Talk:Progressive utilization theory/Archive 2

Crovetto discussion moved to WP:RSN
Any and all opinions welcome here. Garamond Lethe 20:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


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

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


 * North, I don't take any of your earlier sentences for granted. For example, I don't see anyone here defending the status quo. So perhaps that was not the most "pleasant" way to present your suggestion. Nevertheless, your ultimate proposal does not sound any different from what I have been proposing from the very beginning. Perhaps you conceive of a different way of "pleasantly moving forward" than I do. What I envision is going section by section (not sentence by sentence). I don't see any problem with the overall structure of the article. In fact, I learned this structure from Tito. And, by the way, when it comes to secondary sources, the matter of the Crovetto article is not at all closed in my estimation (nor has the discussion been moved to any other forum). Perhaps, when Garamond's scanned version of the article is uploaded so that his assertions may be confirmed, we could end the discussion of that matter fairly quickly. If indeed the VaNRM article is as Garamond describes it - less biased and better referenced than the Nova Religio version - I would be content to accept that article as "reliable" (by Wikipedia standards). However, if it turns out to be just a recycled version of the Nova Religio article with no significant improvements, then I would not be so inclined. Whatever may be any policies or norms of Wikipedia, my conscience does not permit me to turn a blind eye to the propagation of falsehood. Whenever and wherever I see that happening, I would certainly invoke WP:IAR and any other policy that might prevent such an antisocial act. I say this not just in relation to this article or the articles categorized as part of the Sarkarverse. I say it in relation to any and every article that I may work on in Wikipedia. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not been deep enough here in to absorb/everything that you just said. What I have read and based my thoughts on is the current article and the proposed substitution ("Proposal to replace current content"). So I apologize that I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to Crovetto, Nova Religio, Sarkarverse, VaNRM.  So I was more speaking as a uninvolved person. What I do see is the current article which has such so deeply in violation of Wikipedia policies, standards and norms and encyclopedic norms that it can't possibly survive without significant changes.  Hence my idea.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * North, I am not arguing with you about that. Indeed, I was not even trying to argue. What I was saying is only that you seemed to make a number of unsubstantiated assumptions. I don't believe that anyone here is "defending the status quo". Indeed, it would be entirely hypocritical for anyone who agrees with PROUT (as I do) to attempt such a thing. PROUT does not even accept the possibility of a status quo. And that is why PROUT calls for unending and ever-accelerating progress. So if there are issues here - and clearly there are - then we should work in a cooperative, coordinated fashion to resolve those issues. If you merely scroll up this page - admittedly quite lengthy - you will see that I have repeatedly proposed the very same thing that you proposed. Universal Life has also repeatedly stated that he wants to see more secondary sources in the article. Cornelius and DezDeMonaaa also said similar things. So who exactly do you think is in favor of the status quo? The only thing that I personally say no to is any attempt to eviscerate an informative article and replace it with incoherence and gossip. I am pretty sure that the structure of the article is indeed encyclopedic. If that is not so, please explain why not. However, if so, then I think we should start going through the sections and try to improve them one by one. We should try to reach consensus on the appropriate content of each section. I would welcome any and all assistance in that respect. But I also need to be clear about one thing here. I do not agree with building an article solely on the basis of secondary sources. I do not see that happening in other similar articles on Wikipedia, and there is no policy of Wikipedia that I am aware of that strictly rules out the use of primary sources. There is one further limitation that I would insist on. Except in a dedicated Critique section, I would not agree to describing the various key concepts of PROUT purely on the basis of secondary sources if those secondary sources demonstrably contradict the primary source in that respect. I don't mind mentioning what those secondary sources say, but we must also then mention what the primary source says. To do otherwise, would amount to a conscious propagation of falsehood. --Abhidevananda (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What I see is a proposal which (in the context here) would make it so impossibly time-consuming to fix the article that it would prevent it from happening. Here's an alternate idea.  Why don't YOU (and the other proponent folks) condense the current material down to about 1/2 of its current size.   And then bring in the brief  "Proposal to replace current content" material.   North8000 (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * North, thank you for pursuing this proposal in a calm manner and with a readiness for compromise. I believe that is the best way forward here. In that same spirit, let me say that I am not fundamentally averse to your suggestion. For example, I am already half-inclined to remove the entire section on criminology. I think that it actually might fit better in the Neohumanism article anyway. If we were to do that, we would already be a long way forward to reducing the size of this article by 50%. However, that said, I don't think that the size of the article is - or should be - a critical factor here. PROUT is a very large topic, and currently on Wikipedia there really is only one significant article on the subject. So, given the size of the topic itself, the structure of the article was set up to make it easy for readers to jump directly to the discussion of the aspect of PROUT that interests them. In a lengthy article like this (even at 50%, still lengthy), no one is expected to read everything from start to finish. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue is not the size, it is the amount and proportion of self-description-by-proponents material in there. In a perfect article this would be approximately 0 / 0%, in the current article it is about 100%.  That was the reasoning behind my idea. North8000 (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, North, but are we arguing again? If so, why? You talk about a "perfect article". Presumably by "perfect", you mean strictly in accordance with currently preferred standards in the current Wikipedia community (most fairly young, middle class, White, Western, Christian males, if I'm not mistaken). But "perfect" is an absolute concept that would be very hard to pin down in this case, because norms tend to shift. A perfect article today will seem imperfect tomorrow. And every article is limited in various ways by the characteristics of the topic under discussion. So I would ask you: out of the nearly 4,000,000 articles on Wikipedia, how many of them would you classify as "perfect"? Personally, I think that we can only try to do the best we can, given the specific circumstances of each article. In this case, we have an article that is generally considered to be notable, but it has some drawbacks. Some of those drawbacks may be the result of systemic bias. Some of those drawbacks may be the result of the Ananda Marga policy to publish in-house, which adds to the difficulty in finding secondary sources that serve as book reviews. And some of those drawbacks may be the result of the fact that PROUT is essentially a theory that has been propounded in great detail - and with total authority - by just one person. So, North, I don't know what you mean by "0 / 0%", but I expect - and I think that you should expect - that the percentage of primary source material in this article will necessarily be much higher than what you believe to be an absolute ideal. We need to compromise here. I accept your point that we should bring in more secondary sources. But you should recognize - and accept - that I consider it preposterous to attempt a reliable and informative article on PROUT that does not reference the primary source much more often than would happen in your hypothetical "perfect article". --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is inherently and by design and fundamental choice largely what secondary sources say about the topic. That is why people come here; if they want to know what the creator of the theory has to say about it, they can go to the creator's web page, blog or facebook account. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * North, we do that for the details, but we include a basic account here of what he says about it himself, saying it is his view-- a single short paragraph is usual-- because what the creator choose to say about it is relevant, though it is not definitive about the actual meaning or implication of the theory--what  relies on analysis by others.  .  DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


