Talk:Progressive utilization theory/Archive 1

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

Requested move

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

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

---

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


 * JSTOR


 * Google Books
 * 1) 01
 * 2) 02

--Relisted Although there are two supports and no opposes, User:Noetica raises valid points in the application of WP:MOSCAPS. Further discussion would be helpful in determining consensus. Tyrol5  [Talk]  02:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC) --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Official website
 * 1) http://proutistuniversal.org/
 * 2) http://www.proutglobe.org/
 * 3) http://prout.org/


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


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


 * Support. While it is a bit unusual, a quick Google Book Search seems to confirm that capitalized version is more common than not in this instance. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A "quick Google search" is not helpful, Piotrus; unless you produce the exact search and show how you excluded headings and titles in title case (that is, contexts in which major words are temporarily capitalised). Such occurrences may dominate, for this term. And "PROUT" is routinely substituted after the initial occurrence of some version of "progressive utilization theory". N oetica Tea? 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit Protection
I thank the WP admins for protecting this page. Over the years, it has been systematically stripped of content by Bob Rayner and some others. Once again, he is engaged in that same practice. Clearly, he has a negative obsession with all things related to what he calls the "Sarkarverse" or "Sarkarsphere". See for example his recent nomination for deletion of "Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3)"-Discussion for deletion. I welcome constructive assistance to any article that I work on. But massive deletions of entire sections or even multiple sections in an article that has been rated "B" on the quality scale of two portals and is awaiting rating on five other portals strikes me as extreme. If anyone has a dispute about content, I will be happy to discuss that dispute and work to correct the problem. But I cannot appreciate wholesale destruction instead of discussion or constructive assistance. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia and specially the articles related to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. But, if you can add some secondary reliable sources, the article will be in much better condition (in my opinion). --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of just restoring problematic content unchanged - which fails WP:BURDEN anyway - it would be better to rewrite the content so that it reflects the mainstream view and what independent sources say. If the content isn't actually true or can't be supported by independent sources, don't add it back into the article. Simple. bobrayner (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This can not be said "the content isn't true", since no reference has been provided that shows these information are incorrect. And it can also be assumed they are doing good faith edits. But, yes, it is a pillar of Wikipedia encyclopedic content must be verifiable! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Likewise, it can be assumed that Bob's edits were in good faith. WP:AGF will not solve this for us. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  22:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Tito.
 * First of all, Bob, PROUT obviously does not "reflect the mainstream view", and it is not always consistent with what "independent sources say". Does that mean that I cannot present PROUT as it has been propounded?
 * Second, everything that I said about PROUT is true. I have tried to describe the theory. If you think that parts of the theory are wrong and have independently sourced material to support that position, why not add that to the Critiques section of the article?
 * As I see it, there is no justification for the wholesale and indiscriminate destruction of the PROUT article by Bob Rayner. See for example, the section on Economics. Sarkar presented economics in terms of four dimensions which I tried to explain. Bob simply deleted one of the dimensions altogether, making the entire section appear incomplete and incapacitating a section of the associated graphic that was mapped to that section. It is one thing to request additional sources and another thing entirely to delete material that is best or only sourced to the propounder of the theory. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

From the article's latest editor
Well, it looks like Bob has been doing some sort of canvassing here. :)


