing more than a personal anecdote in which two persons abruptly left a lecture she was giving. Crovetto offers inadequate information to demonstrate or verify any sort of causality with respect to the event that she references, and there is no logic to justify an extension of that event to the notion that many people believe that any and all followers of Sarkar are terrorists. Hasty generalization is a polite way of describing what Crovetto did here. She took what appears to be her own straw man and dismissed it by stating: "The view that all Ananda Margiis are terrorists is untrue and an unfortunate oversimplification." And just when you think that she has said something reasonable, she then shockingly exposes the fact that she was not objecting to the over-generalization or the oversimplification but only quibbling with the nature of the over-generalization and oversimplification. Crovetto essentially declares: No, no, all margiis are not terrorists; rather, all margiis are "revolutionaries with an extremely idealistic or utopian sociospiritual agenda". If someone were to tell you that all Christians are greedy or all Christians are nice, then you probably would not hesitate to declare that person as biased. But when someone tells you that all margiis are "revolutionaries with an extremely idealistic or utopian sociospiritual agenda", how is it that you don't see any bias? Anyway, in the article in question, there are innumerable examples of Crovetto's bias, Crovetto's inadequate (and, in some cases, apparently false) citations, and Crovetto's presentation of easily refuted opinions. I simply stopped analyzing the article when it became clear that no one from FTN who has been involved with this PROUT article actually cares about such matters. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• You're correct that I (and I expect others) don't care about your analysis. I have a different analysis—I expect you don't care about mine. So rather than you trying to convince me you're right or me trying to convince you that I'm right (even though I am), in this particular forum we short-circuit this tedium by limiting ourselves to what is in the (independent, preferably peer-reviewed) literature. If there are conflicts in the literature then we have something to discuss, but PROUT has a vanishingly small amount of independent coverage so writing the article is a fairly mechanical process of summarizing the sources we have.

That leaves us with the question of the most effective use of your time. If you write a rebuttal article and get it published in Nova Religio, then hey, we can cite that. If you write a book on PROUT and get it published by a reputable publisher, we can cite that. If you keep telling us how biased Crovetto is, we're going to ignore that, even if we happen to agree with you. Garamond Lethet
c 21:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said the first time, Abhidevananda, I am not interpreting these statements in the same manner that you are. And really, you're engaging in something of an ad hominem here, which suggests to me that you know that her factual statements are actually true, but the only way you can get them rejected is casting aspersions on her motives.

I would agree that it would be preferable not to rely on her so strongly. But removing her as a source, at this point, is simply going to make the article smaller. It's not going to make room for the AM/PROUT/Sarkar works you've tended to rely on. I've found some possible alternative sources, but (a) I want to discuss the authors first, and (b) mostly they're in academic journals and books which require some effort and often expense to get at. Mangoe (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

PROUT explains atomic physics

For a bit of comic relief....

From Raveendra N. Batra's PROUT and Economic Reform in India (1979), pg. 5:

The atom is no longer regarded as a solid object by itself. Rather it has a nucleus in its center around which even smaller particles called electrons move in a continuous flow and at very high velocities. In the atom, there are two opposing forces. The gravity of the nucleus tends to bind the electrons together; this may be called the centripetal force which arises from the positively charged property of the nucleus. But the electrons, which are negatively charged, resist confinement because of what may be called the centrifugal force. If the centripetal force dominates the centrifugal force, the ever-moving electrons appear as atomic particles. Hence the atom is a wave in the sense that its electrons are in constant motion around its nucleus; it is a particle when its electrons rotate in such a way that there is an optimal balance between their resistance to confinement and the attraction to the nucleus.

Batra was head of the economics department at Southern Methodist University when he wrote that. The entire digression was to support the idea that "progress [can] not occur in the physical and intellectual arenas". And here's the obligatory xkcd reference. I'm unable to confirm that the comic was inspired by the reaction of the physicists at SMU.

GaramondLethe 15:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

For those of you not lucky enough to be cohabitating with a physicist: gravity has essentially zero effect at atomic scales (Batra was probably thinking about the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force); wave-particle duality under the Copenhagen interpretation has nothing to do with "confinement", and centripetal and centrifugal forces don't come in to play at the atomic level. Batra cobbled together several half-remembered physics lessons and created something that sounds plausible if you don't know what the terms mean. Anyway, it brightened my morning... GaramondLethe 16:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

And so we see why an article on Sarkar's socioeconomic theory, PROUT, should rely more on the primary source than on secondary sources. Relying on secondary sources, like Crovetto or even Batra, could result in an article with largely irrelevant and dubious material instead of easily verifiable and genuinely helpful information. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, you'd be a lot happier setting up SarkarWiki and being the benevolent dictator there. It's not hard; several folks have found that wikipedia policies didn't meet their needs and so they set up their own (Conservapedia and CreationWiki come to mind). The software is free and all you need is some time, an internet connection and your passion. Or even better, start writing peer-reviewed articles on these topics so we can cite them. (If I can do it, how hard can it be, right?)

Buf if you're going to stay here, you'll need to find a way to reconciling yourself to the fact that we have policies that we're going to adhere to, even when those policies reduce the quality of the article. Complaining about those policies on an article talk page isn't an effective means of changing the article or the policy. We're building an encyclopedia that summarizes independent, secondary, reliable sources. Where those sources are missing or bad, articles will be missing or bad. Pointing out how much better the article would be if we relied on primary, non-independent sources is not a good use of your time.

GaramondLethe 18:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, Garamond, thank you so much for your "honest" concern for my happiness. And thank you for recommending a place where I may be a benevolent dictator. However, as I am quite happy now and I have no desire to be a benevolent dictator, I respectfully decline your suggestion. Yes, obviously, we have differences of opinion regarding the correct interpretation of various Wikipedia policies. Also, we seem to have different goals when writing Wikipedia articles. Apparently, you are satisfied with creating bad articles based on wrong information, but I prefer to create good articles based on correct information. Perhaps we can find a middle ground if the article we create is strictly neutral in its presentation. So my proposal remains that we try to achieve consensus by editing the existing article in a manner that is acceptable to all parties. --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