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


 * North, I doubt that you can substantiate your assertions as to why people come to Wikipedia. Is there any independent and reliable poll on such a matter? If I were to hazard a guess about it, I would say that the main reason people come to Wikipedia is simply to get information on a subject and Wikipedia is often the first or second hit in their search on Google. Depending on the subject, I doubt that most people would even think about distinctions between primary and secondary sources. As to your final remark, it is rather bizarre. If I want to know what Plato said about division of labor, can I go to Plato's webpage, blog, or facebook account to get that information? Obviously not. And will Wikipedia say: Sorry, but that is something we won't tell you, because a reliable reply to that requires references from a primary source? Again, certainly not. Let's take a look at the Wikipedia article on division of labor. The bulk of it is a report on what different theorists had to say about the subject. And, if I am not mistaken, in each case the reference is to the primary source. This means that the article is 90% referenced to primary sources. Looking at the stats on the article, I see that it was created in 2001, has had 600 authors, and has seen 953 edits. At any stage in the development of the article - up to the very present - has anyone yet complained about an over-reliance on primary sources? I doubt it. In any event, there is no template at the top of that article expressing any such concern. Would you care to add that template to the division-of-labor article? --Abhidevananda (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That article is 100% secondary sources with respect to its topic. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, North, what is the primary source with respect to the division-of-labor topic? But, anyway, I was mostly focused on the Theorists section of the article - the bulk of the article. In every case that I examined, what was written about division of labor by the particular theorist under discussion was referenced with a primary source. Did you not notice that? Come on, North... the title you gave to this section is "Why not pleasantly move forward?" Let's try to do that. --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * It seems that Garamond has found one more source to add to the Critiques section of the article. And I guess this means that Garamond will not be adding the PROUT article to his long list of AfD nominations in respect to the Sarkarverse. "Proutism"? Never heard anyone refer to Progressive Utilization Theory as that. "Admittedly... little originality or historical validity... feeble adjustments"... yes, this chap is definitely writing with an unbiased and "sympathetic tone"... just like Helen Crovetto. . --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should give a comment based on long experience at AfD that  lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion, though it is the most common one. If an article is primarily advocacy, and all attempts to make it neutral have failed, it can be deleted accordingly. An article that discusses the details of a fringe theory is often regarded as advocacy. This is always a matter of opinion, and the consensus at AfD on such matters is unpredictable. A modest article is much more likely to survive than one which is over-expansive.  DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


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

Two more sources for the Critiques section of the article
There is a second Sil article available here. Apparently, this second article is much later than the article that Garamond has quoted from. I have not had the time to go through this second article in detail, but I have been told that the bias is a bit reduced in this article. From the little I have seen, that reduction is minimal. For example, Sil says: "Sarkar is silent on the most popular variety of Tantra – the Shakta Tantra." But the electronic edition of Sarkar's books in English turns up a great many hits on the subject of Shakta tantra, easily disproving Sil's assertion. I have uploaded this second article by Sil here. I also now have a copy of the PhD thesis of Sohail Inayatullah, which should - at the very least - dispel Sil's assertion that Sarkar's theory of history lacks originality. I have uploaded Inayatullah's PhD thesis here. So, at this stage, I think we have a lot of additional material to include in the Critiques section of the PROUT article. I would be grateful for any assistance that the Fringe/n editors here would contribute toward the expansion of - or even a total rewrite of - that section of the article. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * we have to go by the secondary sources. We have sometimes used phd theses, but not when there are better sources. What we cannot use is our own interpretation or analysis of the primary sources. that's the definition of Original Research, and however right you may be in your interpretation, it does not belong in WP.  DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood and agreed. Hence, we should present both the position of Sil and the position of Inayatullah in the Critiques section of the article without advocating either position. --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