 * To "Location" and "North8000":
 * Yes, certainly more secondary sourcing should be in the article. But the split is warranted on a number of grounds that are all quite valid in a Wikipedia context. Take a look at the Chronology section of the article. Even though you may not have heard of it yet, Location, this is not just a small, fringe theory we are dealing with here. Can you name another "fringe theory" that is as extensive as PROUT? As for "substantial secondary sourcing" and a "reasonable period of time", both of those concepts are relative and subjective. It is hard to say what is "substantial" in this case and also how long or short is "reasonable" in this case. Obviously, it is easy to get a lot more secondary sourcing for theories that are as old as capitalism and communism. PROUT is much newer than they are. But does that mean that Wikipedia should document only old and possibly outmoded theories? Furthermore, PROUT is a theory that has been almost entirely developed by one person... at least at this point in time. So, like Marxism (in its early days), accurate content necessarily requires extensive references to the writings of the theory's propounder.
 * As to notability, I think that hurdle has already been crossed. One or another version of this article has been up on Wikipedia for over 8 years. But why not wait and see how the article is rated by the various portals that are concerned before suggesting another (rather absurd, IMO) AfD? :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not an Afd, so it's not canvassing to request the input of other editors. Compliance with Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing is mandatory, so the reference to a "reasonable period of time" is a good faith allowance for you to get the article in line with them. That is, the burden is on you. You are correct that certain other interpretations may be subjective and Wikipedia frequently works by consensus on those. A consensus is starting to develop that this article needs more reliable secondary sourcing, so that should be addressed. Notability within Wikipedia depends on reliable secondary sourcing and notability for a stand-alone article are different things. Do you intend to point out those types of sources per North8000's request? [Edit: BTW, my reference to not having heard of the theory or the person behind it was only to demonstrate that I post here without any bias regarding the article.] Location (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello guys, I think you have been too quick to judge about "notability" and "absence of secondary sources". I'm no expert about PROUT, and I've very short on time these day, otherwise I would help out to demonstrate and to better the article, however PROUT definitely passes notability. Famous people like Ravi Batra, Sohail Inayatullah, Noam Chomsky and many others has spoken, commented and/or written about PROUT. At least two very famous books of Ravi Batra (Great Depression of 1990, if I'm not wrong, is one of them) mentions, interprets and comments on PROUT. There is a small community being built up in Brazil, similar to the early Kibbutzim, but with PROUTistic ideology. Therefore I'm a 100% convinced that this article is notable and just if the web and the sources are searched well, there are many secondary sources, which can be used to better the article. Unfortunately I'm not so sure that there is a neutral and tertiary source writing about PROUT. But, helas, WP is, or supposed to be, a neutral and tertiary source! So Bob, instead of just deleting, why don't you be more constructive and find some sources, or tag them as "needs citation"? And one last note, without saying which I would feel silence imposed on me, it is always easy attacking articles that are being built by one or few people, whereas heavily biased and bombarded articles for real (unfortunately they do exist in WP), such as Palestinian people and others, are being protected by strong communities, this is injust and should not be permitted in WP. With PROUT though, this is not the case.--Universal Life (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Btw, other writers such as Dr. Susmit Kumar, Garda Ghista, Rodney St. Michael, Edward Quinn, Carl Davidson, Sarah Strauss, B Marie Brady-Whitcanack and many more wrote about PROUT and most of them are secondary sources, though some primary and some tertiary sources. There are secondary sources about PROUT even in many other languages than English, such as French, German and Finnish. --Universal Life (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not checked all the sources, but Garda Ghista published by AuthorHouse is a WP:SPS. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  22:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Two minor corrections: It is frustrating that Abhidevananda misrepresents things so often. Please stop doing that. bobrayner (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not canvassing; it is legitimate use of a noticeboard to seek help from uninvolved editors. That's what noticeboards are for. This is canvassing, and this is canvassing, because they are handpicking favourable editors to intervene in a debate on your behalf. Abhidevananda must stop canvassing.
 * This section is for uninvolved editors. Looking at the article history, Abhidevananda appears to be the article owner, not an uninvolved editor.

