Talk:Progressive utilization theory

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amitrochates (talk | contribs) at 03:16, 21 January 2013 (→Discussion: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:16, 21 January 2013 by Amitrochates (talk | contribs) (→Discussion: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Progressive utilization theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sociology

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Human rights

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 May 2007. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

This article was completely rewritten in December 2012

Recurrent problem

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

Bob, what is stated at face value is the theory. PROUT is a theory. The point of this article is primarily to present the theory accurately, not to substantiate it. If substantiation were a requirement, we would have to remove a huge number of articles on Misplaced Pages, including just about everything on capitalism and communism. :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If a theory has been discussed by independent sources, then we can write neutral content. If it hasn't been discussed by independent sources, how do you suppose it passes the GNG? bobrayner (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Bob, a presumption does not guarantee anything, positive or negative. As I understand it, WP has no hard and fast rules per WP:FIVE. How independent would someone have to be to satisfy you? How many independent people would be required to satisfy you? If PROUT has been commented on by Ravi Batra, Sohail Inayatullah, Leonardo Boff, and Noam Chomsky... are any of them really independent? Indeed, are any of them more independent than I am? And just because they commented on it, would that mean that their comments are really neutral, much less correct? The simple fact is that this theory is extensive and penetrating. Its alleged ability to resolve problems that capitalism and communism cannot makes it notable to many... if not to you. I could not develop such a theory, and I doubt that you could either. Hence, my goal in this article has been to present PROUT as accurately as I can, rather than to merely parrot what others have said about it or how others have chosen to interpret it. I have also tried my best to maintain a neutral approach in that regard. I believe that I have done so in accordance with what is set out in WP:FIVE. The information I provided is both verifiable and authoritative. Just because I support PROUT does not mean that I cannot discuss it in a dispassionate fashion. As I see it, a rational socioeconomic theory should be able to stand on its own merits. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the bulk of this article based on independent sources, or is it based on your understanding of prout? bobrayner (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Bob, it seems that you did not understand a word that I said. Either that or you purposefully ignored what I said. Either way, I don't have time for such type of non-communication. May I suggest that you drop your obsession with this article and all things in the sarkarverse. Why not move on to some other pages where your contributions will be less likely to be deemed disruptive? Pardon me for saying this, but if there is any "recurrent problem" in respect to the PROUT article at this stage, it is only you. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I second that. Even though there's still some room for development in the article, PROUT definitely passes the GNG. The article does rely on verifiable and authoritative sources. I think a "constructive" suggestion would be to add some more materials from the books of Ravi Batra, Sohail Inayatullah and some acaryas, as there are plenty of sources. That's a huge work, but I might help in the future with that if I have time. Coming to your question Bob, the article relies definitely on independent sources. If you're looking for articles with a lot of non-reliable and non-authoritative sources, unfortunately there are many of them, delibarately created for political manipulation, unlike PROUT. If you deal with them, you'll have my 100% support. But PROUT is not the case. --Universal Life (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Protected

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

Thank you, KTC. Please note that I welcome constructive changes to the article, but - to avoid just this situation - have always requested that they be discussed on the article Talk page first. If you examine the history of this article over the last 8 years, you will see that Bob Rayner has repeatedly made wholesale deletions in respect to the article. As he has begun doing the same thing again - and as he appears to have a penchant for trying to delete just about anything connected with P. R. Sarkar (see for example "Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3)"-Discussion for deletion), my repeated suggestion to him - and my request to the admins - has been that he keep a distance from topics related to P R Sarkar on Misplaced Pages.--Abhidevananda (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, instead of helping solve the problem, Abhidevananda just reverted the problematic content back into the article after the protection ended. This is a bad thing. Please stop adding unsourced, poorly-sourced, and WP:FRINGE content back into the article. bobrayner (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Progressive utilization theory be renamed and moved to Progressive Utilization Theory.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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

JSTOR

Google Books

Official website

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

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

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

Support. While it is a bit unusual, a quick Google Book Search seems to confirm that capitalized version is more common than not in this instance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A "quick Google search" is not helpful, Piotrus; unless you produce the exact search and show how you excluded headings and titles in title case (that is, contexts in which major words are temporarily capitalised). Such occurrences may dominate, for this term. And "PROUT" is routinely substituted after the initial occurrence of some version of "progressive utilization theory". Noetica 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit Protection