One more source for the Critiques section of the article
Here is an article by Johan Galtung that makes significant mention of Sarkar's theory of history. This also tends to refute the dismissive remarks by Sil. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Galtung is an authority, but this is only work presented at a conference, not in a peer reviewed journal. He does discuss the subject substantially--it fact, it seems to be advocacy for it.  It can probably be used, making it clear that it is his opinion.  DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But would we not want to make clear that Sil - and any other secondary source - is also expressing an opinion? Would we not write: "According to Sil..." "According to Galtung..."? --Abhidevananda (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Going forward?
We have another month to move toward consensus. My thoughts on this are that we could still achieve that end if we focus more on the positive and less on the negative. Thus far no one has argued against the structure of the article - its outline. Presumably, that structure/outline is reasonable. Where we have gotten mired down is in opposing each other's content. But I believe that there is room for everything here. If we were to accept what each side wants to see in this article, we could then work on matters like ensuring neutrality of language, accuracy, and concision. So I propose that we set aside quarreling about what is wrong with each other's content, and collectively try to improve the total content. --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The article does need significant changes to bring it in line with policies and to make it encyclopedic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So let's do it, but let's respect each other's input as our starting point. We talked about this already, North. And David came in and made clear that it is appropriate to have short paragraphs stating the author's view on topics. So let's try to imagine a single article on PROUT, introducing the social theory of PROUT as a whole and then briefly setting out the position of PROUT on various key topics. We then present various critiques of PROUT (for and against). Please note that PROUT is an alternative social theory, but - by and large - it is not a fringe theory. If there are any sections of the article that seem fringey, let's deal with them accordingly. So our main concerns should be neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. I don't see any problem with any of those three elements. So let's try to resolve this matter in a constructive and amicable fashion. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW I am NOT saying that negative stuff is needed for balance. I AM saying that, as a minimum  the primary sourced stuff needs to be condensed and more secondary sourced material with encyclopedic wording needs to be added. Maybe we should see if we can get the article unlocked on a trial basis and start editing and see how it goes? North8000 (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * North, I think it would be rash to lift the protection on the article without having a viable consensus article in place. After all, there was good reason why protection was imposed. So perhaps - as it is just you and I who have been talking lately - you could do the honors by setting up a sandbox for a consensus article. I'd really like to see what it is that you have in mind. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


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


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

My Limited involvement on this group of articles
In this case I do not have in depth involvement in the topic or articles. My first involvement was coaching the proponents and asking for delays at AFD's because I felt that the proponents did not understand wp:notability well enough to get themselves a fair shake at AFD. Later it was noticing what terrible shape this article is in with respect to Wikipedia policies and being enclyclopedic. It's basically 100% a self-description of the topic from primary sources. It was also my first impression that a group of ardent proponents of this topic were blocking the repair of the article. So my brief efforts have been along these three lines: My thoughts about the topic are that it appears interesting, and I see nothing negative about it, but that I know little or nothing about it because there is nothing here except a self-description by proponent.....this article is completely lacking in encyclopedic coverage from independent or secondary sources. My Wikipedia time is too short to spend a lot of time in a sandbox or off line draft on this article. If the article were unlocked, I would be happy to blaze through the article as a neutral editor trying to wikify the article. I would neutrally condense the current content by about 30%, and add in the content from the "Proposed content for Progressive Utilization Theory" proposal above,and organize the article to accommodate both. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A few hopefully objectives comments from an experienced editor about the state of the article.
 * I also have a tendency towards mediation or trying to find a way forward where a few quick efforts and thoughts can make a big difference.
 * Trying to help balance the process by brief weigh-ins on the side of those trying to get the article repaired.
 * That works for me. Abhidevananda?  Garamond Lethe t c  04:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In principle, I have no objection to a reduction of the current content by about 30% (preferably including the Criminology section, which I think may not be required). I have set up the page Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory/Temp so that North can edit it, and we can then all see how it turns out. If everyone is happy with that article - and agrees not to make further changes without prior consensus on the Talk page of the article - then I think we will have the necessary consensus to request a removal of protection on the Progressive Utilization Theory article (although it might still make sense to seek some sort of partial protection, given the tendency of this article to attract heated dispute). --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I had mentioned that I'm not up for substantial work off line. If someone didn't like my efforts at a 30% on a live article they could revert them. I/we could start slow if there is some concern. North8000 (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Getting rid of the criminology section would certainly be a good start. bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To make that more explicit: if we reach a consensus to lift the page protection early, you're willing to make a few passes over the article.  I'd like to give that a try.  Others?  Garamond Lethe t c  19:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to do that. Just so that everyone knows how dumb-on-this/neutral I am, my only thoughts going in at this point is, as I indicated: "I would neutrally condense the current content by about 30%, and add in the content from the "Proposed content for Progressive Utilization Theory" proposal above,and organize the article to accommodate both."  and to Wikify the wording a bit.  If people don't like what I'm doing that could revert me and I won't be upset (maybe just a bit sad :-) )  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's first see what North does at Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory/Temp. --Abhidevananda (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is currently an active Rfc requesting input on three proposals. Unless there is consensus to close the Rfc early, its probably best to let that run its course then bring in an administrator for a ruling. In the meantime, I agree that work should be done on the temp page for those who so desire. Location (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC) edited 19:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten the RfC was live. I agree:  let's allow that to run to completion then.  Garamond Lethe t c  05:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that I don't plan to do work in the sandbox.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you. I've edited my comment. Location (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As a guide, I would estimate that "I would neutrally condense the current content by about 30%" has it backwards. 30% is about the maximum length that should be left in. Abhidevananda, in my opinion, you are making very minor concessions in response to major problems.  DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, David, but you have this upside down. North made a proposal, and I immediately accepted his proposal in principle. However, in line with earlier discussion, I simply requested North to show us what his "neutral 30% reduction of the current content" would look like by doing it at Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory/Temp. North offered, and I accepted. But what is the use of this offer if everyone else here does not agree to it? And why not nail this agreement down properly by everyone seeing what they are agreeing to before requesting unprotection of the article? Furthermore, I believe that we should discuss some sort of semi-protection of the new article that North would produce and all of us agree on as a reasonable final step of the consensus process. --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal by Titodutta
It is being proposed that–