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

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

 * 1) The header on this section is "Opinions from uninvolved editors". Of course, one may interpret the word "uninvolved" in many ways. But, from my perspective, CK is far from being "uninvolved". I have had several run-ins with him in respect to the Sarkar-related articles, essentially because of his efforts to destroy them, similar to the actions of Bob Rayner. See, for example, the revision history to the Ananda Marga article, where... by the way... Bob Rayner is right now engaging in his accustomed destructive "editing".
 * 2) To witness the extent to which CK is not at all "uninvolved" but rather in collusion with Bob Rayner, have a look at Sockpuppet_investigations/Abhidevananda/Archive. Presumably because I have stood up to their bullying, they joined forces in bringing a false accusation against me. Does it not stretch the assumption of good faith to the breaking point for us to imagine that CK just happened upon Bob Rayner's false sockpuppet complaint by chance and then similarly by chance appeared here to offer his "uninvolved opinion"?
 * 3) As indicated in (1), CK's "edits" in respect to the Sarkar-related articles have been consistently destructive (just like the "edits" of Bob Rayner). The suggestion that the PROUT article should be "blown up and restarted" only confirms CK's regular habit and the reason why this article is now being protected.
 * 4) Please note that I have requested ratings from seven portals. Thus far only two portals have responded, but both of them have rated the PROUT article as "B-class" quality. (The earlier version of the article that Bob Rayner would like to go back to was rated as  "Start-class" quality.) It seems to me that two ratings of "B-class" quality from genuinely "uninvolved" editors should supersede the opinions of individuals who clearly have an axe to grind (as demonstrated  in my first three points above).
 * 5) If there are any issues with the PROUT article - for example, too much primary source material or not enough secondary source material - those problems may be addressed in time. Wholesale destruction of an article on an undoubtedly notable topic is hardly merited, and the effort to achieve such a mischievous end only tends to discourages participation on Wikipedia by new editors like myself. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have taken your suggestion and moved both your and my comments to a new section. For the record, I have never actually edited PROUT and have openly disclosed by contributions to Ananda Marga on other forums. I pointed out in my comment that other stuff exists and personal knowledge are not valid arguments to be used in discussions on Wikipedia. Ad hominem, though not formally acknowledged as an invalid argument, is not a great way or arguing your case on WP either. It is a bit ironic that you keep attributing bias to other editors when you're the only person here with any real conflict of interest (keep WP:COS in mind when citing your own work). Please also note, any editor can change article ratings without any prior notice. If I were you, I wouldn't stress this point too much. Regards. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  09:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Second response to CK
It is amusing that someone who has just colluded with Bob Rayner in a false accusation of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry against me would comment on the propriety or impropriety of an ad hominem argument. When the sockpuppetry accusation was dismissed, they begged for meatpuppetry! :) However, leaving this brazen hypocrisy aside, I find it absolutely shocking that CK would go to such lengths as to threaten me - or threaten this article - for having pointed out that genuinely uninvolved editors from two portals have recently rated this article as B-class quality (elevating the rating from Start-quality). Isn't that point exactly what this discussion is about? But CK - after posing as someone with no axe to grind (no conflict of interest) - only responds to that point with: "Please also note, any editor can change article ratings without any prior notice. If I were you, I wouldn't stress this point too much." Does anyone really believe that CK has offered this advice to me out of genuine concern for my welfare, the welfare of Wikipedia, or the improvement of this article? Regrettably, CK makes Wikipedia sound more like a mafia than an encyclopedia. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Votestacking and meatpuppetry accusations were admitted as reasonable even if inconclusive, but that's besides the point. I didn't bring that up here, neither have I threatened you. However, your refusal to address the violation of core Wikipedia policies and personal attacks on other editors are getting disruptive. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  20:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal
Currently, we have a broken article - links that go nowhere, sections that make no sense, and so on. As the discussion is going nowhere, I offer a proposal. I propose that we revert to the last complete version of the article and then go through the article section by section to discuss changes and hopefully arrive at compromises that will satisfy everyone. --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This proposal I can agree with. Let's go back to the version on 2 October 2012. Any subsequent changes to the article should be first discussed on the talk page so that editors can reach a consensus on the proposed changes keeping in mind Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  11:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, CK, I am glad you can agree with the proposal. But, obviously, that is not the version that I was talking about. More than 200 hours of work went into improving that Start-class article. And there is not enough material in that version to warrant discussion. The version I was referring to is the "last complete version of the article", namely the version from 2013-01-08,, which had a much improved B-class rating from two portals. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Building a consensus on the exact version to which we can revert would be a start. My reasons for reverting to an earlier version tally with my comment above. I'll wait for comments from other involved/uninvolved editors. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  12:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not directly working on this article, but since it is related with the project dedicated at the extensive work of Shrii Shrii Anandamurtijii, sometimes I give a look at this talk. If my opinion is well accepted. First of all I noticed a step forward in the discussion. Abhidevananda agrees with the proposal of CorrectKnowledge to discuss all points of the article. Of course he cannot agree to delete all of is long work. If you agree I propose to maintain all the work of Abhidevananda discussing all the parts and inserting all the secondary sources that it's possible to insert.--Cornelius383 (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Second request for reliable secondary sources independent of the subject
As alluded to above by three uninvolved editors, the article is lacking significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. These types of sources are imperative in order to maintain the existence of a stand-alone article that fulfills the criteria set forth in WP:N. A request was previously made for evidence of these types of sources, but thus far none have been provided. Please provide them here so that we can have the material necessary to re-build the article. Thanks! Location (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In many independent and reliable secondary sources PROUT finds no more than 2–3 lines in a section on Ananda Marga, Sarkar etc. (such as in this book). A few self–published sources from iUniverse, lulu.com and others do mention PROUT in some detail, but we can safely ignore those. is a reliable secondary source which describes PROUT in some detail (another version of the book). From what I can see, there aren't that many reliable independent sources on this topic and following summary style should lead us to an article of far lesser size than the current one which contains lot of original research based upon primary sources.  Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  23:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * appears to lean to the positive side of neutral, but it does appear to be from an academic source and grant significant coverage to the subject. Location (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Abhidevananda (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Book/eBook/journal/own institution publication etc are the platform for such explanatory and/or research and/or original work. Not Wikipedia. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Tito, I have clearly stated - and it should be readily apparent - that the PROUT article is neither "research" nor "original work". However, I did indeed state that for the various key concepts a "short explanation" was appended. This is entirely in conformity with Wikipedia policy. For reference see WP:EXPLANATION, where it is stated: "This page in a nutshell: If you are using a term that is not familiar to the article's target audience, or which is used with an inusual [sic] or potentialy ambiguous meaning, you have to include a brief explanation of the term in the same article. A wikilink to the definition is not a substitute for that explanation." Pardon me, Tito, but I believe that this discussion would prove more fruitful if you would kindly support your opinions with credible policy links rather than just stating your opinions (sometimes cloaked as "proposals") as if they are incontrovertible fact. Have a look at the article on Capitalism. There is a lot of explanation in that article. The article is also mostly about theory. And, yes, the article even includes a lot of primary sources (for example, Adam Smith on Adam Smith, Milton Friedman on Milton Friedman, and so on). --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This article has so many primary sources that it does not look like an encyclopedic entry! Are you working on collecting secondary scholarly sources? --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, to the extent that this is practical and possible. Hopefully, I am not alone in that task. But I have already explained in detail above that scholarly - and neutral - secondary sources are much easier to find for older and conventional concepts than for relatively new and unconventional concepts. Perhaps your experience is primarily with articles related to the former type of concepts, and hence you find it difficult to comprehend or appreciate what is required in order to present an accurate article for the latter type of concepts. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In your talk page etc, I have mentioned multiple times, I am happy with the look and writing style of the article, but not at all with the sources and therefore the content. Multiple requests have been made in AFDs or as in here etc to present reliable neutral sources which are unanswered and/or unsolved. In Wikipedia we don't work on this policy "add content and sources later.."! --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on, Tito. Please don't misrepresent my position and then declare Wikipedia policy against that straw man. No one has suggested that we should "add content [now] and sources later..." I have done my level best to reference all of the material in the PROUT article with entirely reliable and entirely verifiable citations. You may question the neutrality of my main source (being primary), but it is absurd to question the reliability of that source. As for "neutrality", that is a very subjective concept. Yes, there are indicators that suggest neutrality, but those indicators cannot and do not ensure neutrality. Hence, none of those indicators should be rigidly required (per WP:IAR). In this case - in an article that sets out to describe a theory but carefully avoids any attempt to evaluate that theory - I don't see any conflict of interest or threat to neutrality when quoting the primary source. Indeed, from what I can see in Wikipedia articles that primarily discuss theory (for example, the article on capitalism), quoting the primary source of a theory seems to be a regular and well-accepted practice on Wikipedia. Presumably, that is so, because it is the most practical and most credible way to present accurate - and entirely neutral - information about the theory. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliability etc of those primary sources are not being questioned (read proposal#2 above) which you are continuously misunderstanding! The thing we are asking is "reliable secondary sources"! Both "reliable" and "secondary"! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Proposal 2", as I read it, says nothing at all about the reliability of primary sources. And "Proposal 3A" insists on having only secondary sources. Obviously, I totally reject that proposal (3A). In my estimation, it is irrational, and it does not conform with either Wikipedia policy or Wikipedia precedent. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it is better than that, that proposal like all other proposals seek only support of some "reliable secondary sources"! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but both of the alternate articles that you appreciated employ only secondary sources. And both of those alternate articles are riddled with inaccuracies. The article that we have now employs a combination of primary and secondary sources, and its content is - to the best of my knowledge - entirely accurate. Tito, I cannot say what you consider to be "reliable", but I don't consider any source that provides inaccurate information to be "reliable" (regardless of the author's reputation, the author's classification as "secondary", or the documentation's publishing house). To get good results, sometimes we need to temper our preferences (or policies) with Wikipedia's fifth pillar WP:IAR. In an article that describes the theory of a particular individual, the best and most reliable source is generally the writings of that same individual on that same subject. In such cases, relying mainly on secondary sources only tends to degrade the quality of the article by ranking opinions and interpretations (generally non-neutral) over facts (generally neutral). --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We are going round and round. In stead of collecting reliable secondary sources you are trying to feed the dead horse! If you are busy for some reason, send those to me, I'll try to incorporate those! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides, "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." In practice this boils using no more than quotes and bare minimum statistics from primary sources because almost anything else will require interpretation, analysis, synthesis etc. It is a bit strange that you are using WP:IAR to justify flouting all policies. Maybe WP:IAR? will help. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  15:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a strawman. Abhidevananda's recent edits to the article have added large volumes of unsourced and badly-sourced content. You are entitled to your own beliefs but not your own reality. bobrayner (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I have made no significant "recent edits to the article". All that I did was to undo a series of edits by you, Bob - edits that effectively crippled the article. My main objection to your edits is that they are extreme and reckless. They tend to eviscerate an article or leave it with either no content or content that is obviously incomplete. Where another editor would ask for references, you simply delete any and all content that you do not deem suitable (by whatever standard). So, maybe some citations have been unintentionally omitted in the PROUT article. I never denied that. And I also said that either those citations should be supplied or the material removed. I never endorsed the intentional insertion of content without citations. Unfortunately, the article got protected once more before I could get a chance to review any sections that might require additional citations. I will be happy to do that when the article is once again open to edits. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Now what? A year's full protection?
I have requested full protection for this article twice in hope to reach a consensus– first time it was protected for 1 week, second time for 1 month! Now what? A year's full protection! I am no seeing no sign of reaching a consensus! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I expect that CorrectKnowledge or I will make a proposal in a day or two. Location (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's be optimistic guys, I think a month is a good time to finish the draft that Location started and to reach a consensus. (It might not happen but I think if we're optimistic and if we work with good volonty, it will be done) --Universal Life (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Tito, we are still a long way from reaching a consensus here. But the current protection has been imposed for 30 days, and we are still only 3 days into that journey. So, let's be patient here. We have had various proposals. Personally, I prefer to examine the current article section by section and discuss how each section may be improved once the protection is lifted. I am not at all in favor of any TNT approach. As I have mentioned repeatedly, the current article has already been rated as B-class quality on two portals. Even if it were demoted to Start-class quality, that would not justify WP:TNT. Any claim that the current "article's content is useless (including all the versions in history)" is simply unreasonable. As such, I consider the alternate articles by "Correct Knowledge" and "Location" to be non-starters. Regarding protection, you should also know, Tito, that you were not the only person to request it. I made the same request to admin as soon as the article was - in my estimation - prematurely unprotected. So, yes, currently there is a 30-day protection, and - if need be - I would not oppose a one-year protection. But, for now, let's get through this month. Hopefully, we will make some progress toward consensus; and, hopefully, the article will not be unprotected once more prior to the attainment of some consensus. --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As redundant as it sounds, I am wondering if there would be any support for a proposal stating that all edits to add or remove content must first have consensus. Consensus to have a consensus would put a stop to edit wars when this comes off protection. Violators would quickly find themselves blocked under WP:3RR. That, or consensus to abide by WP:1RR for 30 to 90 days or so. Location (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * a) As a reviewer myself, I know while reviewing we first see the length of the article. Those two B class assessment are wrongly done. b) 1RR sounds good! --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hang on! 1RR? Isn't the article protected? --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