From WP:FLAT: If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing. GaramondLethe 19:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So to answer your question: no. I have to abide by the requirement that sources be independent, secondary and reliable, and so do you. Neither one of us can skirt that by claiming the resulting article is "neutral". It's annoying, and I know I could write better articles if I could bend those rules, but I can't trust anyone else with that latitude, and so we all suffer together. GaramondLethe 19:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"To answer my question"? What question was that, Garamond? But in reply to your claim that you must "abide by" some requirement or another and so must I, the fact is that neither of us must abide by anything if that results in worse articles and the propagation of incorrect information. That is the whole point of the fifth pillar of Wikipedia: WP:IAR. It's one of only five pillars - the first five guidelines regarding Wikipedia that many if not most new editors read. Garamond, the very point of the fifth pillar is to improve Wikipedia by "writing better articles". You claim that you cannot "bend rules" here. But the fifth pillar explicitly states that you can bend rules - indeed, that you don't even need to know the rules. So, frankly, we disagree on policy here. As a neohumanist, I am sensitive to dogma, and I tend to oppose it. You obviously come from a different, more conservative philosophical perspective. But, once again, we should strive to find a middle ground here. We should strive to achieve consensus. Hence, again, I suggest that we start going through the existing article section by section to discuss how each section may be improved. (As to your "comic relief", perhaps we can forgo such type of off-topic backbiting. Ravi Batra is not participating in this discussion, and no one has suggested that we should construct the article on PROUT based in any significant part on Ravi Batra's books. Rather, the position taken by me clearly implies that we should not do that. So I don't think the various sarcastic remarks made about Ravi and his views are at all civil, and I don't believe that this type of conduct is conducive to the resolution of any issues or concerns regarding this article.) --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And the centrifugal force is a fictitious force from the point of view of an object in orbit. Therefore, can we conclude that all obstructions to physical and intellectual progress are fictitious? A poorly chosen metaphor but an excellent comic relief. Thank you Garamond. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Crovetto discussion moved to WP:RSN

Any and all opinions welcome here. GaramondLethe 20:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, but what power does any participant in this discussion of the PROUT article have to move a particular aspect of our discussion from this Talk page to another forum? Was there anything inappropriate in our earlier discussion of the Crovetto article? Is such a premature and unilateral action a constructive way to reach consensus? --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not pleasantly move forward?

This article is so deeply in violation of Wikipedia policies, standards and norms and encyclopedic norms that it inevitable that it will undergo substantial changes. To the defenders of the "status quo" I offer the following thought. Instead of spending weeks or months in a painful-for-you losing battle to keep this in its terrible current state (which could result in a much less agreeable-to-you version than a compromise effort would) which not start pleasantly moving forward to a compromise version right now? And I mean really moving forward, not a grinding sentence by sentence debate. North8000 (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

North, I don't take any of your earlier sentences for granted. For example, I don't see anyone here defending the status quo. So perhaps that was not the most "pleasant" way to present your suggestion. Nevertheless, your ultimate proposal does not sound any different from what I have been proposing from the very beginning. Perhaps you conceive of a different way of "pleasantly moving forward" than I do. What I envision is going section by section (not sentence by sentence). I don't see any problem with the overall structure of the article. In fact, I learned this structure from Tito. And, by the way, when it comes to secondary sources, the matter of the Crovetto article is not at all closed in my estimation (nor has the discussion been moved to any other forum). Perhaps, when Garamond's scanned version of the article is uploaded so that his assertions may be confirmed, we could end the discussion of that matter fairly quickly. If indeed the VaNRM article is as Garamond describes it - less biased and better referenced than the Nova Religio version - I would be content to accept that article as "reliable" (by Wikipedia standards). However, if it turns out to be just a recycled version of the Nova Religio article with no significant improvements, then I would not be so inclined. Whatever may be any policies or norms of Wikipedia, my conscience does not permit me to turn a blind eye to the propagation of falsehood. Whenever and wherever I see that happening, I would certainly invoke WP:IAR and any other policy that might prevent such an antisocial act. I say this not just in relation to this article or the articles categorized as part of the Sarkarverse. I say it in relation to any and every article that I may work on in Wikipedia. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have not been deep enough here in to absorb/everything that you just said. What I have read and based my thoughts on is the current article and the proposed substitution ("Proposal to replace current content"). So I apologize that I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to Crovetto, Nova Religio, Sarkarverse, VaNRM. So I was more speaking as a uninvolved person. What I do see is the current article which has such so deeply in violation of Wikipedia policies, standards and norms and encyclopedic norms that it can't possibly survive without significant changes. Hence my idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

North, I am not arguing with you about that. Indeed, I was not even trying to argue. What I was saying is only that you seemed to make a number of unsubstantiated assumptions. I don't believe that anyone here is "defending the status quo". Indeed, it would be entirely hypocritical for anyone who agrees with PROUT (as I do) to attempt such a thing. PROUT does not even accept the possibility of a status quo. And that is why PROUT calls for unending and ever-accelerating progress. So if there are issues here - and clearly there are - then we should work in a cooperative, coordinated fashion to resolve those issues. If you merely scroll up this page - admittedly quite lengthy - you will see that I have repeatedly proposed the very same thing that you proposed. Universal Life has also repeatedly stated that he wants to see more secondary sources in the article. Cornelius and DezDeMonaaa also said similar things. So who exactly do you think is in favor of the status quo? The only thing that I personally say no to is any attempt to eviscerate an informative article and replace it with incoherence and gossip. I am pretty sure that the structure of the article is indeed encyclopedic. If that is not so, please explain why not. However, if so, then I think we should start going through the sections and try to improve them one by one. We should try to reach consensus on the appropriate content of each section. I would welcome any and all assistance in that respect. But I also need to be clear about one thing here. I do not agree with building an article solely on the basis of secondary sources. I do not see that happening in other similar articles on Wikipedia, and there is no policy of Wikipedia that I am aware of that strictly rules out the use of primary sources. There is one further limitation that I would insist on. Except in a dedicated Critique section, I would not agree to describing the various key concepts of PROUT purely on the basis of secondary sources if those secondary sources demonstrably contradict the primary source in that respect. I don't mind mentioning what those secondary sources say, but we must also then mention what the primary source says. To do otherwise, would amount to a conscious propagation of falsehood. --Abhidevananda (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What I see is a proposal which (in the context here) would make it so impossibly time-consuming to fix the article that it would prevent it from happening. Here's an alternate idea. Why don't YOU (and the other proponent folks) condense the current material down to about 1/2 of its current size. And then bring in the brief "Proposal to replace current content" material. North8000 (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

North, thank you for pursuing this proposal in a calm manner and with a readiness for compromise. I believe that is the best way forward here. In that same spirit, let me say that I am not fundamentally averse to your suggestion. For example, I am already half-inclined to remove the entire section on criminology. I think that it actually might fit better in the Neohumanism article anyway. If we were to do that, we would already be a long way forward to reducing the size of this article by 50%. However, that said, I don't think that the size of the article is - or should be - a critical factor here. PROUT is a very large topic, and currently on Wikipedia there really is only one significant article on the subject. So, given the size of the topic itself, the structure of the article was set up to make it easy for readers to jump directly to the discussion of the aspect of PROUT that interests them. In a lengthy article like this (even at 50%, still lengthy), no one is expected to read everything from start to finish. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not the size, it is the amount and proportion of self-description-by-proponents material in there. In a perfect article this would be approximately 0 / 0%, in the current article it is about 100%. That was the reasoning behind my idea. North8000 (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, North, but are we arguing again? If so, why? You talk about a "perfect article". Presumably by "perfect", you mean strictly in accordance with currently preferred standards in the current Wikipedia community (most fairly young, middle class, White, Western, Christian males, if I'm not mistaken). But "perfect" is an absolute concept that would be very hard to pin down in this case, because norms tend to shift. A perfect article today will seem imperfect tomorrow. And every article is limited in various ways by the characteristics of the topic under discussion. So I would ask you: out of the nearly 4,000,000 articles on Wikipedia, how many of them would you classify as "perfect"? Personally, I think that we can only try to do the best we can, given the specific circumstances of each article. In this case, we have an article that is generally considered to be notable, but it has some drawbacks. Some of those drawbacks may be the result of systemic bias. Some of those drawbacks may be the result of the Ananda Marga policy to publish in-house, which adds to the difficulty in finding secondary sources that serve as book reviews. And some of those drawbacks may be the result of the fact that PROUT is essentially a theory that has been propounded in great detail - and with total authority - by just one person. So, North, I don't know what you mean by "0 / 0%", but I expect - and I think that you should expect - that the percentage of primary source material in this article will necessarily be much higher than what you believe to be an absolute ideal. We need to compromise here. I accept your point that we should bring in more secondary sources. But you should recognize - and accept - that I consider it preposterous to attempt a reliable and informative article on PROUT that does not reference the primary source much more often than would happen in your hypothetical "perfect article". --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is inherently and by design and fundamental choice largely what secondary sources say about the topic. That is why people come here; if they want to know what the creator of the theory has to say about it, they can go to the creator's web page, blog or facebook account. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