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


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

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

Support

 * Support Proposal #3 of Tito Dutta who is obviously speaking from a lot of experience at WP:AAU. :) Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  04:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support proposal 3A and 3C; it looks like a direct route to much higher quality content, bypassing the problems we've seen recently. I'm not convinced that "scholarly" is essential here - there may be non-scholarly sources that are helpful in certain areas. "Independent" can be problematic too - for instance, people closely associated with PROUT &c have been used as "independent" sources on related articles. However, in general, I think 3A and 3C are helpful. But what is proposal 3B for? Can you clarify? bobrayner (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See below --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


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

Oppose

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


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

Discussion
Tito Dutta: Thank you for your neutrality and your efforts to attempt to resolve this dispute. I understand the need to recognize that everyone is working in good faith, however, the only actual proposal above appears to be "keep only those content which are supported by independent scholarly works". My point of view is that some use of material from primary sources or sources not independent to the subject may be allowed but that the article should first be built upon secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Achieving this end by working backwards is frequently a difficult proposition. I think we should formulate a couple different options for specific actions on what should be done with the article as it currently exists. One option is to do nothing and leave it as it is. As we have seen, this will not work as edit wars will resume immediately after it comes off protection. Another option is to send it to Afd. This may settle the issue if it is deleted, however, it will not if it survives. A third option that has been presented is to revert to some version in the past. A fourth option is to start over with a short paragraph build upon reliable secondary source material. A proposal to userfy the current material could be included with these other proposals to address the concern regarding loss of content. There may be others options, too. Location (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * a) Rationale/criteria? b) notability is not an issue c) are you suggesting WP:TNT? --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject indicates that notability is an issue. Whether or not this should be a stand-alone article is one issue still to be resolved here. I imagine that blowing it up and starting over would be closer to the fourth option I mentioned, but a fifth option would be to merge and redirect. Location (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think a trip to AfD is viable. Regardless of the problems with the content, which currently seem impossible to resolve with normal editing, any AfD would surely get a lot of keep !votes. bobrayner (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. We can chalk that up as an "oppose" for sending to Afd. Some sort of action needs to be taken. What do you propose? Location (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would propose that we remove content which is untrue, overly promotional, or can't be supported by independent sources. However, it is difficult to do this without somebody hitting the revert button. All alternative suggestions welcomed... bobrayner (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your method has led to an edit war which resulted in a locked article. That is the first option noted above. I have already noted four alternative suggestions. Location (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can think of an alternative solution which removes the problematic content but which will not get automatically reverted, I would be deeply impressed and very grateful. 718smiley.png bobrayner (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The draft below looks excellent. If everyone agrees, the current version can be replaced with that version after doing some more work. I collected some JSTOR documents on Ananda Marga etc. I have saved those in Google Docs. Tell me if you need those, I'll send you the Google Docs link! --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The draft at User:Location/Sandbox10 could use a few suggestions and references. Please contribute there. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  03:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the draft below, and the version at User:Location/Sandbox10 are both far better than the current article; I would be happy with either. THey would also appear to solve the problems identified by other uninvolved editors. bobrayner (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Location's sandbox article looks very good! --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally support Location's idea to prepare the PROUT article in a user's subpage to keep the edit wars out. To create such a draft and grow it with time was also in my mind for a while so that we could produce an excellent and neutral basis by secondary reliable sources and later to enrich it by the cautious use of primary sources, without analysing them. I didn't have the time until now but I think this is a very good way of resolving conflict. Thank you Location for not taking sides, trying to make peace and resolve the problem, without deleting an important article. I'll try to help with the sandbox as soon as I find time and I think to protect the main article as it is, for a longer period might be helpful for few reasons, such as edit wars and others --Universal Life (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've just realised that the article was already protected again :) --Universal Life (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Giving credit where credit is due: The draft in my sandbox is essentially what CK has prepared below, but in a format that might be a bit easier to visualize as an article. Location (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Giving credit where credit is due: The draft in my sandbox is essentially what CK has prepared below, but in a format that might be a bit easier to visualize as an article. Location (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