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

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

Support

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

Oppose

 * Oppose. The main problem with the article is that the current content is seriously flawed. Adding more good content does not fix that problem. bobrayner (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An RFC was initiated that drew in three uninvolved editors who all agreed that the article is heavy on primary and/or proponent sources and should be rebuilt from reliable independent secondary sources. All of these editors eventually supported the proposal to replace the current article with the proposed draft, and integrating secondary sources does not address the issue of the overabundance of primary and/or proponent sources already in the article. Furthermore, there were three requests to provide sources consistent with the clause in WP:GNG that refers to “significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject.” The only one agreed upon that sort-of-presents the philosophy in a neutral way is self-published. Without that sourcing, this article is a perfect candidate for Afd. Location (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This question has a hidden question as an implied premise, which is to not make significant changes to the material that is in there.  Significant changes are needed to the existing material. North8000 (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: North, actually what is being proposed is going step-by-step. If you see User:Abhidevananda's comments below, he does support to make significant changes to the article through the addition of secondary sources and inline citations. So, this proposal is just the first step to do that...it's like saying, let's start by adding those secondary sources that Location used in his draft, with inline citations, but it also implies to improve (make significant changes) - however, going paragraph by paragraph. Unlike this idea, Location's draft and Bob's deletionist behaviour was to cripple the article into something extremely short and somewhat misleading. I'm always open to new ideas, however to delete almost an entire article, while it could be improved through collective efforts, is in no way to the benefit of WP. --Universal Life (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason I weighed in on deleting the current material is because of the large amount of changes combined with that the advocates might be fighting every change. With that combo, it would take forever to fix it in that environment. And by "fix" I don't mean favoring one opinion over another, I mean fixing immense policy violations.    Below I put out another compromise-type idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