North, we do that for the details, but we include a basic account here of what he says about it himself, saying it is his view-- a single short paragraph is usual-- because what the creator choose to say about it is relevant, though it is not definitive about the actual meaning or implication of the theory--what relies on analysis by others. . DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification, DGG. That is exactly what I was trying to do with each of the key concepts set out in the article. Of necessity, I occasionally summarized concepts, but I avoided interpretation. For the most part, I merely stated in a concise and objective fashion the propounder's position - and hence the official position of PROUT - on a range of key concepts, providing a clear citation in each case (often involving a specific quotation) to back up that position description. (I understand from Tito and others that my style of citation is amateurish and inconsistent. I certainly welcome guidance and assistance in this respect.) So, in short, I have only done exactly what we see in the Division of labor article, in this case, necessarily relying on a single primary source because there is only one primary source to quote. My point throughout this discussion has been that a greater than usual reliance on the primary source is required for an article on a subject like this. To create an article on PROUT based entirely on secondary sources - as we see in the proposed draft by Location - would reduce the article on PROUT to nothing but a book review of a book review. That would not benefit readers who come to Wikipedia for more concrete information on the subject. Again, I have tried to write the article in as neutral a fashion as I could. If there be any error in that respect, I welcome correction. I also have no objection to the inclusion of secondary sources in this article. Rather, I also welcome that. I appreciate the assistance given in locating secondary material, and I have no objection to others adding any secondary material that is either supportive or critical of PROUT. The purpose of the article that I wrote is not - and never has been - to advocate or promote PROUT. The purpose is only to present PROUT accurately and informatively. As I see it, any social theory worthy of consideration must be able to stand on its own merits. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

North, I doubt that you can substantiate your assertions as to why people come to Wikipedia. Is there any independent and reliable poll on such a matter? If I were to hazard a guess about it, I would say that the main reason people come to Wikipedia is simply to get information on a subject and Wikipedia is often the first or second hit in their search on Google. Depending on the subject, I doubt that most people would even think about distinctions between primary and secondary sources. As to your final remark, it is rather bizarre. If I want to know what Plato said about division of labor, can I go to Plato's webpage, blog, or facebook account to get that information? Obviously not. And will Wikipedia say: Sorry, but that is something we won't tell you, because a reliable reply to that requires references from a primary source? Again, certainly not. Let's take a look at the Wikipedia article on division of labor. The bulk of it is a report on what different theorists had to say about the subject. And, if I am not mistaken, in each case the reference is to the primary source. This means that the article is 90% referenced to primary sources. Looking at the stats on the article, I see that it was created in 2001, has had 600 authors, and has seen 953 edits. At any stage in the development of the article - up to the very present - has anyone yet complained about an over-reliance on primary sources? I doubt it. In any event, there is no template at the top of that article expressing any such concern. Would you care to add that template to the division-of-labor article? --Abhidevananda (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That article is 100% secondary sources with respect to its topic. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, North, what is the primary source with respect to the division-of-labor topic? But, anyway, I was mostly focused on the Theorists section of the article - the bulk of the article. In every case that I examined, what was written about division of labor by the particular theorist under discussion was referenced with a primary source. Did you not notice that? Come on, North... the title you gave to this section is "Why not pleasantly move forward?" Let's try to do that. --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional source

From Dr. Narasingha P. Sil's "The Troubled World of the Ananda Marga: An Examination", The Quarterly Review of History, 28:4, 1988, pp 3-19.

"The most noteworthy feature of the Ananda Marga movement has been its recent renown in respect of its theory of social cycles and of Progressive Utilization of Resources (Prout). The central theme of Proutism is maximum utilization of all resources—physical and psychological—in order to build a new global society that harmonizes technological and spiritual progress of mankind. Especially, Sarkar's theory of social cycles, adumbrated in his Manuser Somaj, has been utilized by Professor Ravi Batra in his sensational best-seller, The Great Depression of 1990. Admittedly, Sarkar's theory of social cycles has little originality or historical validity, it being a restatement, with some feeble adjustments, of the familiar Hindu division of society in four castes. Nevertheless, its application by Batra for explicating the current and social and economic predicament has attempted to legitimize Sarkar's message. Its intellectual and historical bankruptcy notwithstanding, the thinking behind this theory and its sequel, the theory of Prout, illustrates some economic and ecological consciousness. In this era of wanton consumerism, the Marga's emphasis on maximum utilization must be welcomed as the right socio-economic creed, even though some critics, perhaps with some justification, have been skeptical about its validity." (page 9)