An initial draft of what PROUT would look like summarized from Violence and New Religious Movements by James R. Lewis (pp. 258–263): PROUT, Sarkar's socioeconomic and political theory, is summarized in the fifth chapter of Ananda Sutram. PROUT divides the society into four classes sudras (labourers), ksatriyas (military–minded individuals), vipra (intellectuals) and vaisyas (capitalists).[Footnote on Hindu varna system would be required here] Each of the four classes dominate society cyclically, for a period of time, in an infinite social spiral. To prevent any social class from clinging to political power, Sarkar proposed the concept of Sadvipras (etymologically sat – true, vipra – intellectual). Sadvipras were supposed to be a classless group of intellectuals and spiritual elites who would apply varying degrees of force on the society to allow power to be transferred from one class to another. The resulting change would be revolutionary in case of great degrees of force or mildly transformative if lesser degree of force was used. Nevertheless, Sarkar felt that a sudra revolution (worker's uprising) would always be necessary to wrest power from the capitalists (vaishyas) whom he saw as "immoral anti–social" exploiters. Sarkar further thought that "in most cases [such] popular emancipation is blood soaked". The Sadvipras were to be organized into legislative, judicial and executive boards which would be governed by a Supreme Board. Sarkar saw all countries in the world as being in different stages of the social cycle. He therefore wanted to establish a global Sadvipra society from disgruntled middle class intellectuals and military minded people. Since the establishment of such a society on a global scale would take time, Sarkar also advocated "blind physical force" to establish rule of the Sadvipras.[There is more content on Paramilitary activity proposed by Sarkar and secret military pacts with other organizations. I am not sure how relevant it is to PROUT and social cycle theory itself, so I'm leaving it out for now.] PROUT's economic model envisions a world where key industries or public utilities are non–profit, a decentralized industry run by sociolinguistic unions (samaj) provide people's bare minimum necessities, and most of the economic transactions are through producers' and consumers' cooperatives. It distinguishes itself from Communism by proposing an incentive based economy where surplus in the society is distributed to people who serve the society. Feel free to add/remove content/references. Please strike off the changed content so that the modifications are easily visible to other editors. Correct Knowledge «৳alk»  18:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is good stuff built from the sources that Wikipedia requires. Using some of this, I have also placed an initial draft in my sandbox for comments and suggestions. Location (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This version looks very good! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


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

Other comments
Result: Has gone dead with no resolution or decisions. Efforts on this have been and/or should be focused elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus was misleading, so I've changed the title to other comments. Dead or not RfC discussions need to be closed by uninvolved editors unless involved editors have reached a consensus before the 30 day period. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  15:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Update
The article is still a bone of contention. Are we going to agree to disagree or give it one more try? --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're waiting for the RfC to be closed. Garamond Lethe t c  23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please give me the link of the RfC. I fear I have missed it! --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's here. Yeah, that's the trouble with all the bludgeoning this page has gone through. Even an editor aware of the issues here can't find it. Location (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good heavens! That's a dead discussion.. as dead as a Mummy and we are still dwelling on it? --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I just wrote at the end there: "Result: Has gone dead with no resolution or decisions. Efforts on this have been and/or should be focused elsewhere." North8000 (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the objection is to the RfC being closed properly by an uninvolved administrator given that the issue remains contentious and consensus remains unclear despite weeks of discussion. Besides, an uninvolved editor commented on those three proposals less than two weeks ago, I wouldn't call it dead just yet. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  15:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to help this along (and restart overall progress on the article which seems to be waiting on a dead RFC) by stating the obvious.  If anybody objects I will strike what I wrote. North8000 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An alternative might be working on the temp page and if necessary go down fighting. --Tito Dutta (contact) 15:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. North8000 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the article is protected, all of us make necessary changes in the draft copy, i.e. the temp page, and after making a stable copy, we may replace the content of the article with the temp! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The temp page is not a panacea for all our disagreements. If I start working on it, I'll simply replace all the content with Location's proposal, work in a few other secondary sources and then maybe add a few quotes from Sarkar's works. That approach is obviously not acceptable which is why we had such a long dispute and three separate proposals in the first place. Either Abhidevananda and other involved editors agree to let DGG or North8000 edit the page as they see fit, both of whom have have offered to do so, or we can wait for the RfC to close. As i see it, editing on the temp page will only lead to more and more of the same. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  16:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am tired of being "bludgeoned by the process" and a temp page is just more of the same. As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to wait a few more days and get a ruling on the Rfc. Location (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: "dead discussion". Titodutta, that what I thought when I posted here, but others insisted that I was acting in bad faith (for instance) and moved the Rfc header . Your neutrality is to be commended, but it would have been helpful if you had rebuked those attacks and openly acknowledged that I was simply trying to break the gridlock here. Location (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I had thought the RfC was on the question of replacing the existing article with the proposed article that was in line with policy. I've now realized my error and !voted on the RfC.  <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 17:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did/have not read that "another attack" (also "Corvetto's article", atomic explosion" etc) thread(s). I d(id/on)'t have so much. A hindrance of our discussion has been iteration of same points. One should not repeat same things again and again and write in precise and pointwise. The content of the temp page could be replaced with the one Location had prepared. That edit will most likely be reverted, but that will open a corridor to move forward at least, I anticipate! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The article was protected because of an edit war over whether to include swathes of content which failed WP:V and WP:NPOV. We should just unprotect the article and edit in line with wikipedia's policies. That's not difficult. Is that acceptable to you, Tito Dutta? If some editor were to resume edit-warring or sockpuppeting or canvassing in order to return unsourced and non-neutral content to the article, we should try some alternative solution instead of protecting their preferred version of the article. bobrayner (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not revert any of these edits, nor your or theirs and did nothing (read "no revert") other than having the article protected. You can have the article unprotected, but are you sure it'll not instigate the edit warring again? (this is disgusting, this is completely against Wikipedia policies and specially ideals to have an article fully protected for 3 months!) --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't accuse you of editwarring. I'm asking whether you feel this article should comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Unfortunately, it does not at the moment, because a more policy-compliant version was unpalatable to Abhidevananda, who kept on reverting it as "vandalism", and the wrong version got protected. Do you feel it is sufficient for editors to comply with policy, or should we make further concessions so that the article can contain text that some editors really want even when that text blatantly fails multiple policies? bobrayner (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not only this article, all articles should follow all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The good point is both you and they think the wrong version has been protected. One can try request unprotection as a "test"! I don't have any problem with anything. The only thing I am requesting is lift the protection as soon as possible. 3 months full protection- too much! --Tito Dutta (contact) 14:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. So you would agree that the article would be better going back to this version which is closer to WP:V and WP:NPOV compliance? We could continue to improve the article from that point, and I would like protection to be lifted quickly so we can start fixing the problems. Would you agree that it would be a Bad Thing if another editor restarted the edit war by reinserting content which clearly failed multiple policies? bobrayner (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a diff.  I assume you mean the version after the edit (12:09).  Looks better. North8000 (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

