Talk:Progressive utilization theory

Proposal to replace current content

Proposal

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

Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose

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

Neutral

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

Discussion

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

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

Crovetto's article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Yes I'm sure.

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

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

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

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

GaramondLethe 03:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Found the bug

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unreliability of Crovetto's chapter in VaNRM

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

Paragraph 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Way Forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 18 March 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories

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

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

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

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

DYK dream

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

So what needs to be improved first?

Please be specific. Here's mine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instructor of economics.[1] Location (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

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

A few other ideas on what I'd like to see added to the article:

1. A bit more info on the context of where these ideas came from. (The Hindu caste comment by Sil is the only thing we have.) I don't know that this information is available from independent sources.
2. I'd like to include the fact that Proutist Universal (or whatever it was) was formed to propagate these ideas, and that it was intentionally kept separate from Ananda Marga. (I think this is Crovetto, but I'll have to reread the article to find it.)
3. Any info on whether or not Proutist is still a going concern. The web site doesn't appear to have been updated in a long time.
4. Mention of the Hilton bombing (was this Proutists, Ananda Marga, or are the two effectively synonymous)?
5. Listing Sarkar's works that discuss PROUT with a small amount detail (including the fact that the books are self-published).
6. A bibliography of secondary works: there are few enough of them that we might as well list them all with a bit of commentary for each.

Garamond Lethet
c 22:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm at UCDavis this weekend and they have [Prout Manifesto]. Only two copies of this book known to worldcat. It's in their Special Collection which doesn't open until 10a Monday, so I'll try to extend my trip until then. If anyone else here is in the NorCal area and can get access to this, let me know. Garamond Lethet
c 20:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Tag bombing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to http://dictionary.com. "Summarize" usually means "to make a summary of" or "to constitute a summary of". A summary is not defined as an "overview" anywhere that I have seen (though perhaps you may have seen it somewhere). Typically, "summary" is defined as "a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation, or compendium of previously stated facts or statements". NOTE: "previously stated facts or statements". Most of these facts were not previously stated. Historically, this information mostly came out for the first time in Ananda Sutram. Hence, I am simply trying to provide accurate information here. And, for the record, Sarkar is indeed a source when it comes to the subject of PROUT. He is the primary source. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're relying on dictionary.com that's a good sign you've lost the argument. Buy an OED if you're going to be making dictionary-based arguments. I checked mine and there's no sense where the term implies finality: no competent reader will be misled into thinking that Sarkar stopped developing his ideas. Your objection looks like it was designed to tear down Crovetto, and since you're unfamiliar with the academic work in this area you didn't realize Friedman also used the term. Garamond Lethet
c 17:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference markup

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

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

Done. Garamond Lethet
c 04:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Still very lopsided

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

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

Please stop uncivil remarks here and on my personal Talk page

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

Abhidevananda, why not start working on and discussing material to go in, one piece at a time? North8000 (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The general problem was that each of those pieces didn't have any secondary sourcing. That doesn't make them useless, but I would be reluctant to have primary-sourced material taking up more than half of the article. Garamond Lethet
c 22:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree in general. But how 'bout a little bit? Plus would any of those removed images be good? North8000 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good to me! Garamond Lethet
c 23:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Structure

I'm thinking of splitting the description into "PROUT as social order" and "PROUT as economic theory" with Crovetto's work in the former and Friedman in the latter. Ravi Batra may be able to make an appearance in both; I won't be able to tell until I get back to the library.

Thoughts? I'm a little be leery of giving so much weight to Friedman—the paper has only been cited once—but there's so little independent work in this area that I hate to discard anything that has been peer reviewed.

Garamond Lethet
c 17:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)