Talk:Progressive utilization theory

Recurrent problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected

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

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

Requested 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

1. JSTOR 20751800
2. JSTOR 10.1525/nr.2008.12.1.26

Google Books

1. 01
2. 02

Official website

1. proutistuniversal.org
2. www.proutglobe.org
3. prout.org

--Tito Dutta (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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

• Comment. Here the topic is not some public-domain academic theory with wide acceptance, so it may not fit easily under the relevant provisions at WP:MOSCAPS. See also WP:MOSTM, relevant to this proprietary entity. The article associates the theory with a logo, even. I could understand dissent from this view, from various stances. If the theory did become respectable as common currency in scholarly use, there would be strong grounds for lower case. On a detailed point of research into usage, note that several of the resources appealed to in the proposal hardly use the expanded term at all, preferring the acronym "PROUT"; and in introducing an acronym, many sources go against best practice and highlight the letters involved by capitalising them. Compare "Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) is ...", where "ultra-high frequency" is stylistically superior in general use, as all major style sources agree. Noetica^Tea? 23:01, 9 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 Wikipedia and specially the articles related to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. But, if you can add some secondary reliable sources, the article will be in much better condition (in my opinion). --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thank you, Tito.

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

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

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

Opinions from uninvolved editors

From Location

I am responding here in response to a notice placed on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:SPS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG) that indicate that article should be based upon "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Unfortunately, it's not enough to assert that the theory passes WP:GNG and then build the article upon primary and/or self-published sources. The extensive list of sources in the "References" section has similar issues and without attribution to specific article content it could easily be interpreted as a case of Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia context. Take a look at the Chronology section of the article. Even though you may not have heard of it yet, Location, this is not just a small, fringe theory we are dealing with here. Can you name another "fringe theory" that is as extensive as PROUT? As for "substantial secondary sourcing" and a "reasonable period of time", both of those concepts are relative and subjective. It is hard to say what is "substantial" in this case and also how long or short is "reasonable" in this case. Obviously, it is easy to get a lot more secondary sourcing for theories that are as old as capitalism and communism. PROUT is much newer than they are. But does that mean that Wikipedia should document only old and possibly outmoded theories? Furthermore, PROUT is a theory that has been almost entirely developed by one person... at least at this point in time. So, like Marxism (in its early days), accurate content necessarily requires extensive references to the writings of the theory's propounder.

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

This is not an Afd, so it's not canvassing to request the input of other editors. Compliance with Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing is mandatory, so the reference to a "reasonable period of time" is a good faith allowance for you to get the article in line with them. That is, the burden is on you. You are correct that certain other interpretations may be subjective and Wikipedia frequently works by consensus on those. A consensus is starting to develop that this article needs more reliable secondary sourcing, so that should be addressed. Notability within Wikipedia depends on reliable secondary sourcing and notability for a stand-alone article are different things. Do you intend to point out those types of sources per North8000's request? [Edit: BTW, my reference to not having heard of the theory or the person behind it was only to demonstrate that I post here without any bias regarding the article.] Location (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Two minor corrections:

• 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^«৳alk» 22:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Second response to CK

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

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