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

Discussion

 * As Bob has stated his opposition, let's look at the alleged "serious flaws" in the current article. Other than what some people consider to be an over-reliance on primary sources (but which I would view as only the desirability of more secondary sources) and some missing citations, I really don't see any other substantive objections. Yes, some concern has been expressed regarding neutrality and verifiability. But when I look at the extremely short, proposed content of Location, I see a preponderance of non-neutral and unreliable content as well as uncited and - even when cited - unverifiable statements that are merely opinions presented as if they are fact. So if Location's material represents the standard of neutrality and verifiability that is sought here, I can only express my firm conviction that the current article far exceeds that standard. Since there will be no consensus for WP:TNT, I suggest that we look at the current article section by section and try to improve it. Instead of wasting time on recriminations and blanket condemnations, why not work cooperatively to produce a better article? This does not have to be a confrontational either-or situation. I believe, as Universal Life recommended, that we can synthesize all of our content into a GA-quality and highly informative article. I believe that this should be our objective here. I believe that this is the way to build Wikipedia. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried removing unsourced and poorly-sourced content; you just hammered the revert button. Attempts to discuss the issue on this page have been fruitless - other uninvolved editors are surely capable of scrolling up. Just how many times do other editors have to explain which policies you're failing? bobrayner (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bob, let's try to move on. Let's try to get beyond recriminations. Please consider the bigger picture. The fact is that many times times you have made edits - mostly deletions that I don't agree with - but still I did not undo them. --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