Quite a bit more critical discussion in there as well, and despite that the overall tone is sympathetic. GaramondLethe 01:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Garamond has found one more source to add to the Critiques section of the article. And I guess this means that Garamond will not be adding the PROUT article to his long list of AfD nominations in respect to the Sarkarverse. "Proutism"? Never heard anyone refer to Progressive Utilization Theory as that. "Admittedly... little originality or historical validity... feeble adjustments"... yes, this chap is definitely writing with an unbiased and "sympathetic tone"... just like Helen Crovetto. . --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I should give a comment based on long experience at AfD that lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion, though it is the most common one. If an article is primarily advocacy, and all attempts to make it neutral have failed, it can be deleted accordingly. An article that discusses the details of a fringe theory is often regarded as advocacy. This is always a matter of opinion, and the consensus at AfD on such matters is unpredictable. A modest article is much more likely to survive than one which is over-expansive. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again for your input, DGG. As I have said above, this article on PROUT is not advocacy. I think that a close reading of the article will show that the language is neutral. If there be any instance where that is not so, then I would not only support but also insist on the language being changed. Regarding the matter of "fringe theories", I suppose it is also open to debate as to the extent to which PROUT is actually a "fringe theory". Presumably, just because it is being discussed at WP:FTN does not make it "fringe". Yes, there are many new elements to be found in respect to PROUT, for example, in respect to PROUT's quadridimensional economics and PROUT's theory of history. However, I would argue that these are not bizarre concepts but rather well-founded constructs that are rationally presented. Almost everything is presented with strong foundation. The one exception might be the concept of Prama, which could seem foreign to anyone who has little knowledge of yogic theory. Hence, that section is one of the shortest in the entire article (only a very few sentences). Is the article on PROUT "over-expansive"? I don't think so. There are many thousands of pages of writings by the propounder on this subject. Those writings cover a period of 31 years. As a social theory, PROUT is very comprehensive, arguably much more comprehensive than other social theories. Furthermore, when a social theory is described - by various secondary sources - as a possible alternative to capitalism and communism, readers will naturally want to know what is the position of PROUT on a range of topics. Accordingly, I organized the article with an encyclopedic structure (an alphabetical listing of topics, well-suited to the Wiki format involving a TOC and hyperlinks) to ensure that readers of the topic may easily access the specific information that they seek without having to read the entire article from start to finish. Under such circumstances, I don't believe that the size of the article should be a major issue. Though AfD debates are indeed a bit unpredictable, I find it difficult to believe that size alone would justify deletion of an informative article, neutral in expression and both encyclopedic and reader-friendly in structure. That said, as I indicated to North in our Why not pleasantly move forward discussion, I am open to shortening the article, for example by removing the Criminology section (possibly moving it to the Neohumanism article). Another alternative would be to restructure the entire PROUT article, creating a large number of smaller articles on the various key concepts. But somehow, I think that the crowd at User:Mangoe/Sarkar_articles would resist that proposal. --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Two more sources for the Critiques section of the article

There is a second Sil article available here. Apparently, this second article is much later than the article that Garamond has quoted from. I have not had the time to go through this second article in detail, but I have been told that the bias is a bit reduced in this article. From the little I have seen, that reduction is minimal. For example, Sil says: "Sarkar is silent on the most popular variety of Tantra – the Shakta Tantra." But the electronic edition of Sarkar's books in English turns up a great many hits on the subject of Shakta tantra, easily disproving Sil's assertion. I have uploaded this second article by Sil here. I also now have a copy of the PhD thesis of Sohail Inayatullah, which should - at the very least - dispel Sil's assertion that Sarkar's theory of history lacks originality. I have uploaded Inayatullah's PhD thesis here. So, at this stage, I think we have a lot of additional material to include in the Critiques section of the PROUT article. I would be grateful for any assistance that the Fringe/n editors here would contribute toward the expansion of - or even a total rewrite of - that section of the article. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

we have to go by the secondary sources. We have sometimes used phd theses, but not when there are better sources. What we cannot use is our own interpretation or analysis of the primary sources. that's the definition of Original Research, and however right you may be in your interpretation, it does not belong in WP. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Understood and agreed. Hence, we should present both the position of Sil and the position of Inayatullah in the Critiques section of the article without advocating either position. --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

One more source for the Critiques section of the article

Here is an article by Johan Galtung that makes significant mention of Sarkar's theory of history. This also tends to refute the dismissive remarks by Sil. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Galtung is an authority, but this is only work presented at a conference, not in a peer reviewed journal. He does discuss the subject substantially--it fact, it seems to be advocacy for it. It can probably be used, making it clear that it is his opinion. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. But would we not want to make clear that Sil - and any other secondary source - is also expressing an opinion? Would we not write: "According to Sil..." "According to Galtung..."? --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Going forward?

We have another month to move toward consensus. My thoughts on this are that we could still achieve that end if we focus more on the positive and less on the negative. Thus far no one has argued against the structure of the article - its outline. Presumably, that structure/outline is reasonable. Where we have gotten mired down is in opposing each other's content. But I believe that there is room for everything here. If we were to accept what each side wants to see in this article, we could then work on matters like ensuring neutrality of language, accuracy, and concision. So I propose that we set aside quarreling about what is wrong with each other's content, and collectively try to improve the total content. --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The article does need significant changes to bring it in line with policies and to make it encyclopedic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

So let's do it, but let's respect each other's input as our starting point. We talked about this already, North. And David came in and made clear that it is appropriate to have short paragraphs stating the author's view on topics. So let's try to imagine a single article on PROUT, introducing the social theory of PROUT as a whole and then briefly setting out the position of PROUT on various key topics. We then present various critiques of PROUT (for and against). Please note that PROUT is an alternative social theory, but - by and large - it is not a fringe theory. If there are any sections of the article that seem fringey, let's deal with them accordingly. So our main concerns should be neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. I don't see any problem with any of those three elements. So let's try to resolve this matter in a constructive and amicable fashion. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW I am NOT saying that negative stuff is needed for balance. I AM saying that, as a minimum the primary sourced stuff needs to be condensed and more secondary sourced material with encyclopedic wording needs to be added. Maybe we should see if we can get the article unlocked on a trial basis and start editing and see how it goes? North8000 (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

North, I think it would be rash to lift the protection on the article without having a viable consensus article in place. After all, there was good reason why protection was imposed. So perhaps - as it is just you and I who have been talking lately - you could do the honors by setting up a sandbox for a consensus article. I'd really like to see what it is that you have in mind. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• You can create a temporary page at Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory/Temp to re(write/design/structure) the article. I did it for multiple articles like Pritilata Waddedar, Surya Sen etc. --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Good idea, Tito. I have set up the Temp page now. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

My Limited involvement on this group of articles

In this case I do not have in depth involvement in the topic or articles. My first involvement was coaching the proponents and asking for delays at AFD's because I felt that the proponents did not understand wp:notability well enough to get themselves a fair shake at AFD. Later it was noticing what terrible shape this article is in with respect to Wikipedia policies and being enclyclopedic. It's basically 100% a self-description of the topic from primary sources. It was also my first impression that a group of ardent proponents of this topic were blocking the repair of the article. So my brief efforts have been along these three lines:

• A few hopefully objectives comments from an experienced editor about the state of the article.
• I also have a tendency towards mediation or trying to find a way forward where a few quick efforts and thoughts can make a big difference.
• Trying to help balance the process by brief weigh-ins on the side of those trying to get the article repaired.