--Tito Dutta (contact) 14:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That version also has some issues! I 
 * Why is it necessary to notify Anhidevananda and Cornelius? I recognise that previous attempts at changing text have only succeeded when those editors have taken their finger off the revert button, but this article ownership is a Bad Thing, not a Good Thing. No proposal to bring the article in line with WP:V and WP:NPOV can succeed if it gives veto power to the editors who have previously reverted such edits (I can present very many diffs, if necessary). If you want the article to comply with policy, I cannot understand why you propose a mechanism which seems designed to prevent it complying with policy. bobrayner (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Informing might be helpful (not "necessary") so that they can't say later that did not know about our plans. I am ready to follow the path you have suggested, and let's see how it goes (I am damn sure, it'll cause another edit warring and might be full protection)! --Tito Dutta (contact) 15:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If editors repeatedly add unsourced and non-neutral content, protecting their preferred version of the article is not the best solution. The best outcome is that editors stop violating WP:V and WP:NPOV. The second-best outcome is blocking or banning editors - and their sockpuppets - who have persistently flouted policies in order to push their POV. bobrayner (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In case anybody is wondering...My only strong opinion is that the current article is Unwikipedian and needs fixing. I don't really know the topic nor do I have an opinion on it. I don't have any single direction in mind.....I've supported things that look like moves in the right direction, I've indicated that I'm not willing to spend my limited Wikipedia time in a sandbox, I indicated willingness to neutrally blaze through this article when unlocked and neutrally do the merge with new proposed content and approx 30% reduction of current content....but that is just another idea.  Also if there are folks totally blockading wikificaiton, then I'm willing to help take a stand to fix that situation.   Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * North, no one is "blockading wikification". I personally have accepted your proposal in principle. I believe Garamond, Tito, and DGG did as well. Others have not commented. My only reservation is that, given the history of this article and this discussion, I believe that it would be rash to remove the protection before we have consensus. It would not only be like buying a pig in a poke but also, and worse, a potential precipitation of another edit war. So let's get consensus before unprotecting the article. I assure you that from my side, I will be receptive to any reasonable edits that you may make to the PROUT article on the Temp page. As an editor who, unlike you, does know PROUT, I may have some differences of opinion with you regarding what should go and what should remain, but I think we could work those out. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * North8000, if you are suggesting WP:RFC/U, keep me posted. Location (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Abhidevananda, if you agree to follow wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV, then presumably you will not repeat your previous revert-warring to reinsert crappy content, and the risk of an edit-war will abate. If you do not agree to follow wikipedia policies, then the best solution is restrictions on your editing rather than restrictions on the article. Which would you prefer? bobrayner (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, I didn't say that I expected that my changes would be accepted or stay. My thought is that they would be freely individually editable after I made them, but not get reverted en masse. 14:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Support

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


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


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

Oppose

 * Oppose. I am going to kill this right now. Tito Dutta's earlier proposal has consensus, and it appears mine does, too. We should close these proposals before moving onto another one. Location (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is premature given the open RFCs and SPI.  <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 17:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. It's hard to imagine why a voluntary process with an uninvolved mediator is going to work when the opinion of many uninvolved editors has been ignored before (like here) and previous attempts at mediation, by you Tito, have had little effect. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  17:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose It will turn into just another delaying tactic. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose  Just another delay at this point. North8000 (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

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


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


 * The RFC concluded a few days ago. Nothing came of it. Even if late I add my "yes".--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Rfc concluded a few days ago but the only editors stating that "nothing came of it" are those who are opposed to the consensus that formed. The consensus view of the respective discussions indicates that the article should in general "keep only those content which are supported by independent scholarly works" (i.e. Proposal 1 authored by Titodutta) and more specifically replace the current content with the draft noted on the talk page (i.e. Proposal 2 authored by myself). Integrating the material from the draft into the current article has no consensus (i.e. Proposal 3 authored by Abhidevananda). It would be nice to have an administrator rubber stamp this for us, but it is not necessary. We can request that page protection be lifted now, or we can wait until March 18th. It doesn't matter to me. Either way, I intend to act on the consensus that has formed once the page protection has lifted. If this needs to play out via 3RR to demonstrate the consensus to those who don't believe there is any, then so be it. If we want to do it in a more gentlemanly way, we can ask that this article be subject to 1RR. Location (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll just request an admin to conclude the RfC instead. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Support

