Talk:Progressive utilization theory/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Progressive utilization theory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- In that case, North, what is the primary source with respect to the division-of-labor topic?
- That article is 100% secondary sources with respect to its topic. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 7 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?
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)
- 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.
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- That works for me. Abhidevananda? Garamond Lethet
- 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)
- 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)
- I don't blame you. I've edited my comment. Location (talk) 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
- 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)
- 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)