My thoughts about the topic are that it appears interesting, and I see nothing negative about it, but that I know little or nothing about it because there is nothing here except a self-description by proponent.....this article is completely lacking in encyclopedic coverage from independent or secondary sources. My Wikipedia time is too short to spend a lot of time in a sandbox or off line draft on this article. If the article were unlocked, I would be happy to blaze through the article as a neutral editor trying to wikify the article. I would neutrally condense the current content by about 30%, and add in the content from the "Proposed content for Progressive Utilization Theory" proposal above,and organize the article to accommodate both. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• That works for me. Abhidevananda? Garamond Lethet
  c 04:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• In principle, I have no objection to a reduction of the current content by about 30% (preferably including the Criminology section, which I think may not be required). I have set up the page Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory/Temp so that North can edit it, and we can then all see how it turns out. If everyone is happy with that article - and agrees not to make further changes without prior consensus on the Talk page of the article - then I think we will have the necessary consensus to request a removal of protection on the Progressive Utilization Theory article (although it might still make sense to seek some sort of partial protection, given the tendency of this article to attract heated dispute). --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I had mentioned that I'm not up for substantial work off line. If someone didn't like my efforts at a 30% on a live article they could revert them. I/we could start slow if there is some concern. North8000 (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Getting rid of the criminology section would certainly be a good start. bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

To make that more explicit: if we reach a consensus to lift the page protection early, you're willing to make a few passes over the article. I'd like to give that a try. Others? Garamond Lethet
c 19:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do that. Just so that everyone knows how dumb-on-this/neutral I am, my only thoughts going in at this point is, as I indicated: "I would neutrally condense the current content by about 30%, and add in the content from the "Proposed content for Progressive Utilization Theory" proposal above,and organize the article to accommodate both." and to Wikify the wording a bit. If people don't like what I'm doing that could revert me and I won't be upset (maybe just a bit sad :-) ) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's first see what North does at Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory/Temp. --Abhidevananda (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There is currently an active Rfc requesting input on three proposals. Unless there is consensus to close the Rfc early, its probably best to let that run its course then bring in an administrator for a ruling. In the meantime, I agree that work should be done on the temp page for those who so desire. Location (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC) edited 19:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I had forgotten the RfC was live. I agree: let's allow that to run to completion then. Garamond Lethet
c 05:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned that I don't plan to do work in the sandbox. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't blame you. I've edited my comment. Location (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

As a guide, I would estimate that "I would neutrally condense the current content by about 30%" has it backwards. 30% is about the maximum length that should be left in. Abhidevananda, in my opinion, you are making very minor concessions in response to major problems. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, David, but you have this upside down. North made a proposal, and I immediately accepted his proposal in principle. However, in line with earlier discussion, I simply requested North to show us what his "neutral 30% reduction of the current content" would look like by doing it at Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory/Temp. North offered, and I accepted. But what is the use of this offer if everyone else here does not agree to it? And why not nail this agreement down properly by everyone seeing what they are agreeing to before requesting unprotection of the article? Furthermore, I believe that we should discuss some sort of semi-protection of the new article that North would produce and all of us agree on as a reasonable final step of the consensus process. --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Update

The article is still a bone of contention. Are we going to agree to disagree or give it one more try? --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think we're waiting for the RfC to be closed. Garamond Lethet
  c 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Could you please give me the link of the RfC. I fear I have missed it! --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It's here. Yeah, that's the trouble with all the bludgeoning this page has gone through. Even an editor aware of the issues here can't find it. Location (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Good heavens! That's a dead discussion.. as dead as a Mummy and we are still dwelling on it? --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I just wrote at the end there: "Result: Has gone dead with no resolution or decisions. Efforts on this have been and/or should be focused elsewhere." North8000 (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what the objection is to the RfC being closed properly by an uninvolved administrator given that the issue remains contentious and consensus remains unclear despite weeks of discussion. Besides, an uninvolved editor commented on those three proposals less than two weeks ago, I wouldn't call it dead just yet. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I was just trying to help this along (and restart overall progress on the article which seems to be waiting on a dead RFC) by stating the obvious. If anybody objects I will strike what I wrote. North8000 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• An alternative might be working on the temp page and if necessary go down fighting. --Tito Dutta (contact) 15:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. North8000 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the article is protected, all of us make necessary changes in the draft copy, i.e. the temp page, and after making a stable copy, we may replace the content of the article with the temp! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The temp page is not a panacea for all our disagreements. If I start working on it, I'll simply replace all the content with Location's proposal, work in a few other secondary sources and then maybe add a few quotes from Sarkar's works. That approach is obviously not acceptable which is why we had such a long dispute and three separate proposals in the first place. Either Abhidevananda and other involved editors agree to let DGG or North8000 edit the page as they see fit, both of whom have have offered to do so, or we can wait for the RfC to close. As i see it, editing on the temp page will only lead to more and more of the same. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I am tired of being "bludgeoned by the process" and a temp page is just more of the same. As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to wait a few more days and get a ruling on the Rfc. Location (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: "dead discussion". Titodutta, that what I thought when I posted here, but others insisted that I was acting in bad faith (for instance) and moved the Rfc header ([5], [6]). Your neutrality is to be commended, but it would have been helpful if you had rebuked those attacks and openly acknowledged that I was simply trying to break the gridlock here. Location (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I had thought the RfC was on the question of replacing the existing article with the proposed article that was in line with policy. I've now realized my error and !voted on the RfC. Garamond Lethet
  c 17:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Clicked on "save" and went for dinner and after returning, found it was struck with an edit conflict I did/have not read that "another attack" (also "Corvetto's article", atomic explosion" etc) thread(s). I d(id/on)'t have so much. A hindrance of our discussion has been iteration of same points. One should not repeat same things again and again and write in precise and pointwise. The content of the temp page could be replaced with the one Location had prepared. That edit will most likely be reverted, but that will open a corridor to move forward at least, I anticipate! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• The article was protected because of an edit war over whether to include swathes of content which failed WP:V and WP:NPOV. We should just unprotect the article and edit in line with wikipedia's policies. That's not difficult. Is that acceptable to you, Tito Dutta? If some editor were to resume edit-warring or sockpuppeting or canvassing in order to return unsourced and non-neutral content to the article, we should try some alternative solution instead of protecting their preferred version of the article. bobrayner (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not revert any of these edits, nor your or theirs and did nothing (read "no revert") other than having the article protected. You can have the article unprotected, but are you sure it'll not instigate the edit warring again? (this is disgusting, this is completely against Wikipedia policies and specially ideals to have an article fully protected for 3 months!) --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't accuse you of editwarring. I'm asking whether you feel this article should comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Unfortunately, it does not at the moment, because a more policy-compliant version was unpalatable to Abhidevananda, who kept on reverting it as "vandalism", and the wrong version got protected. Do you feel it is sufficient for editors to comply with policy, or should we make further concessions so that the article can contain text that some editors really want even when that text blatantly fails multiple policies? bobrayner (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not only this article, all articles should follow all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The good point is both you and they think the wrong version has been protected. One can try request unprotection as a "test"! I don't have any problem with anything. The only thing I am requesting is lift the protection as soon as possible. 3 months full protection- too much! --Tito Dutta (contact) 14:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Good. So you would agree that the article would be better going back to this version which is closer to WP:V and WP:NPOV compliance? We could continue to improve the article from that point, and I would like protection to be lifted quickly so we can start fixing the problems. Would you agree that it would be a Bad Thing if another editor restarted the edit war by reinserting content which clearly failed multiple policies? bobrayner (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a diff. I assume you mean the version after the edit (12:09). Looks better. North8000 (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• That version also has some issues! I strongly recommend to do it systematically, an idea mentioned below, you can suggest your own

Make necessary changes in Temp page. and post here in talk page, also at Ac Anhidevananda's and Cornellius's talk page that if those changes go unchallenged for next 72 hours, the text of the main article will be replaced with that one! Of course they will challenge and revert the edit. But, that's how we'll be able to prevent another edit-warring. It is better to have an edit warring in temp page than in mainspace (I don't know if edit warring at temp page counts to 3RR block.