All quiet on the Western Front?
Or just– all quiet? This article is protected till 18 February! I strongly suggest to try to reach a consensus this time! So, wake up, Sid! --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll put up an Rfc to get more input. Location (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've placed a notice to get an administrator to find the appropriate place for the Rfc header. There are multiple proposals and walls-of-text on this page, so it might be difficult for people to find the two recent options. Location (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Titto, how do you expect anyone involved in editing this article, be able to try to find any sources, while 8 articles that they created have been almost simultaneously proposed for deletion. I find it quite discouraging actually, especially this kind of behaviour performed towards such newbies. About the RfC, the reason you mention is no reason to put it below one proposal and on the top of your proposal. And ideally, someone that hadn't given a proposal should have made the RfC.--Universal Life (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you're self-identifying as a newbie, I'll point out that if those articles are deleted there will be no bar to reconstituting them later (hopefully after they have been improved). You're not on a deadline, unless it's self-imposed.  Garamond Lethe  01:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As things stand, there is no reason not to get more uninvolved editors into the discussion. The only reason I put the Rfc header before my proposal was because it was the first of the two main proposals offered; and the header did not hide the fact that there were two below it. With all due respect to Titto, I didn't think people were still concerned with his proposal. Since you think people are, I'm fine with where you placed the Rfc header. Otherwise, take it to WP:ANI if you think I've done anything inappropriate. Location (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Garamond, how you are twisting my words!! I'm not self-identifying as a newbie, rather I'm a WP admin, (though not on the English WP). I'm well aware of your (and others') tendency to groupify people with the mentality "or you're with us, or with the enemy" - creating two opposing camps etc. However, I do not belong to any group, neither am I partial to any group, rather I go far beyond this groupist tendency and here, on WP, I try to do my best as to serve WP. Moreover, if I see injustice somewhere, people trying to defame another etc., I try to stop that, not only because it should not happen in WP, but also because it's inhuman. You also do not need to teach me that there isn't any deadline etc. (plus that's no guideline, just an essay) I'm also aware of WP policies. The only few things I wasn't aware of, perhaps, were some informal processes of the English WP, such as the RfC etc. So, don't try to play the smart alec with me. And don't twist my words! --Universal Life (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The far, the following sources have been located that provide significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject: Are there any others? Location (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had made some research and found some more but I didn't have the time to right them here in WP. Give me some time and I'll add them here. --Universal Life (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * Nevertheless, and just to be clear about this, I am not at all opposed to secondary sources. As pointed out, there are many secondary sources. However, as has also been observed by others here, most of those secondary sources limit their comments to very brief "evaluations" or "synopses" of large and complex aspects of the theory. As such, they often amount to little more than opinions. There are, of course, some exceptions, for example, Ravi Batra in respect to Sarkar's theory regarding social cycle. So, clearly, secondary sources exist, some of them more reliable than others; and those secondary sources deserve reference in the article on PROUT. However, with respect to the bulk of this article - "straightforward descriptive statements of fact" about key concepts of PROUT - the fact remains that the most reliable and most appropriate source can only be the primary source that has been used. Any other approach only invites error. See, for example, the short alternate article put forward by "Correct Knowledge" and his discussion with "Location" about the short alternate article that "Location" constructed in his sandbox. Even "Location" was obliged to reference the primary source in order to counter the error that "Correct Knowledge" wanted to introduce into the article based on his reading of a secondary source. In other words, "Location" points out to "Correct Knowledge" that one point which CK's short article emphasized was in fact explicitly contradicted by Sarkar himself. However, we do not find in the short article by "Location" the accurate information. We only see an absence of information. These two proposed "articles" are just a few paragraphs long, but they already project obfuscation and even significant error. If I were to evaluate their worth as articles on PROUT, I would have to say that they amount to little more than a short catalog of secondhand opinions. That is not at all what I would expect from an encyclopedia nor is it likely that I would consult an encyclopedia to discover such type of information. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Location was only correcting me from the same secondary source that I had used. Your long arguments are not going to alter Wikipedia's policy of relying on reliable secondary sources. A "comprehensive social theory that is essentially the work of just one person" is not an exception to the policy. There are no exceptions to it. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  21:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Abhidevananda, No original research pertains to all subjects. It explicitly states: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." The consensus here is that the foundation of this article (i.e. its base) is indeed primary source material. Of course there is smattering of secondary sources in this article (e.g. Abraham Lincoln, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, Armen Alchian, Ronald Dworkin, Lawrence Lau, Martin Cooper (inventor)), but none of them discuss PROUT and all are used in manner consistent with original research. Location (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