I thank the WP admins for protecting this page. Over the years, it has been systematically stripped of content by Bob Rayner and some others. Once again, he is engaged in that same practice. Clearly, he has a negative obsession with all things related to what he calls the "Sarkarverse" or "Sarkarsphere". See for example his recent nomination for deletion of "Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3)"-Discussion for deletion. I welcome constructive assistance to any article that I work on. But massive deletions of entire sections or even multiple sections in an article that has been rated "B" on the quality scale of two portals and is awaiting rating on five other portals strikes me as extreme. If anyone has a dispute about content, I will be happy to discuss that dispute and work to correct the problem. But I cannot appreciate wholesale destruction instead of discussion or constructive assistance. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to Misplaced Pages and specially the articles related to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. But, if you can add some secondary reliable sources, the article will be in much better condition (in my opinion). --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of just restoring problematic content unchanged - which fails WP:BURDEN anyway - it would be better to rewrite the content so that it reflects the mainstream view and what independent sources say. If the content isn't actually true or can't be supported by independent sources, don't add it back into the article. Simple. bobrayner (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This can not be said "the content isn't true", since no reference has been provided that shows these information are incorrect. And it can also be assumed they are doing good faith edits. But, yes, it is a pillar of Misplaced Pages encyclopedic content must be verifiable! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, it can be assumed that Bob's edits were in good faith. WP:AGF will not solve this for us. Correct Knowledge 22:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Tito.

First of all, Bob, PROUT obviously does not "reflect the mainstream view", and it is not always consistent with what "independent sources say". Does that mean that I cannot present PROUT as it has been propounded?

Second, everything that I said about PROUT is true. I have tried to describe the theory. If you think that parts of the theory are wrong and have independently sourced material to support that position, why not add that to the Critiques section of the article?

As I see it, there is no justification for the wholesale and indiscriminate destruction of the PROUT article by Bob Rayner. See for example, the section on Economics. Sarkar presented economics in terms of four dimensions which I tried to explain. Bob simply deleted one of the dimensions altogether, making the entire section appear incomplete and incapacitating a section of the associated graphic that was mapped to that section. It is one thing to request additional sources and another thing entirely to delete material that is best or only sourced to the propounder of the theory. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Opinions from uninvolved editors

From Location

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

From North8000

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

From Itsmejudith

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

Opinions from involved editors

From the article's latest editor

Well, it looks like Bob has been doing some sort of canvassing here. :)

To "Location" and "North8000":

Yes, certainly more secondary sourcing should be in the article. But the split is warranted on a number of grounds that are all quite valid in a Misplaced Pages context. Take a look at the Chronology section of the article. Even though you may not have heard of it yet, Location, this is not just a small, fringe theory we are dealing with here. Can you name another "fringe theory" that is as extensive as PROUT? As for "substantial secondary sourcing" and a "reasonable period of time", both of those concepts are relative and subjective. It is hard to say what is "substantial" in this case and also how long or short is "reasonable" in this case. Obviously, it is easy to get a lot more secondary sourcing for theories that are as old as capitalism and communism. PROUT is much newer than they are. But does that mean that Misplaced Pages should document only old and possibly outmoded theories? Furthermore, PROUT is a theory that has been almost entirely developed by one person... at least at this point in time. So, like Marxism (in its early days), accurate content necessarily requires extensive references to the writings of the theory's propounder.

As to notability, I think that hurdle has already been crossed. One or another version of this article has been up on Misplaced Pages for over 8 years. But why not wait and see how the article is rated by the various portals that are concerned before suggesting another (rather absurd, IMO) AfD? :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not an Afd, so it's not canvassing to request the input of other editors. Compliance with Misplaced Pages policy regarding sourcing is mandatory, so the reference to a "reasonable period of time" is a good faith allowance for you to get the article in line with them. That is, the burden is on you. You are correct that certain other interpretations may be subjective and Misplaced Pages frequently works by consensus on those. A consensus is starting to develop that this article needs more reliable secondary sourcing, so that should be addressed. Notability within Misplaced Pages depends on reliable secondary sourcing and notability for a stand-alone article are different things. Do you intend to point out those types of sources per North8000's request? Location (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello guys, I think you have been too quick to judge about "notability" and "absence of secondary sources". I'm no expert about PROUT, and I've very short on time these day, otherwise I would help out to demonstrate and to better the article, however PROUT definitely passes notability. Famous people like Ravi Batra, Sohail Inayatullah, Noam Chomsky and many others has spoken, commented and/or written about PROUT. At least two very famous books of Ravi Batra (Great Depression of 1990, if I'm not wrong, is one of them) mentions, interprets and comments on PROUT. There is a small community being built up in Brazil, similar to the early Kibbutzim, but with PROUTistic ideology. Therefore I'm a 100% convinced that this article is notable and just if the web and the sources are searched well, there are many secondary sources, which can be used to better the article. Unfortunately I'm not so sure that there is a neutral and tertiary source writing about PROUT. But, helas, WP is, or supposed to be, a neutral and tertiary source! So Bob, instead of just deleting, why don't you be more constructive and find some sources, or tag them as "needs citation"? And one last note, without saying which I would feel silence imposed on me, it is always easy attacking articles that are being built by one or few people, whereas heavily biased and bombarded articles for real (unfortunately they do exist in WP), such as Palestinian people and others, are being protected by strong communities, this is injust and should not be permitted in WP. With PROUT though, this is not the case.--Universal Life (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Btw, other writers such as Dr. Susmit Kumar, Garda Ghista, Rodney St. Michael, Edward Quinn, Carl Davidson, Sarah Strauss, B Marie Brady-Whitcanack and many more wrote about PROUT and most of them are secondary sources, though some primary and some tertiary sources. There are secondary sources about PROUT even in many other languages than English, such as French, German and Finnish. --Universal Life (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not checked all the sources, but Garda Ghista published by AuthorHouse is a WP:SPS. Correct Knowledge 22:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Two minor corrections:

This is not canvassing; it is legitimate use of a noticeboard to seek help from uninvolved editors. That's what noticeboards are for. This is canvassing, and this is canvassing, because they are handpicking favourable editors to intervene in a debate on your behalf. Abhidevananda must stop canvassing.
This section is for uninvolved editors. Looking at the article history, Abhidevananda appears to be the article owner, not an uninvolved editor.

It is frustrating that Abhidevananda misrepresents things so often. Please stop doing that. bobrayner (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

From CorrectKnowledge

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

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

The header on this section is "Opinions from uninvolved editors". Of course, one may interpret the word "uninvolved" in many ways. But, from my perspective, CK is far from being "uninvolved". I have had several run-ins with him in respect to the Sarkar-related articles, essentially because of his efforts to destroy them, similar to the actions of Bob Rayner. See, for example, the revision history to the Ananda Marga article, where... by the way... Bob Rayner is right now engaging in his accustomed destructive "editing".
To witness the extent to which CK is not at all "uninvolved" but rather in collusion with Bob Rayner, have a look at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Abhidevananda/Archive. Presumably because I have stood up to their bullying, they joined forces in bringing a false accusation against me. Does it not stretch the assumption of good faith to the breaking point for us to imagine that CK just happened upon Bob Rayner's false sockpuppet complaint by chance and then similarly by chance appeared here to offer his "uninvolved opinion"?
As indicated in (1), CK's "edits" in respect to the Sarkar-related articles have been consistently destructive (just like the "edits" of Bob Rayner). The suggestion that the PROUT article should be "blown up and restarted" only confirms CK's regular habit and the reason why this article is now being protected.
Please note that I have requested ratings from seven portals. Thus far only two portals have responded, but both of them have rated the PROUT article as "B-class" quality. (The earlier version of the article that Bob Rayner would like to go back to was rated as "Start-class" quality.) It seems to me that two ratings of "B-class" quality from genuinely "uninvolved" editors should supersede the opinions of individuals who clearly have an axe to grind (as demonstrated in my first three points above).
If there are any issues with the PROUT article - for example, too much primary source material or not enough secondary source material - those problems may be addressed in time. Wholesale destruction of an article on an undoubtedly notable topic is hardly merited, and the effort to achieve such a mischievous end only tends to discourages participation on Misplaced Pages by new editors like myself. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have taken your suggestion and moved both your and my comments to a new section. For the record, I have never actually edited PROUT and have openly disclosed by contributions to Ananda Marga on other forums. I pointed out in my comment that other stuff exists and personal knowledge are not valid arguments to be used in discussions on Misplaced Pages. Ad hominem, though not formally acknowledged as an invalid argument, is not a great way or arguing your case on WP either. It is a bit ironic that you keep attributing bias to other editors when you're the only person here with any real conflict of interest (keep WP:COS in mind when citing your own work). Please also note, any editor can change article ratings without any prior notice. If I were you, I wouldn't stress this point too much. Regards. Correct Knowledge 09:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Second response to CK