--Tito Dutta (contact) 14:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to notify Anhidevananda and Cornelius? I recognise that previous attempts at changing text have only succeeded when those editors have taken their finger off the revert button, but this article ownership is a Bad Thing, not a Good Thing. No proposal to bring the article in line with WP:V and WP:NPOV can succeed if it gives veto power to the editors who have previously reverted such edits (I can present very many diffs, if necessary). If you want the article to comply with policy, I cannot understand why you propose a mechanism which seems designed to prevent it complying with policy. bobrayner (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Informing might be helpful (not "necessary") so that they can't say later that did not know about our plans. I am ready to follow the path you have suggested, and let's see how it goes (I am damn sure, it'll cause another edit warring and might be full protection)! --Tito Dutta (contact) 15:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If editors repeatedly add unsourced and non-neutral content, protecting their preferred version of the article is not the best solution. The best outcome is that editors stop violating WP:V and WP:NPOV. The second-best outcome is blocking or banning editors - and their sockpuppets - who have persistently flouted policies in order to push their POV. bobrayner (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

In case anybody is wondering...My only strong opinion is that the current article is Unwikipedian and needs fixing. I don't really know the topic nor do I have an opinion on it. I don't have any single direction in mind.....I've supported things that look like moves in the right direction, I've indicated that I'm not willing to spend my limited Wikipedia time in a sandbox, I indicated willingness to neutrally blaze through this article when unlocked and neutrally do the merge with new proposed content and approx 30% reduction of current content....but that is just another idea. Also if there are folks totally blockading wikificaiton, then I'm willing to help take a stand to fix that situation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

North, no one is "blockading wikification". I personally have accepted your proposal in principle. I believe Garamond, Tito, and DGG did as well. Others have not commented. My only reservation is that, given the history of this article and this discussion, I believe that it would be rash to remove the protection before we have consensus. It would not only be like buying a pig in a poke but also, and worse, a potential precipitation of another edit war. So let's get consensus before unprotecting the article. I assure you that from my side, I will be receptive to any reasonable edits that you may make to the PROUT article on the Temp page. As an editor who, unlike you, does know PROUT, I may have some differences of opinion with you regarding what should go and what should remain, but I think we could work those out. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

North8000, if you are suggesting WP:RFC/U, keep me posted. Location (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Abhidevananda, if you agree to follow wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV, then presumably you will not repeat your previous revert-warring to reinsert crappy content, and the risk of an edit-war will abate. If you do not agree to follow wikipedia policies, then the best solution is restrictions on your editing rather than restrictions on the article. Which would you prefer? bobrayner (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't say that I expected that my changes would be accepted or stay. My thought is that they would be freely individually editable after I made them, but not get reverted en masse. 14:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Abhidevananda, if you agree to follow wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV, then presumably you will not repeat your previous revert-warring to reinsert crappy content, and the risk of an edit-war will abate. If you do not agree to follow wikipedia policies, then the best solution is restrictions on your editing rather than restrictions on the article. Which would you prefer? bobrayner (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Way Forward

If we are going to move ahead here, we can only do so with respectful language and a degree of compromise. So, regarding the changes that were made on the Temp page, I would have - and still will - happily discuss everything, but this will go nowhere if entire article is trashed both literally and figuratively. --Abhidevananda (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have gone over Bob's changes on the Temp page. I had no problem with most of them. I reverted the final change... of course. And I removed the empty links that he left in the Criminology section. I don't mind eliminating the Income Tax section, and I don't have a problem with some padding that he removed. However, I reverted his deletion of "Psycho-economy". Like it or not, that is one out of four parts of proutist economics, and it needs some mention and description. If some part of the description appears non-neutral, rewrite it. But don't remove it just because you don't like it. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems like any improvement is automatically reverted. I updated the temp page to reflect the version proposed by Location and agreed by a number of other editors... and Abhidevananda just hit the revert button with no explanation other than "of course". Perhaps mindless revert-warring of the temp page is a cunning tactic to ensure that the article will remain protected - on Abhidevananda's preferred version. bobrayner (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can go to Talk:Progressive_Utilization_Theory/Temp and see that after Bob's edits the count in Section 4 only goes up to 4:33 (as compared to 4:35) on the currently protected article. And anyone can look at the history of those edits and see that nowhere did I revert any changes with an "of course". However, two times now, Bob has deleted one of the four parts of PROUT's economic model, leaving no documentation at all on the subject, and his only comment (twice now) was: "removed fantasy". Well, that's not a justification for removing anything in an article. Maybe it is fantasy - though I certainly disagree - but our concern should be to present the position of PROUT in a neutral fashion. If someone wants to add in the Critiques section something like "Bob Rayner considers psycho-economy to be fantasy", I have no objection. But I definitely think that something should be written on that subject in the Economics section of our article on PROUT. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Abhidevananda, perhaps you missed my earlier question; I'll try again here.

If you agree to follow wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV, then presumably you will not repeat your previous revert-warring to reinsert crappy content, and the risk of an edit-war will abate. If you do not agree to follow wikipedia policies, then the best solution is restrictions on your editing rather than restrictions on the article. Which would you prefer? bobrayner (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Bob, if you want to make changes that are constructive, then you need to use edit summaries that are more explanatory and less rude than "removed Sarkarspam" or "removed fantasy". Here you deleted 1 out of 4 parts of proutist economics: psycho-economy. Clearly, even if it is just fantasy, something needs to be said there. You call psycho-economics fantasy, but you could just run a Google search on "psycho-economics", and you would see that this is a growing field of study. Yes, the definition of psycho-economics varies, but I don't see anyone but you describing it as "fantasy". If you don't like how I explained the topic (as it exists within PROUT), rewrite it. Condense it. Make it more neutral. If there is a problem of sources, point it out, and I will provide the references. But why delete factual information like the two bullets (which are the essence of psycho-economics in a proutist context)? Why create a glaring hole in the the topic? --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned edit-summaries, even though it's a diversion from the main problem. We do have a problem with fantasy and sarkarspam, and with misleading edit summaries. Let's have a look at our recent edits to this article:

• Bob, "fantasy" is a non-constructive remark, and "sarkarspam" is not just rude but inflammatory. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is a good edit summary: Removing unsourced, poorly-sourced, and WP:FRINGE content. My edit removed unsourced, poorly-sourced, and fringe content.
• This edit summary is a lie: Undid vandalism by Bob Rayner. It was not reverting vandalism; it was adding unsourced, poorly-sourced, and fringe content into the article yet again.