Some Secondary RSs

 * 1) PROUT is an acronym for Progressive Utilization Theory.
 * 2) Economics of Liberation: An article about PROUT from the executive director of WESPAC, Nada Khader. The article includes many sub-titles such as "An Overview of PROUT", "Building Communities", "New Definitions of Economic Progress", "Economic Democracy", "Three Tiers of Enterprise", "Globalization", "How Will it happen?" and "Personal Change".
 * 3) A magazine called "Carnegie Newsletter" from Vancouver, Canada published an article about PROUT in its October 1990 publication. It seems that the article is an interpretation of Sarkar's work on PROUT.
 * 4) A book by the famous South African Desmond Mpilo Tutu, a social activist and a retired Anglican bishop, Experiments With Peace has a chapter called "Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Global Financial Crisis" by Sohail Inayatullah. In that chapter Inayatullah explains the "narratives that frame" and one of them is called Eco-spiritual renewal - A window of opportunity. According to Inayatullah, this narrative combines the works of Eckhart Tolle, Sarkar and Galtung and that PROUT is the solution to the problems created by capitalism according to Sarkar, Hazel, Henderson and Galtung. See details.
 * 5) Denis Bellamy, Professor Emeritus of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy in the University of Wales and the chairman of the UK Conservation management system has written a pile of articles in his website Cultural Ecology. There he wrote a chapter on PROUT.
 * 6) An article by Arun Srivastav, after an interview with Bhaveshananda writes about PROUT.
 * 7) An Ohio Republican Party politician Bob Taft wrote about PROUT in a Yahoo Groups message. I wouldn't take it as a serious writing if it wasn't written by Mr. Taft himself.
 * 8) The PhD Dr. Gopala Sastry writes an article called "What is PROUT?".
 * 9) These are some that I found by searching google.com with "Progressive Utilisation Theory". There are more and I'll use other variations while searching. And there also books by Ravi Batra, Inayatullah, Tolle and other that might not be online. These are really good secondary sources. I'll add in this very place as much as I can. --Universal Life (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is helpful. I'll take a closer look at them later. Thanks! Location (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * #1 : The "Terms of Use" page contains some disclaimers that concern me, however, I think the sourcing for the acronym is already covered in other reliable sources. #2: The author is affiliated with PROUT and the information was submitted by a PROUT organization (i.e. not independent of the subject). This one would need to go through WP:RSN to find out if there is a specific context in which this information could be used. #3: Various concerns regarding it's reliability and republishing (i.e. photocopying) of possibly copyrighted material. #4: This one may be acceptable; however, I cannot access whatever discussion pertains to PROUT. #5: The author appears to be an academic, but the material appears to be self published. Not sure, so I put it up on WP:RSN. #6: This one would also need to go through WP:RSN. #7: Forum posts are general not reliable. #8: This one would also need to go through WP:RSN. I cannot find anything about the author. #9: I forgot about the British English spelling. There does appear to be a few more sources with brief mentions in GBooks. Location (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: #5 should be OK per the discussion on WP:RSN. Location (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Great! Unlike James R. Lewis, who turns out to be no source at all (as the article in question was actually written by Helen Crovetto and not Lewis) and unlike Sohail Subodh Inayatullah (whose material is highly supportive but not entirely independent), Dennis Bellamy may actually be independent, may actually have written something, and what he writes might also be accurate in relation to PROUT. So this is definitely a source that I would be happy to incorporate into the current article, for example, in the sections on Cooperatives, Economics#General economy, Democracy#Economic democracy, Minimum Requirements, Self-sufficiency, Socioeconomic Zones, and perhaps even the section on Unemployment. This is good stuff. Very helpful. Let's keep it coming! --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment on Bellamy. He says the material he is positing is a reprint of  an article by Sarkar "PROUT was conceived by P.R. Sarkar in 1959 who in the article below outlines some of the basic features of a decentralised, cooperative economic system built upon the principles of PROUT."  So it isn't a usable source, because Bellamy himself never discusses the theory.  DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

PROUT explains atomic physics
For a bit of comic relief....

From Raveendra N. Batra's PROUT and Economic Reform in India (1979), pg. 5: "The atom is no longer regarded as a solid object by itself. Rather it has a nucleus in its center around which even smaller particles called electrons move in a continuous flow and at very high velocities. In the atom, there are two opposing forces.  The gravity of the nucleus tends to bind the electrons together; this may be called the centripetal force which arises from the positively charged property of the nucleus.  But the electrons, which are negatively charged, resist confinement because of what may be called the centrifugal force.  If the centripetal force dominates the centrifugal force, the ever-moving electrons appear as atomic particles.  Hence the atom is a wave in the sense that its electrons are in constant motion around its nucleus; it is a particle when its electrons rotate in such a way that there is an optimal balance between their resistance to confinement and the attraction to the nucleus."

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

Garamond Lethe 15:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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


 * Honestly, you'd be a lot happier setting up SarkarWiki and being the benevolent dictator there. It's not hard; several folks have found that wikipedia policies didn't meet their needs and so they set up their own (Conservapedia and CreationWiki come to mind).  The software is free and all you need is some time, an internet connection and your passion.  Or even better, start writing peer-reviewed articles on these topics so we can cite them.  (If I can do it, how hard can it be, right?)
 * Buf if you're going to stay here, you'll need to find a way to reconciling yourself to the fact that we have policies that we're going to adhere to, even when those policies reduce the quality of the article. Complaining about those policies on an article talk page isn't an effective means of changing the article or the policy.  We're building an encyclopedia that summarizes independent, secondary, reliable sources.  Where those sources are missing or bad, articles will be missing or bad.  Pointing out how much better the article would be if we relied on primary, non-independent sources is not a good use of your time.
 * Garamond Lethe 18:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


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


 * From WP:FLAT: If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing.  Garamond Lethe  19:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So to answer your question: no.  I have to abide by the requirement that sources be independent, secondary and reliable, and so do you.  Neither one of us can skirt that by claiming the resulting article is "neutral".  It's annoying, and I know I could write better articles if I could bend those rules, but I can't trust anyone else with that latitude, and so we all suffer together.  Garamond Lethe  19:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


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


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