 * Support as nominator. Various Wikipedia policies and guidelines do permit the inclusion of primary source material, self-published material, and secondary source material not independent of the subject. I have no strict objections to the inclusion of this material provided that it is done by consensus. Location (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: Looks good, needs expansion and segmentation! --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Moving to "Neutral" --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support A good sound start instead of the current article which is not only problematic, but which is such that it would make an evolutionary fix too difficult if it did not cause the article to get deleted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Big improvement. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support; big improvement - doesn't have any of the problems of the current content. bobrayner (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: I would like to see this become a much stronger article and this looks like the best way forward.  <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe  22:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Garamond, the way as it appears at a first look might look like the best way forward (I was also deceived at first look), however the first two sources are completely biased, inline citations have not been made where they needed to be made and this draft was really rushed and not made properly. --Universal Life (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliable independent sources are not required to be neutral or even-handed. That is why we have such a detailed NPOV policy in the first place. If you think that an assertion by one or more sources is biased, present reliable sources that offer a different POV and we can balance the section appropriately. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  23:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Universal Life, inline sources can be fixed and I hope you'll stick around to help edit this draft. As to sources being biased, to paraphrase   Correct Knowledge, the best way to drive out bad secondary sources is with better secondary sources.  Were there any reviews of Lewis's book that commented on the bias?  Has any follow-up work been done?  <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe  23:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * Here's the relevant part of the book review you located.
 * "Part III continues with Ananda Marga, PROUT (Progressive Utilization Theory), and the Use of Force by Helen Crovetto who offers an excellent summary about the history of this quasi-fascist movement. Founded by P.R. Sarkar (1921-1990) using Manichean principles of a “never-ending struggle between good and evil” (264) underscoring the Margiis’ “ideological totalism” as the answer to all the world’s problems (267). Sarkar preached that violence is useful for establishing a proper society that he called “benevolent dictatorship of the Sadvipras” (259) or spiritual elites of his choosing. Crovetto assures us that Sarkar and the Margiis were not inclined to terrorism but to “revolution” (268). Any “incidents of extraorganizational violence…were an aberration” (268) while Sarkar was in prison."
 * I didn't find any "allegations of bias". Which passage were you thinking of?  <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe  07:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


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

Thank you for finding the review. It has increased my confidence in the citation in the proposed new version. As to the rest, I find your arguments to be deeply unpersuasive. For the moment I believe that's all that needs to be said. <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe 09:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you do Ctrl+F in the review and write words such as "bias", "fact", "scientology", "allege", you can see quite a critique of the writer in these senses. --Universal Life (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


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

Oppose

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

Neutral

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

Discussion
Since Location's suggestion had such broad support, and it obviously doesn't have the problems that the current article text has, I've made another attempt at updating the temp page to reflect this proposal. bobrayner (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that got reverted again. Nonetheless, Location's proposal seems to have broad support on this talkpage, and clearly complies with policy; I think it would be a good idea to update the article accordingly, if only Abhidevananda would stop reverting. bobrayner (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Okay, I have gone over Bob's changes on the Temp page. I had no problem with most of them. I reverted the final change... of course. And I removed the empty links that he left in the Criminology section. I don't mind eliminating the Income Tax section, and I don't have a problem with some padding that he removed. However, I reverted his deletion of "Psycho-economy". Like it or not, that is one out of four parts of proutist economics, and it needs some mention and description. If some part of the description appears non-neutral, rewrite it. But don't remove it just because you don't like it. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like any improvement is automatically reverted. I updated the temp page to reflect the version proposed by Location and agreed by a number of other editors... and Abhidevananda just hit the revert button with no explanation other than "of course". Perhaps mindless revert-warring of the temp page is a cunning tactic to ensure that the article will remain protected - on Abhidevananda's preferred version. bobrayner (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyone can go to Talk:Progressive_Utilization_Theory/Temp and see that after Bob's edits the count in Section 4 only goes up to 4:33 (as compared to 4:35) on the currently protected article. And anyone can look at the history of those edits and see that nowhere did I revert any changes with an "of course". However, two times now, Bob has deleted one of the four parts of PROUT's economic model, leaving no documentation at all on the subject, and his only comment (twice now) was: "removed fantasy". Well, that's not a justification for removing anything in an article. Maybe it is fantasy - though I certainly disagree - but our concern should be to present the position of PROUT in a neutral fashion. If someone wants to add in the Critiques section something like "Bob Rayner considers psycho-economy to be fantasy", I have no objection. But I definitely think that something should be written on that subject in the Economics section of our article on PROUT. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Abhidevananda, perhaps you missed my earlier question; I'll try again here.
 * If you agree to follow wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV, then presumably you will not repeat your previous revert-warring to reinsert crappy content, and the risk of an edit-war will abate. If you do not agree to follow wikipedia policies, then the best solution is restrictions on your editing rather than restrictions on the article. Which would you prefer? bobrayner (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bob, if you want to make changes that are constructive, then you need to use edit summaries that are more explanatory and less rude than "removed Sarkarspam" or "removed fantasy". Here you deleted 1 out of 4 parts of proutist economics: psycho-economy. Clearly, even if it is just fantasy, something needs to be said there. You call psycho-economics fantasy, but you could just run a Google search on "psycho-economics", and you would see that this is a growing field of study. Yes, the definition of psycho-economics varies, but I don't see anyone but you describing it as "fantasy". If you don't like how I explained the topic (as it exists within PROUT), rewrite it. Condense it. Make it more neutral. If there is a problem of sources, point it out, and I will provide the references. But why delete factual information like the two bullets (which are the essence of psycho-economics in a proutist context)? Why create a glaring hole in the the topic? --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you mentioned edit-summaries, even though it's a diversion from the main problem. We do have a problem with fantasy and sarkarspam, and with misleading edit summaries. Let's have a look at our recent edits to this article:


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * I follow Wikipedia policies. I might disagree with your interpretation of them. I might also disagree with your concept of "crappy content". Indeed, I might consider many of your edits to fall under that category. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The outcomes of the various AFD discussions shows that, when it comes to the exercise of authority here, those in power will back up our interpretation of policy against yours. If you will not accept that you have to find outside-the-movement references for the content of these articles, then eventually we will have to call for your exclusion from editing them. By all rights you should be able to find such sources more readily then we can; but if they cannot be found, then the material will have to be removed. That's just what the rules are. I've been around this numerous times, and thus far I have prevailed in every case, not because I have friends in power, but because they accept my arguments and reject those on the other side. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * The newspaper accounts in the archive support Crovetto's account: it was the (unfounded) accusations of child-stealing that precipitated the event.  You can, if you like, read a "blame-the-victim" interpretation into Crovetto, but no disinterested reader is going to see that.  <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe  16:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


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


 * That's not in the VaNRM text. Here's what I have.
 * "During the 1970s and 1980s the organization's sannyasis were very active proselytizers, teaching what by many accounts was a very effective system of spiritual practices free of charge to all who were interested. Credit should be given to the movement for the spiritual and social services it provides. Its social service projects are often set up among the most disadvantaged people and maintained despite a wide variety of challenges. ...."
 * "However, the missionary zeal of a number of sannyasis to establish social service projects may have turned into a liability in at least one case. On April 30, 1982, residents near Tiljala attacked and killed seventeen sannyasis in broad daylight as the Margiis attempted to cross Bijon Setu, a local bridge. The Margiis claimed that the renunciates were murdered by Communist Party of India Marxists (CPM) from West Bengal (Ananda Marga 2008).  This accusation revisited a long-standing tension that Margiis say has persisted between Bengali Communists and themselves since their movement first became popular in the 1960s.  A Kolkata newspaper reported that the local residents accused the sannyasis of kidnapping children (Sil 1988b). note 15:  See Sil (1988b) for an explanation of the Bengali folk attitude toward 'child lifting'. "
 * "These accusations may have come about as a result of the sannyasis' trying to increase the number of children in their movement's schools and children's homes. Ex-workers report that during the 1970s and 1980s such service projects were expected to show regular increases in enrollment and that sometimes quotas were set (interview with a former organizational worker, June 1, 1988). In the early 1980s, a small children's home was established in southern Portugal for children whose parents could not afford to feed or care for them.  When the situation of these families improved, they sought the return of their children.  The Ananda Marga workers fought to retain them because the children's release would (and in fact did) force the closure of the project.  If overzealous missionary tactics were to blame near Tiljala, it is easy to understand how they might have appeared threatening to the locals.  pp256-7."


 * I believe this version fixes the issues you raised. I'm happy to use this version in the article rather than the earlier version you were referencing.  <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe  19:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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


 * Discussion moved to WP:RSN. <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe  20:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


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


 * You said I would say that Crovetto's article is not at all reliable. If that is the case, then these questions are moot.  If we agree that Crovetto's article is reliable then they might be relevant.  Please summarize why you think the article is unreliable at WP:RSN.  <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe  21:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


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


 * As the Crovetto article is the best secondary source on PROUT that we have so far it will be playing an integral role in the rewritten article (unless, of course, you can come up with a convincing argument as to why it is not a reliable source). I will provide you a pdf of the article once I get it scanned in.  You might want to think about retracting your claim that the article is unreliable until you've actually read the article.  In fact, I think reading the article will provide answers to all four of your questions.  If you'd rather not wait for me you can find the article (or most of it) on google books.  <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe  23:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


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

1) Yes I'm sure.

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

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

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

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

<span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe 03:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

There's a lot more that needs to be said, but I think that's enough for now. <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe 18:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * If you want to impeach the Crovetto article, do it at WP:RSN. I won't be making any further response here.  <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe  04:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


 * You're correct that I (and I expect others) don't care about your analysis. I have a different analysis&mdash;I expect you don't care about mine.  So rather than you trying to convince me you're right or me trying to convince you that I'm right (even though I am), in this particular forum we short-circuit this tedium by limiting ourselves to what is in the (independent, preferably peer-reviewed) literature.  If there are conflicts in the literature then we have something to discuss, but PROUT has a vanishingly small amount of independent coverage so writing the article is a fairly mechanical process of summarizing the sources we have.
 * That leaves us with the question of the most effective use of your time. If you write a rebuttal article and get it published in Nova Religio, then hey, we can cite that.  If you write a book on PROUT and get it published by a reputable publisher, we can cite that.  If you keep telling us how biased Crovetto is, we're going to ignore that, even if we happen to agree with you.  <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 21:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


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


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