• The edit summary you list is 2 months old. At that time, I considered your edits vandalism, but I was informed - twice - that Wikipedia defines vandalism in a very restricted fashion. You need to go back 2 months to find an inappropriate edit summary on my part. I only need to go back 2 days. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question, though. If you agree to follow wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV, then presumably you will not repeat your previous revert-warring to reinsert crappy content, and the risk of an edit-war will abate. If you do not agree to follow wikipedia policies, then the best solution is restrictions on your editing rather than restrictions on the article. Which would you prefer? bobrayner (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• I follow Wikipedia policies. I might disagree with your interpretation of them. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Abhidevananda, why is this point so hard to answer?
If you agree to follow wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV, then presumably you will not repeat your previous revert-warring to reinsert crappy content, and the risk of an edit-war will abate. If you do not agree to follow wikipedia policies, then the best solution is restrictions on your editing rather than restrictions on the article. Which would you prefer? Will you follow WP:V and WP:NPOV in future? bobrayner (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I follow Wikipedia policies. I might disagree with your interpretation of them. I might also disagree with your concept of "crappy content". Indeed, I might consider many of your edits to fall under that category. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The outcomes of the various AFD discussions shows that, when it comes to the exercise of authority here, those in power will back up our interpretation of policy against yours. If you will not accept that you have to find outside-the-movement references for the content of these articles, then eventually we will have to call for your exclusion from editing them. By all rights you should be able to find such sources more readily then we can; but if they cannot be found, then the material will have to be removed. That's just what the rules are. I've been around this numerous times, and thus far I have prevailed in every case, not because I have friends in power, but because they accept my arguments and reject those on the other side. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Last resort: Mediation

AFAIK Wikipedia:Mediation is considered as the last process to solve a dispute, which can be tried sooner or later. You can vote below, but, those votes will not matter. I can see our road is leading us to Rome WP:Mediation! --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Support

• Yes: After seeing the replies at recent ANI thread! --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Qualified yes: If there is no way forward with North's proposal... which struck me as quite reasonable except for the rather impractical notion of unprotecting the article immediately, without prior consensus and without committed support from the FTN people... then mediation seems to be the only sensible course of action. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes: I agree with Tito and Abhidevananda.--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. I am going to kill this right now. Tito Dutta's earlier proposal has consensus, and it appears mine does, too. We should close these proposals before moving onto another one. Location (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is premature given the open RFCs and SPI. Garamond Lethet
  c 17:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. It's hard to imagine why a voluntary process with an uninvolved mediator is going to work when the opinion of many uninvolved editors has been ignored before (like here) and previous attempts at mediation, by you Tito, have had little effect. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• oppose It will turn into just another delaying tactic. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Just another delay at this point. North8000 (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• What is mediation supposed to achieve here? Any dispute-resolution process which runs consensually is no solution, because there are fundamental disagreements between editors; some of whom really want articles to comply with policy, and others who really want their articles to contain lots of stuff which doesn't comply with policy. If a mediator could compel editors to act in line with policy, I would support that; but it seems that you're only proposing mediation as an alternative to the perfectly sensible suggestion, above, that editors comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV. bobrayner (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• As far as I know, the RFC concluded a few days ago. Nothing came of it. The SPI is also closed now, and nothing came of that either. So, if we are not going ahead with North's proposal (via a Temp page) - a proposal that I think was very constructive - then I think there is no reason to delay with the mediation. I don't see any neutral parties here. Everyone who has written on this page (except maybe ItsMeJudith) has engaged in other Sarkar-related debates. Everyone here - except maybe Tito - has taken a marked stand, either pro or con. So if we cannot come to an agreement while the page is protected, there is no reason to imagine that we will come to an agreement when the protection is lifted. --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Consensus does not mean unanimity. I don't see any difficulty with the non-SPA editors reaching consensus once protection is lifted. Your input is welcome in that process but you don't have a veto here. Garamond Lethet
  c 10:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• The RFC concluded a few days ago. Nothing came of it. Even if late I add my "yes".--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, the Rfc concluded a few days ago but the only editors stating that "nothing came of it" are those who are opposed to the consensus that formed. The consensus view of the respective discussions indicates that the article should in general "keep only those content which are supported by independent scholarly works" (i.e. Proposal 1 authored by Titodutta) and more specifically replace the current content with the draft noted on the talk page (i.e. Proposal 2 authored by myself). Integrating the material from the draft into the current article has no consensus (i.e. Proposal 3 authored by Abhidevananda). It would be nice to have an administrator rubber stamp this for us, but it is not necessary. We can request that page protection be lifted now, or we can wait until March 18th. It doesn't matter to me. Either way, I intend to act on the consensus that has formed once the page protection has lifted. If this needs to play out via 3RR to demonstrate the consensus to those who don't believe there is any, then so be it. If we want to do it in a more gentlemanly way, we can ask that this article be subject to 1RR. Location (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll just request an admin to conclude the RfC instead. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 March 2013

Protection was set to expire today. As we've reached consensus (if not unanimity) on improving the article, I'd like the protection to be removed. Garamond Lethet
c 04:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It'll expire at 13:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC), 8 hours 8 minutes from now! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, my bad, I thought is was at 00:01. Thanks. Garamond Lethet
c 05:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• No consensus: I disagree about Garmond's assertion that consensus has been reached. The group from FTN (including DGG) are unanimous in their opinion. I have not seen anyone not connected with FTN who agrees with them. --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• No consensus- I agree: I have not seen anyone not connected with FTN who agrees with them.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I temporarily support the abbreviated version which has just been put in as a way to finally move forward. The previous one was really bad and folks have been miring down attempts to fix it to the point where there has otherwise been no progress. Then we could move towards a compromise version which brings back in some self-description by proponents. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Location (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that the article is unprotected, I would like to see the version of the article that North8000 offered to do. (Of course, I would have preferred to see it much earlier.) Failing a significant improvement in the near future, I see no alternative but to restore something similar to what was in place while the article was protected. The absence of any substantive information from the propounder of PROUT and an almost total reliance on Helen Crovetto (a non-neutral source) renders the current content mostly uninformative or misleading. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Despite your previous assertions, there is a clear consensus that your earlier version is not acceptable. If you revert to that version, or make changes that do not have consensus, you may find yourself subject to the measures discussed in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Obdurate lack of cooperation from User:Abhidevananda. Consider yourself warned. Location (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

If I were to start an ANI thread titled "Unacceptable FTN hijacking of PROUT article", would I then be in a position to issue warnings to you, Location? And, anyway, as the author of the current content, don't you have a COI here? Is that why you are threatening me? Look, all of you people from FTN have engaged in mudslinging against me at various ANI threads, two failed SPIs, and even some AFDs. Nothing came of all that. So why should I care about possible measures mentioned under just one more uncivil ANI thread? Does anyone here really believe that the article on PROUT is somehow solely related to India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan? If so, do you have a "reliable, secondary source" claiming such nonsense? For now, the rubbish material imposed by FTN is tagged with a range of problems. If the FTN crowd does not fix those problems quickly, I may feel duty-bound to fix them myself. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem with Crovetto, other than the non-problem that she doesn't have a commitment to Sarkar's views. My impression is that in the field, she has a very high reputation. One of the new religion journals set up a prize in her honor. If you want her views discounted you will need to provide sources from outside the movement that question her account. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Abhidevananda has raised an issue with a timeline she presented, but it's original research on his part. That might be sufficient to look for another timeline, but he hasn't managed to impeach her as a reliable source. Garamond Lethet
c 23:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope: no consensus. This is pretty clear.--Cornelius383 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Crovetto is absolutely not a neutral source.--Cornelius383 (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

