Jump to content

Talk:Progressive utilization theory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Progressive utilization theory
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 03:06, 25 March 2013 (Robot: Archiving 7 threads from Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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

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

Major cleanup

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

Recurrent problem

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

Bob, what is stated at face value is the theory. PROUT is a theory. The point of this article is primarily to present the theory accurately, not to substantiate it. If substantiation were a requirement, we would have to remove a huge number of articles on Wikipedia, including just about everything on capitalism and communism. :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
If a theory has been discussed by independent sources, then we can write neutral content. If it hasn't been discussed by independent sources, how do you suppose it passes the GNG? bobrayner (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Bob, a presumption does not guarantee anything, positive or negative. As I understand it, WP has no hard and fast rules per WP:FIVE. How independent would someone have to be to satisfy you? How many independent people would be required to satisfy you? If PROUT has been commented on by Ravi Batra, Sohail Inayatullah, Leonardo Boff, and Noam Chomsky... are any of them really independent? Indeed, are any of them more independent than I am? And just because they commented on it, would that mean that their comments are really neutral, much less correct? The simple fact is that this theory is extensive and penetrating. Its alleged ability to resolve problems that capitalism and communism cannot makes it notable to many... if not to you. I could not develop such a theory, and I doubt that you could either. Hence, my goal in this article has been to present PROUT as accurately as I can, rather than to merely parrot what others have said about it or how others have chosen to interpret it. I have also tried my best to maintain a neutral approach in that regard. I believe that I have done so in accordance with what is set out in WP:FIVE. The information I provided is both verifiable and authoritative. Just because I support PROUT does not mean that I cannot discuss it in a dispassionate fashion. As I see it, a rational socioeconomic theory should be able to stand on its own merits. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Is the bulk of this article based on independent sources, or is it based on your understanding of prout? bobrayner (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Bob, it seems that you did not understand a word that I said. Either that or you purposefully ignored what I said. Either way, I don't have time for such type of non-communication. May I suggest that you drop your obsession with this article and all things in the sarkarverse. Why not move on to some other pages where your contributions will be less likely to be deemed disruptive? Pardon me for saying this, but if there is any "recurrent problem" in respect to the PROUT article at this stage, it is only you. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I second that. Even though there's still some room for development in the article, PROUT definitely passes the GNG. The article does rely on verifiable and authoritative sources. I think a "constructive" suggestion would be to add some more materials from the books of Ravi Batra, Sohail Inayatullah and some acaryas, as there are plenty of sources. That's a huge work, but I might help in the future with that if I have time. Coming to your question Bob, the article relies definitely on independent sources. If you're looking for articles with a lot of non-reliable and non-authoritative sources, unfortunately there are many of them, delibarately created for political manipulation, unlike PROUT. If you deal with them, you'll have my 100% support. But PROUT is not the case. --Universal Life (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Protected

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

Thank you, KTC. Please note that I welcome constructive changes to the article, but - to avoid just this situation - have always requested that they be discussed on the article Talk page first. If you examine the history of this article over the last 8 years, you will see that Bob Rayner has repeatedly made wholesale deletions in respect to the article. As he has begun doing the same thing again - and as he appears to have a penchant for trying to delete just about anything connected with P. R. Sarkar (see for example "Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3)"-Discussion for deletion), my repeated suggestion to him - and my request to the admins - has been that he keep a distance from topics related to P R Sarkar on Wikipedia.--Abhidevananda (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, instead of helping solve the problem, Abhidevananda just reverted the problematic content back into the article after the protection ended. This is a bad thing. Please stop adding unsourced, poorly-sourced, and WP:FRINGE content back into the article. bobrayner (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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

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

---

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

JSTOR
  1. JSTOR 20751800
  2. JSTOR 10.1525/nr.2008.12.1.26
Google Books
  1. 01
  2. 02
Official website
  1. proutistuniversal.org
  2. www.proutglobe.org
  3. prout.org

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

  • Support: Though I have been told that this renaming might not fully conform with Wikipedia policy about capitalization, I fully support this move. The simple fact is that, outside of Wikipedia, I have never seen the proper name of this theory written in any other way than with capitalization on the first letter of the three words. "Progressive Utilization Theory" is a proper name. While it is a fact that the "Progressive Utilization Theory" is a "progressive utilization theory", it strikes me as bizarre and a bit irritating that PROUT should be titled as "Progressive utilization theory" on Wikipedia. In other words, despite any Wikipedia policy on capitalization of political theories, I would invoke the no firm rules exception in this case. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Here the topic is not some public-domain academic theory with wide acceptance, so it may not fit easily under the relevant provisions at WP:MOSCAPS. See also WP:MOSTM, relevant to this proprietary entity. The article associates the theory with a logo, even. I could understand dissent from this view, from various stances. If the theory did become respectable as common currency in scholarly use, there would be strong grounds for lower case. On a detailed point of research into usage, note that several of the resources appealed to in the proposal hardly use the expanded term at all, preferring the acronym "PROUT"; and in introducing an acronym, many sources go against best practice and highlight the letters involved by capitalising them. Compare "Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) is ...", where "ultra-high frequency" is stylistically superior in general use, as all major style sources agree. NoeticaTea? 23:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
A "quick Google search" is not helpful, Piotrus; unless you produce the exact search and show how you excluded headings and titles in title case (that is, contexts in which major words are temporarily capitalised). Such occurrences may dominate, for this term. And "PROUT" is routinely substituted after the initial occurrence of some version of "progressive utilization theory". NoeticaTea? 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Progressive_utilization_theory/Archive_1&oldid=546846874"