Talk:Progressive utilization theory/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit request on 18 March 2013

‹ The template below (Edit fully-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK dream

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

Tag bombing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference markup

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

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

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

Still very lopsided

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

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

Please stop uncivil remarks here and on my personal Talk page

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

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

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

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

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