She is until you come up with a contrary source!!! Mangoe (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Abhidevananda, have you considered writing a book on PROUT? If you avoid self-publishing (and AM) then there won't be any question that your book is a reliable, independent source. You can then use that work as cite here. Garamond Lethet
c 19:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's head for some middle ground. North8000 (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Categories

I propose to add Category:Economic ideologies, Category:Political ideologies, and Category:Social theories to the article. Are there any objections to this? Are there any other categories that should be discussed? Location (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good start. Garamond Lethet
c 18:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we probably ought to have a Sarkar category, given that I'm pretty sure we're going to have enough articles to populate it. Mangoe (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Should be uncontroversial, added! --Tito Dutta (contact) 01:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK dream

I wish someone of us nominate this article for DYK. The current version should be good to go, but, I want to wait2-3 days so that it can be expanded a bit more. We can add an image of P. R. Sarkar somewhere in the article so that we can include it in the DYK nom too. The only thing I am worrying about is "edit warring" (hinted in the "edit request" section above). --Tito Dutta (contact) 01:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

So what needs to be improved first?

Please be specific. Here's mine:

1) There were a couple of independent, reliable sources unearthed after the current text was proposed. There are two in particular I can get out of UC Berkeley later this week.

2) Prout logo and photo of Sarkar would help the layout a lot.

3) More reliable sources. Not sure how realistic this is, but the ceiling on the quality of this article is going to be determined by WP:RS more than anything else.

Others? Garamond Lethet
c 05:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a SAGE account? There's one article I saw in a SAGE journal that looks promising. Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Go ahead and post the cite. Garamond Lethet
c 21:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As to additional sources, there's this. It's peer-reviewed, but I'm not sure how to describe the author. According to this he's getting around to getting his Ph.D. in economics but has taught the topic at the community college level for years. "Professor" is a bit too strong, as is "economist", but "teacher" and "instructor" are a little too weak. Suggestions? Garamond Lethet
c 04:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Instructor of economics.[7] Location (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Garamond Lethet
c 05:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Tag bombing

The phrase "Sarkar formulated the theory for his Ananda Marga movement in 1959" was tagged with "motive or beneficiaries and what evidence other than hearsay?". I have removed the tag as this is a near direct quote from the source, Irving p. 316, which states: "In 1959 he formulated the socio-economic theory of his movement, calling it PROUT, which stands for Progressive Utilisation Theory." I have no objections changing "for" to "of". Location (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a big difference between "for" and "of". That was the point of the comment. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Garamond Lethet
c 04:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The word "summarized" in "and summarized it in the fifth chapter of his influential work Ananda Sutram" was tagged with "too early for a summary... more accurately, formalize". I have removed the tag as this is a near direct quote from the source, Covetto/Lewis p. 258 which states: "To a large extent, the controversy that Ananda Marga has generated can be attributed to PROUT, Sarkar’s theory of socioeconomic and political ideas, which is summarized in the fifth chapter of Sarkar’s seminal work, Ananda Sutram." Location (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

See also Friedman (2008): "Sarkar summarized his philosophy in a short book called Ananda Sutram, first published in English in 1961." (I'll be adding the cite shortly.) Garamond Lethet
c 04:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As indicated by the template at the top of the article, there is too much reliance on Crovetto, who is not a very reliable source. Crovetto may have said this, but again her timeline is absurd. Ananda Sutram was given in 1961. Ananda Sutram gives a formal picture of the various elements of PROUT and an official version of PROUT, but most of those elements (except perhaps the theory of history) still required considerable amplification - amplification that Sarkar continually provided up to 1990. Hence, it is misleading to describe what appears in Ananda Sutram as a "summary". Summaries typically describe material that has already been presented. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source that uses the word "formalized"? Garamond Lethet
c 06:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Use your common sense, Garamond! I imposed the disputed template, because information that is easily refuted is presented as fact. Crovetto may have said "summarized" - and Crovetto may be considered by you or Wikipedia as a reliable source - but she is obviously wrong on this point. The timeline makes no sense. Sarkar had only just begun to give PROUT in 1961 when he gave Ananda Sutram. As for a source for "formalization", Sarkar himself made it clear that this is what he did by the very nature of the book, Ananda Sutram. Ananda Sutram is itself the formal authority on all of Ananda Marga philosophy. Furthermore, Sarkar's final statement (in Samskrta) at the end of Chapter 5 of that book (the chapter on PROUT) makes it clear that this chapter represents the total scope and essential concepts of PROUT. That statement reads simply: "Pragatishiila upayogatattvamidaḿ sarvajanahitárthaḿ sarvajanasukhárthaḿ pracáritam. [This is the Progressive Utilization Theory, propounded for the happiness and all-round welfare of all.]" You will not find a sweeping statement like that - "This is the Progressive Utilization Theory" - anywhere else in Sarkar's writings. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

So on one hand I have two (Crovetto and Friedman) independent, peer-reviewed reliable sources that use "summarized", and on the other I have your original research. You're also wrong on the facts—your reading of "summarized" is highly idiosyncratic. Typical readers will interpret "summarized" as "short overview". That's the sense that both Friedman and Crovetto intended. We're not going to change the wording of the article because you want to read something more into "summarized". Garamond Lethet
c 07:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference markup

If there aren't any objections I'd like to volunteer to move the details of the references to the reflist at the bottom, using the <ref name=foo /> convention in the body of the article. This is wholly a matter of preference, so if you prefer the current version speak up and we'll leave it as-is. If you don't know what I'm talking about, see the reflist at the bottom of Parable of the Sunfish for an example. Garamond Lethet
c 05:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections, but you may want to wait for others to respond. Location (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Still very lopsided

I have made some contributions to the article. Someone suggested adding the logo. I did that. I also added the five fundamental principles of PROUT, because any article on this subject is absurdly incomplete without an inclusion of these five principles. As someone else (Garamond?) tagged the article as a stub in relation to economics, I added a section on PROUT's economic theory. These insertions also help to redress the imbalance of the article by omitting any input from Sarkar himself. However, in my opinion, the article is still hugely unbalanced, as PROUT is much more than an economic theory.

Regarding the comments that I added in the other section (Renamed to "Opinions of others"), they are for constructive purposes. Most of those comments can be easily addressed. But please do not just delete them. I inserted the comments rather than fixing the problems myself, because this section of the article is very poorly constructed in my opinion, and I doubt that the FTN people would appreciate my reconstruction of it. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop uncivil remarks here and on my personal Talk page

There has been no "tag bombing" or "edit warring". I am trying to improve an article under construction with helpful tips and additional material. I would have preferred to do this on a temp page, but the FTN people wanted to do it in an active article. I am trying to work cooperatively with others to create a joint article. Just passing negative remarks and threats (here and on my personal Talk page) is not helpful in this respect. As for going to ARBIND, I have no objection. I also had no objection to going to mediation. The FTN people may do what they think best, but - in the meantime - I would appreciate greater civility on their part. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)