Verifiability is a pillar of Sarkarverse. All content added to Sarkarverse that goes beyond or contrary to conventional wisdom in its broadest sense should not only be accurate but also verifiable, either by primary or secondary sources, or by logic.
Both primary and secondary sources are valuable. Depending on circumstances, either of the two may take precedence.
Primary sources are any material derived directly from the subject or someone closely related to the subject. For example, books and articles written by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar or the monks/scholars of Ananda Marga would be considered a primary source.
Secondary sources are any material derived from people who are not directly linked to the subject. For example, a third-party art review of a performance of Prabhat Samgiita would be considered a secondary source.
Unavoidably, some content in an article might not be verifiable through any published sources or even through conventional wisdom. This does not necessarily mean that such content must be avoided. Whenever such content is innately logical or whenever such content might be readily accepted with a simple and logical explanatory statement, then that content qualifies as verifiable by Sarkarverse standards.
Caution regarding secondary sources
Just because someone says something is so does not necessarily make it so. Hence, with secondary sources, care must be taken to avoid overstatement or overemphasis. If Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar says that PROUT takes a particular stand, then PROUT takes that stand. Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, as the propounder of PROUT, is the ultimate authority on the subject. If someone else, even a genuine scholar well-versed in matters connected with the subject, claims that PROUT takes a particular stand, the only thing we know for certain is that this person claims that PROUT takes that stand.
In the same way as conventional wisdom might be mistaken, sources (and even logic) might be mistaken. Therefore, in the interest of truth, all three methods of attaining knowledge (perception, inference, and authority) should be utilized as much as possible. Whenever a judicious use of all three methods weighs against any published secondary source, that secondary source may be reported in a neutral fashion, but the context should make clear, either explicitly or implicitly, that the secondary source is likely to be wrong. All content in a Critiques section of an article may be assumed to meet this requirement.