It is amusing that someone who has just colluded with Bob Rayner in a false accusation of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry against me would comment on the propriety or impropriety of an ad hominem argument. When the sockpuppetry accusation was dismissed, they begged for meatpuppetry! :) However, leaving this brazen hypocrisy aside, I find it absolutely shocking that CK would go to such lengths as to threaten me - or threaten this article - for having pointed out that genuinely uninvolved editors from two portals have recently rated this article as B-class quality (elevating the rating from Start-quality). Isn't that point exactly what this discussion is about? But CK - after posing as someone with no axe to grind (no conflict of interest) - only responds to that point with: "Please also note, any editor can change article ratings without any prior notice. If I were you, I wouldn't stress this point too much." Does anyone really believe that CK has offered this advice to me out of genuine concern for my welfare, the welfare of Misplaced Pages, or the improvement of this article? Regrettably, CK makes Misplaced Pages sound more like a mafia than an encyclopedia. --Abhidevananda (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Votestacking and meatpuppetry accusations were admitted as reasonable even if inconclusive, but that's besides the point. I didn't bring that up here, neither have I threatened you. However, your refusal to address the violation of core Misplaced Pages policies and personal attacks on other editors are getting disruptive. Correct Knowledge 20:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Currently, we have a broken article - links that go nowhere, sections that make no sense, and so on. As the discussion is going nowhere, I offer a proposal. I propose that we revert to the last complete version of the article and then go through the article section by section to discuss changes and hopefully arrive at compromises that will satisfy everyone. --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This proposal I can agree with. Let's go back to the version on 2 October 2012. Any subsequent changes to the article should be first discussed on the talk page so that editors can reach a consensus on the proposed changes keeping in mind Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines. Correct Knowledge 11:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, CK, I am glad you can agree with the proposal. But, obviously, that is not the version that I was talking about. More than 200 hours of work went into improving that Start-class article. And there is not enough material in that version to warrant discussion. The version I was referring to is the "last complete version of the article", namely the version from 2013-01-08, , which had a much improved B-class rating from two portals. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Building a consensus on the exact version to which we can revert would be a start. My reasons for reverting to an earlier version tally with my comment above. I'll wait for comments from other involved/uninvolved editors. Correct Knowledge 12:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I was not directly working on this article, but since it is related with the project dedicated at the extensive work of Shrii Shrii Anandamurtijii, sometimes I give a look at this talk. If my opinion is well accepted. First of all I noticed a step forward in the discussion. Abhidevananda agrees with the proposal of CorrectKnowledge to discuss all points of the article. Of course he cannot agree to delete all of is long work. If you agree I propose to maintain all the work of Abhidevananda discussing all the parts and inserting all the secondary sources that it's possible to insert.--Cornelius383 (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Second request for reliable secondary sources independent of the subject

As alluded to above by three uninvolved editors, the article is lacking significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. These types of sources are imperative in order to maintain the existence of a stand-alone article that fulfills the criteria set forth in WP:N. A request was previously made for evidence of these types of sources, but thus far none have been provided. Please provide them here so that we can have the material necessary to re-build the article. Thanks! Location (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In many independent and reliable secondary sources PROUT finds no more than 2–3 lines in a section on Ananda Marga, Sarkar etc. (such as in this book). A few self–published sources from iUniverse, lulu.com and others do mention PROUT in some detail, but we can safely ignore those. Lewis, James R. (2011). Violence and New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press. pp. 258–263. ISBN 978-0-19-973563-1. is a reliable secondary source which describes PROUT in some detail (another version of the book). From what I can see, there aren't that many reliable independent sources on this topic and following summary style should lead us to an article of far lesser size than the current one which contains lot of original research based upon primary sources. Correct Knowledge 23:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Inayatullah, Sohail (2003). "Planetary Social and Spiritual Transformation: P. R. Sarkar's Eutopian Vision of the Future". In Shostak, Arthur B. (ed.). Viable Utopian Ideas: Shaping a Better World. New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc. pp. 208–215. ISBN 9780765611055. appears to lean to the positive side of neutral, but it does appear to be from an academic source and grant significant coverage to the subject. Location (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

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 Misplaced Pages policies, so there edits should not be tagged as vandalism or non constructive edits either (see proposal #2 before commenting)

Misplaced Pages policy

Proposal #2: Ac. Abhidevananda's edits were good faith edits, but actually those do not match with Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, we don't do this. We don't judge what is right and what is wrong. "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy. For example, if Einstein comes to Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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[REDACTED] 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)

Another option is to send it to Afd..

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.

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 03:16, 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). 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 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.

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 18:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This is good stuff built from the sources that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages discussion, personal opinion/feelings on those concepts, why we think those are right/wrong etc! --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

Categories: