Talk:Eliot Tokar/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
I am not interested in being in a position of authority. I am particularly uninterested in responding to your analysis of American foreign policy. The facts of my involvement are these:
First, the page as I found it was basically a CV. I replaced the likeresume tag after the original author removed it.
Second, I suggested that the subject was not notable and that at the least, the page ought to be drastically shortened.
Third, I made a few edits for style (not removing the "natural healing" stuff, as DesiDoc incorrectly stated) and cleared out external links that were inappropriate under WP:EL.
Fourth, I tried to explain all of the above on this page here.
These were all edits intended to be constructive, and I am not the least bit ashamed of my action here.
Now, ignoring all the talk page drama, the page as it exists has the following problems:
1. It is almost completely unsourced. You have a reference for the fact that he was an advisor to the AMSA interest group; that's great. You sort of have a reference for the IASTAM membership, which I assume goes towards establishing notability, even though it appears I can join IASTAM for 41 euros. The case history and much of Tokar's biography cite a journal that I cannot find after a fairly extensive search in the UC Berkeley library's databases. The only reference on the web I can find is [here], which tells me that the journal is not peer-reviewed. Since it's not peer-reviewed, the long biographical and case histories are essentially things that Mr. Tokar himself have written up, and I'm concerned about the authoritative tone of the article. I recognize that it may be difficult to find sources on this stuff that are not written by Mr. Tokar, but that doesn't really solve the problem. Much of the rest of the biography is completely unsourced,
2. The external links still include three things that violate WP:EL, as explained above.
3. The anecdote about the patient that Mr. Tokar "cured" is there for no reason, as far as I can tell. In the original article, this whole thing was compressed into a single line. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 19:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
While I'm at it, I should note that the references need to be fixed using the standard Wikipedia ref tags and so on. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Zimbardo, What precisely is the journal to which you are referring?
Second, your comment regarding IASTAM betrays exactly the kind of irresponsible bias that I have criticized. You may or may not be able to join the IASTAM for 41 Euros, however, you cannot be invited to present a paper at their conference or publish in their peer-reviewed journal without proper credentials. The way that I found out about Dr. Tokar's work was on a referral from a colleague whose relatives are senior Indian medical anthropologists and who spoke on a panel with Dr. Tokar at the IASTAM conference and were most favorably impressed.
You need to be more self-critical regarding your use of bias and negative innuendo and your own limitations as a researcher. You boldly state that you are not interested in other’s opinions, but you seem to have very many baseless opinions that you impose on this process repeatedly. We need a neutral person to take charge of this editing or we will get nowhere.
Respectfully --DesiDoc 20:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
(Fixed your indentation to clear up confusion.)
I am referring to the journal "Unified Energetics." This is not available in the many library catalogues I searched.
I definitely can join the IASTAM for 41 euros. You're probably right that I can't publish in their journals or be invited to present a paper at their conferences without credentials, but the main page of the website doesn't confirm that he does either of those things. Also, we mention in the article, and I assume that this is to establish his notability, that he's a member of IASTAM, but since I could be a member of it if I wanted to blow 41 Euros, it doesn't show that he's an important person in the field.
Now, if you found out about Tokar's work from a colleague whose relatives are senior Indian medical anthropologists, that's fine, but that certainly doesn't qualify as proper reference under Wikipedia standards.
I am plenty interested in other people's opinions. I am not interested in arguing with you about American foreign policy in this article. And if you have a concrete objection to what I've done, please state it. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 20:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
My objection is simple: I agree with you on several areas, but since you have a very clear agenda here that you stated on top, that being that Dr. Tokar should not be written up in Wikipedia, you have made it difficult to join in a cooperative process with you. You have used your knowledge of Wikipedia guideline links to try to derail the process of putting up a good page that does justice to this fellow who you have a clear bias against. You are extremely opinionated but try and cover it up with legalisms. You do not like it when others bully but you love to engage in it yourself albeit in a very skillful fashion. You are sarcastic and cutting -for example I clearly did not mean that the Indian anthropologist's opinions should appear on the page- but insufficiently constructive or cooperative. You use the democracy of this site to your advantage, not to promote truth but rather your own opinons. You have been the dramatist of this entire mess and with a competent editor it could have been finished long ago in a form that adheres to Wikipedia guidelines. Instead all we can do is await your next imperious pronouncement here or your next slash and burn on the page in question. Sincerely--DesiDoc 21:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
That objection is very simple, but also very vague: I do not think that "Dr." Tokar (I don't think he has a doctorate) should be written up, but I have done my best to make sure that the page that is here is written well and follows Wikipedia standards. It's fine that you don't mean that the Indian anthropologist's opinions should appear on the page, but the point that Tokar's accomplishments are unreferenced still stands.
Additionally, I have not done any slashing or burning of the page. I detailed each edit I did above. Please make sure you read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL before accusing me of such things.
If you believe that I have not acted fairly, please feel absolutely free to get an admin involved. In the meantime, since you seem to have taken over from Bklynbrn as the main author of the page, I hope that you will respond to the concrete problems I mentioned above. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Major Violation

After returning from a weekend trip I logged on and was shocked at some of these continued exchanges and edits. Merkinsmum good naturedly try to improve the article. Stig, though obnoxious and rude, tried to organize what he could, albeit with some errors in attributions. Desi tries to moderate and be the voice of reason but messes up tenses and sentence structure. Then Zimbardo returns without any constructive input and attacks the fair work of others. He continues to challange notability after this was solidly established, including by such reliable sources as the San Francisco Chronicle and the New York Times, and threatens deletion. This, if nothing else, is clearly a violation of WP:BITE and challenges WP:FAITH based on the subject's own writings. I expect to speak with the subject next week and will recommend that his people include an inquiry to the University of California Board of Regents regarding their disciplinary policies, along with anything else he is contemplating.--Bklynbrn 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the New York Times established notability; as I recall, their coverage of him includes only a letter to the editor. Many non-notable people have letters published in the New York Times. I have mentioned several times that I doubt the notability of the subject, but have not challenged the notability of the page in nominating it for deletion.
I have no idea why you think the University of Calfornia Board of Regents would be in a position to discipline me for trying to get this page into reasonable shape. I am alarmed that you and stig and DesiDoctor (assuming that you are three different people) have resorted to personal attacks instead of making the necessary edits to make this article fit Wikipedia standards.
If Mr. Tokar wants to sue me or something, I'd be absolutely thrilled to let him know how he can do it. Please feel free to use the "Email this user" option on my talk page if you want to know how to get in touch with me personally. Best wishes. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 22:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have also said the page should probably be deleted, not just Zimbardo. Only 'stig' has been abusive that i have seen. I've requested that an admin- a more senior editor- comes to clean up the sources etc and do anything else that needs doing to the page. Maybe there are other things that need to be investigated too;)Merkinsmum 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what's worse Mum: being accused of being "ludicrously faux-English" after serving 26 years with the Queen's own, or fleeing the UK at the tender age of 22 and trying to pass as faux-American chasing a faux-dream of landing a big job with a software house. Better hope those student visas are in order. I hear they are cracking down on illegals, the Yanks are. -Stig --65.188.192.230 03:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
'Fraid I'm not really sure what you're getting at, Stig old chum! Gor Blimey Mary Poppins!:)Merkinsmum 03:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Me neither. Huh? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 06:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh I get what he means, he isn't sure if it's worse to be accused of being a fake english person or an American imigrant.Merkinsmum 10:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources tag

Someone has removed it, and replaced it with a random 'mercurial' one - which is for news stories and stuff. I'm putting the sources tag back, please do not remove without discussionMerkinsmum 03:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finally the Problem is Made Clear

The reason that we cannot get this page in order and finished is that Zimbardo and Merkinsmum only want the page deleted. We have not been functioning in Wikipedia democracy but have been being manipulated by a preconceived and negative agenda. You are in clear violation of, at minimum, the WP:BITE and WP:FAITH rules that Bklynbrn has cited. Since you seem to like to make accusations to try and discredit others by innuendo I begin to see that perhaps it is you two who are either one in the same or working together in some illegitimate fashion that we cannot see on this page.

I am not the main author of this page. In fact Bklynbrn and Stig have done most of the authoring as far as I can judge. I have mainly tried to argue for a fair and competent process but that is impossible when working with a self-appointed censor who is doing a poor imitation of being an editor. We need a competent person or admin who knows how to help us get this page finished and has good editorial abilities. I am not sufficiently experienced on this Wikipedia to do the job. Perhaps Stig or Bklynbrn can help arrange this?

It is important to state however that Zimbardo is an impossibly incompetent researcher who would have flunked any of my classes, and I begin to wonder if you are even beyond your middle school years. You are such a poor researcher that you had the nerve to say that there is no proof that Dr. Tokar (FYI he likely does not have a doctorate, and does not appear to use this title himself, but in the East we give respect to those who function competently as physicians and scholars even if they do not have Western credentials. I am NOT asking that he be granted this title on Wikipedia but I should show respect even if others here, who show no area of competence and only know sarcasm, do not.) presented a paper at the IASTAM conference, when there are easy to locate listings on the internet regarding that conference and listing his paper, including on the conference’s site. Just take a trip to a good university library or a top grade public library and additionally learn to use the internet properly and without much effort you will quickly find that Dr. Tokar is cited at minimum in: 1) two pieces in the NY Times, one being that Letter to the Editor (where the Times chooses to give him a professional credit, which the only do for selected contributors), as well as another article where they use him as a source; 2) in the San Francisco Chronicle article where he is featured; 3) by National Public Radio; 4) by the Xinhua News Agency; 5) by The Bejing Review; 6) by the Village Voice ; 7) he is further cited in Yoga Journal as one of only four Tibetan medicine resources listed for N. America; 8) in the Asia Society's "Asia in New York" book; 9) in the Buddhist Guide To New York as "one of the most knowledgeable resources in Tibetan medicine in America"; 10) by the book the Tibetan Art of Healing by Chronicle Books; 11) by The New Physician publication of the American Medical Students Association; and 12) by two health food industry trade papers Natural Foods Merchandiser and the Health Supplement Retailer. His work has been published in journals that are both peer-reviewed and in those that are not; and he has been published in Ayurvijnana, an authoritative journal on Tibetan medicine published in India; and in H. H. the Dalai Lama’s journal in the US, NEWS TIBET. I have even discovered that he is cited in the DVD for the film the Knowledge of Healing a documentary film on Tibetan medicine produced in Europe.

My recommendation Zimbardo is that you go to your local community college and take a research course, and then come back determined to help create and not tear down. But sadly you do not appear to want to learn and at the same time you seem so very angered at those who have. We regrettably await your next slanders and list of inaccuracies and can be assured that they are coming soon. Sincerely --DesiDoc 07:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am, as I said above, very sad that you have decided to ignore the substance of my criticisms and work solely with personal attacks.
I didn't say that there was no proof that Mr. Tokar had gone to a conference. I said that the main page of the website doesn't confirm that. If there are pages underneath it that provide sources for your claim, then find them and use them.
You mentioned that Tokar is cited many places, and that is fine. You are also correct that I neglected to find one of the instances in the New York Times when he was cited; that's because, as I said in my first comment, I looked only in the last two years. My goal was not to find every single place Eliot Tokar has ever been mentioned, but to get a general idea of his importance. I missed a one-sentence mention in an article 7 years ago.
Please let me know if you have any interest in actually fixing this article. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 07:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Zimbardo your job if you want to participate is not to merely criticize, as made clear by the WP:BITE and WP:FAITH rules that Bklynbrn has cited, but to assist in making this page better. You need to make concrete suggestions and help those of us without experience in Wikipedia form, or leave and let an objective person take your place. Since you distain this man and his work and only want this page removed, you have not been trying to help but only to hinder.
You have not been truthful even above. When you said that the Internet "doesn't confirm that he" participated in the IASTAM conference the only implication to be drawn was that he did not do so. Any child using the Internet would have found the citation but you needed to make an innuendo to slander him. "I looked only in the last two years", you say about your incompetence in researching the NYT. But a basic search of the NYT site brings up both references. So which is it, were you merely attempting to slander or are you simply unqualified. Listen to yourself, "one-sentence mention in an article 7 years ago", how many mentions in a major newspaper article have you had in your young life, and Dr. Tokar has had a consistent list of citations and publications for fifteen years which I am guessing as your age more or less.
Pointing out your history of bullying, falsehoods and inability is not a personal attack. It is a personal attack to try to diminish the work of a man like Dr. Tokar, who has made a notable contribution to his discipline and to areas beyond his field. You have in no way and at no time tried to get a "general idea" of Dr. Tokar's "importance". You have been on the attack throughout. You have made no attempt at making useful and concrete editorial suggestions up to this point, you only advocate for tearing down.
I will say one more thing. As notable as Dr. Tokar is, there are even more notable people in Tibetan medicine like his teachers, Dr. Dhonden and Dr. Trogawa. If you had even attempted to help fix this article, it would have been done already and the people here or others could be encouraged to put up information on these men as well as others. I am always ready to work for the good, but I am not a Wikipedia expert and I am still waiting for you to give even one constructive example or model as to how to fix this article. I find nothing actually useful in anything you have written here. Only criticism, bad research and slander. Oh and proof of your memorization of Wikipedia guideline links.
If you have any interest in actually fixing this article you should give at least one indication. Show us something useful and constructive, with no agressive or passive agressive undertones. I will retire now and hope that tomorrow will bring something better. Sincerely --DesiDoc 08:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Zimbardo and I have explained what you need, which is sources. No better advice can be given as to how to proceed with this article than that. It is hard to track down wikipedia-acceptable sources for what Tokar has done- very diffficult. That's why I've asked for an admin that is an expert on finding sources to come in and help. Because I can't myself. I also feel that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' and to be honest it's down to the ones making the claims to back them up properly. I don't know about zimbardo but my only interest is in trying to make the article neutral, and not a rave piece about how wonderful he is (articles on wikipedia which is an -encyclopedia- are supposed to be neutral in tone.) I try to make edits which make the article more neutral - which is another thing which would dramatically improve the article- but all my edits are taken out and even more lavish praise of Tokar added. If you want to put what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article into an improved and excellent state, I suggest you read more articles to know what we are aiming for.Merkinsmum 10:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Desi, there is a lot of space on the Internet and a lot of opportunity for editors. I am not holding a place that a "neutral" editor might otherwise hold.
Saying that a particular web page does not confirm an event does not imply that the event did not happen. This is very bad logic. I have no doubt, in fact, that Mr. Tokar has attended many conferences and has been published in many places (like the journal Unified Energetics) that the web might be unable to verify. That's fine; if they can be verified some other way, that's terrific. But the web page you listed didn't support the facts it was supposed to support.
As far as the New York Times search, please read my above comments very carefully. In my original comment, I mentioned that I had done "a Lexis-Nexis search of major papers from the last two years on "Eliot Tokar," and came up with only a letter to the editor." I did not say that I had searched the Times in particular. Mr. Tokar has not been mentioned in the last two years in a major newspaper searchable by Lexis-Nexis except in that capacity. This was a general test of his notability. My personal notability is not the issue in question.
I made a list of constructive criticisms above. You have not taken them well. Unless your tone becomes significantly more respectful, and until you apologize for accusing me of lying, I won't continue communicating with you directly. Best wishes. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Easy way to improve this page

I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but if we could get rid of all those inline links and broken footnotes and put them in a true WP:FOOT style, it would be easier to figure out which parts of this article have been supported and so on. And thanks to Merkinsmum for his last effort at cleaning up the page.

Is cleaning synonymous with hacking this page? Bad sentences and disjointed phrases and paragraphs are not good editing in the real world.

What we have lacked from the beginning is a neutral editor:

Why should we have an article on him? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 03:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Tokar doesn't seem to be a particularly noteworthy person in general... Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 01:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the page deleted... Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 02:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is almost worth listing for deletion...Merkinsmum 13:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

...deletion should be considered.Merkinsmum 14:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Hansard is a far more notable (if controversial) practitioner, the size of this article should reflect Eliot's degree of notability...Merkinsmum 14:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

..When I looked the other day Hansard's article was on here, I didn't realise it had been deleted. Merkinsmum 23:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that "Dr." Tokar..should be written up...Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also said the page should probably be deleted, not just Zimbardo.Merkinsmum 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little suspicious that there have been some sock puppets operating here from the beginning to sabotage this page. But it will be repaired. Calling for sources is sniping especially when you falsely claim that there are none, and then when you are proved wrong you try to diminish them or compare them to that which a celebrity might have. Helping implement the use of sources is what a neutral editor does. Sincerely. --DesiDoc 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Desi, please don't undo my edits without discussion, it's very rude. Despite what you say I do consider myself a neutral editor, if you click on my username you can read that this is what I do on wikipedia. Saying the page might be a candidate for deletion isn't saying we hate Tokar or anything like that. I have made pages myself, which have been deleted because the sources weren't enough for other editors and they had not heard of the subject of the article. If you think about it, either Zimbardo or me could have put this page up for deletion but we haven't, we are working with you. My latest edits were aiming at -concision- the article is very long for a subject of whom most readers will have never heard:) So please try and shrink the length of the article in a way that's acceptable to you. If you think about it, all the edits on this page have gone the way of the fans of Tokar haven't they, if anyone tries to make the tone neutral or make the article less long-winded, their changes are just undone. I would like to know who you think is a sock puppet as all the editors arguing for this page being tempered a bit have very dissimilar contributions.Merkinsmum 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] neutrality disputed tag

I've put this in, because any attempts to stop the article being a rave about how wonderful tokar is, are just undone. Until you have made the article more neutral in tone, and we have discussed it here, do not remove it. There's little point me editing it as all my work just gets undone, so I'll just keep the tag in until some other editors can look at it or the editors here work to improve it.Merkinsmum 17:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


What questions your neutrality is not what I say but what you have stated here on this page. How can you possibly consistently call for deletion and be seen as neutral. You cannot sit on two chairs. I hope that you choose to go back to making constructive suggestions. You say "please don't undo my edits without discussion, it's very rude", yet you have undone the work of Stig, Bklynbrn and myself without reasonable discussion. As a new contributor I can say that there have been many violations of WP:BITE and WP:FAITH rules.

Neutrality is most desirable and I thought we were cooperating and getting there in small steps until Zimbardo chimed back in and you came off your earlier positive stand of trying to improve this page {SEE Merkinsmum 21:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)] and back on with your desire for deletion.

If you want to edit the page and make it more concise it is fine but you must write well. Your most recent job was not within the bounds of proper grammar, sentence structure or any other sign that you want a readable accurate and neutral piece. I came onto this discussion in order to find solutions.

You say that Dr. Tokar does not deserve space because most readers will have never heard of him. Bloody hell, is this an encyclopedia or a fan magazine. The job of an encyclopedia is to inform people in detail about subjects that they have not heard about but should have. You use language like "fans of Tokar" to discredit those of us who wish to educate about this subject, but I have seen no raving in the article although I have seen lots of it on this page. I have seen very many long pages on numerous meaningless obscure issues of popular culture and on celebrities and new age nonsense without sourcing. Here we have multiple sources (see above) but instead of you and Zimbardo helping us implement them you just keep putting tags. The only reason that I can see for this is that you want this page to fail so that you can obtain your oft stated aim for deletion.

If you desire cooperation then please behave in a cooperative fashion and we can still go forward, if you want to hack and delete and tag you are not behaving neutrally. --DesiDoc 17:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"You say that Dr. Tokar does not deserve space because most readers will have never heard of him. Bloody hell, is this an encyclopedia or a fan magazine" That would be exactly my words to the 'fans' of Tokar on this page. You say "The job of an encyclopedia is to inform people in detail about subjects that they have not heard about but should have." No, that would be a definition of redundant content. The job of an encyclopedia is that people search it for things and people they hear of and want to learn, to read a -summary- of relevant information about that person. There's no point in an encyclopedia containing things people will never look up, or a list of Eliots' teachers etc. Compare, now this is a lady I have actually heard of Emma Restall Orr. She has three times as many mentions on google as Tokar and has written several books entirely by her. And her article here is a stub. Please summarise and condense the content is all I am asking. As to style, we are not writing a CV or a life story of Tokar, only including relevant facts. Read more articles on wikipedia such as Gillian McKeith, Phil McGraw Tony Robbins. They aren't written like a story but as encyclopedia entries, which is what this is supposed to be. But I try to improve it and my work is just being undone. We have reached an empasse here so need to try and get -experienced- editors on board who can decide if this is even worth an entry. Because only the 'isn't Tokar brill' version is kept here. Hence the Neutrality tag needs to stay, it makes more sense than what is called an 'edit war'. I'm letting your content stay, just with a tag. Be happy, your version of the article is up:)Merkinsmum 18:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No traditional encyclopedia would even have articles on New Age 'gurus' such as you have listed. But if Wikipedia chooses to do so I have no objection, it has extensive articles on all sort of pop culture nonsense. Encyclopedias are traditionally educational tools not information shopping malls such as you described.

You claim that the article is not neutral but you do not list specific statements here that you are challenging as not being neutral. What is fan-like about the current content? Be specific. Listing and discussing such specifics would be an example of editorial cooperation and would get us somewhere.

I will try and find the time in the next few days to write up the proper footnotes and then if you really want to be neutral and helpful, you can show how to properly list them. Sincerely --DesiDoc 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a traditional encyclopedia I think would have included spiriitual figures of the day who were -worthy of note- such as Madame Blavatsky or proponents of therapies who were well known public figures. Or druids who were well known such as Iolo Morganwg and other well known characters who had done things worthy of note.Merkinsmum 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] duplicated content

I removed a bit out of the introduction as it was all mentioned further down in the 'apprenticeship' section. We don't need it in both sections, just a summary in the intro and the main bit about it further down.Merkinsmum 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although I suspect it may creep back. I switched to a bunch of cite templates; now we have a proper way of doing footnotes, and so it's appropriate, I think, to add FACT templates where citation is needed. Best wishes. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 19:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to finally see signs of cooperation and progress. I have made some changes to extablish context and history. Also since you did not seem to understand the normal distinction between the use of the term"disease" and "illness" I attempted to simplify and clarify that meaning in the Catalyst section.--DesiDoc 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desi- explaining what I mean by neutrality

using the example section 'early catalyst', things in brackets need changing, proposed changes in bold. A bit hard to set out but you get the idea:)

Early catalyst

Eliot Tokar began his studies in (natural healthcare) traditional and complementary medicine in the early 1980’s, while living in Amherst, MA, in the context of trying to help a friend find a solution for a six-year long bout with a wide variety of serious infectious diseases. Having some basic familiarity with Asian medicine, Tokar first engaged Boston based Shizuko Yamamoto, a Japanese practitioner of shiatsu, acupressure massage, and promoter of macrobiotics in the U.S. Tokar's friend was subsequently diagnosed with a serious bone infection osteomyelitis at Tuft's University Hospital in Boston. Facing surgery followed by yet another long-term treatment in hospital, the friend decided instead to try the (natural) macrobiotic approach that had been recommended to her by Yamamoto.

Despite (finding success in) treating the osteomyelitis for three months with this approach, the patient's general illness persisted and she continued to be in a diminished state of health. To address this problem, Tokar decided to turn to Yeshi Dhonden, who visited Amherst yearly through the sponsorship of Robert Thurman at Amherst College. Dhonden ultimately suggested the patient continue with Yamamoto's dietary approach, supplementing it with his Tibetan herbal medicines. (After three months of this new treatment the patient achieved stable health and all of her symptoms had abated. [1]) Three months later, the patient achieved stable health, which she and Tokar attributed to the treatment. --- You see then we are not saying that Tibetan medicine works, or doesn't work, but merely presenting the facts. We're not saying that this approach is natural where conventional medicine isn't. Because 'natural' is a bit of a loaded word as it implies conventional medicine is unnatural. Do you see what I mean by neutrality? Neither promote tokar, nor tibetan medicine, nor overly criticise them.Merkinsmum 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting suggestions! I find that 'natural medicine' is a conventionally used term that does not imply anything bad or negative towards biomedicine; "alternative medicine" is another convention, but it most certainily implies non-neutral things; "complementary medicine" is a specifically biased term; also the term "Tibetan medicine" might need to be left in that sentance since "traditional medicine" (an otherwise very good term) means only biomedicine in the States and is therefore confusing to part of the audience; we could say "traditional Asian medicine". We need to find more good language. Keeping the term macrobiotic might be good since it is specific and referenceable but subsitituting it with "alternative" might be more clear than "natural" and is appropriate usage in this sentance. I must think about he osteomyelitis sentance. I see why you are concerned but by merely taking it we direclty imply that Yamamoto's treament had no effect and that is also not neutral or accurate to assert. I am not sure what to do here and I will think on it. The same with your suggestion of "Three months later, the patient achieved stable health, which she and Tokar attributed to the treatment." This is not bad but it must be improved since something must have been occuring because these kinds of illnesses do not just go away. Having a lot of personal expereince with individuals who have used Asian medicine and also homeopthy, for us to state or imply that their effectiveness is merely a subjective belief is also non-neutral. I agree however that a more neutral wording is useful. I have to go now but these are very useful suggestions that we should work out together.Yours --DesiDoc 20:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

One quick suggestion on the osteomyelitis matter. We could write "After three months of implementing Yamamoto's approach based on dietary therapy and home remedies the symptoms of osteomyelitis reportedly ceased, however, the patient's general illness is said to have persisted wherein she continued to be in a diminished state of health." It might need some work but it says something is reported to have happened without committing to an exact cause and effect. Cheers --DesiDoc 20:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

For "After an additional three months of this new treatment the patient achieved stable health and all of her symptoms had abated." We can say something to the effect of: "After implementing this approach for a period of three months the patient is reported to have achieved stable health with all of her symptoms having abated." Anyway we have to parse it out. --DesiDoc 20:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember for neutrality that there is no scientific evidence for most of these therapies. I mean I practice some of them myself, but "Tokar and friend attributed this to the treatment" is accurate, because they did, but we can't say they were right, or wrong, because we don't know the full circumstances. Such as whether in actuality she also recieved antibiotics etc. We don't have any proof. And the reader needs the neutral point of view, they don't know Tokar or anyone so are not going to accept their words on faith. We can't push a point of view about whether Tibetan medicine works or not.Merkinsmum 21:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Compare to the Tibetan medicine article itself. What practitioners do is merely described, there are no statements pushing a point of view about whether it works or not.Merkinsmum 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea that biomedicine is scientifically based and that our Asian medical traditions are not is in itself not a neutral notion. According to sources such as COTA (Congressional Office of Technology Assessment) (1978). Assessing the efficacy and safety of medical technologies. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment: Washington, DC: 7; Where is the wisdom? British Medical Journal. 1991;303:798-99; Grimes DA. Technology follies. JAMA. 1993;269(23):3030-33, among other objective sources, less than 20% of biomedicine is evidence based. Despite this, for example, if a person is on multiple drug therapies (which due to their nature are rarely subjected to randomized controlled trials) and they get well, we say that they were "cured" by such therapies. In science there are many bases of proof and the centuries of experience in traditions such as Tibetan medicine is not properly ignored as evidence.

Therefore, you are correct that we must find neutral language. We should NOT say "Tokar cured his friend". But that also does not require us to imply that a result was possibily merely a subjective exercise in belief. As such "Tokar and friend attributed this to the treatment" is not very good. Neutrality is different than skepticism. If as a Wikipedia editor you want to do as newspapers and academic fact checkers do, you can contact Dr. Tokar and ask him pertinent questions such as whether antibiotics were used. Otherwise I believe that your basic idea is most certainily correct but we must agree on better wording.--DesiDoc 22:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"After implementing this approach for a period of three months the patient is reported to have achieved stable health with all of her symptoms having abated." This sentance does not imply any necessary relationship between the treatment and its results and it states accurately that even this depiction of events is based on a report, an article sourced on the page. It explains only that this was a mere chain of events [she did something -- after a period of time another thing occured whether related or not to the first event]. --DesiDoc 22:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes but the subtext of that sentence says that 'it worked':) As to researching myself, we're not allowed to use information derived from original research, it has to be already published.Merkinsmum 23:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then we will need to find an agreeable third choice because my sentence in no manner says that anything worked. If I say "Merkinsmum rubbed a rabbit's foot for three months and then reported that she won the lottery" this in no way asserts that rubbing a rabbits foot won you any money, although it might imply you personally think that there is a relationship. However, in this case we are not speaking about superstition, we are speaking about a centuries old tradition that is solely medical in nature (as opposed to, for example shamanism). I am willing to brainstorm neutral language, but casting doubt by using language that is highly skeptical in nature is no more neutral than language that promotes absolute certainty. --DesiDoc 23:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision, (ArbCom-PS). In particular, the Serious Encyclopedia, Acceptable Source, and other such findings are of relevance to this article. --Philosophus T 23:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I should also note that, by the AS criteria, "Unified Energetics" is not an acceptable source for medical or scientific articles. --Philosophus T 23:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I will look at it, however, Unified Energetics is NOT being used here as a medical or scientific source but solely as a source of biodata. We have already had too much struggling here please do not pour in new red herrings. --DesiDoc 00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If something can't be cited/has no sources, it doesn't belong here.

At all. The statement that Eliot was one of the first is not neutral and needs to be altered to be neutral and fair to all the other practitioners out there, and all the other students who studied alongside him.Merkinsmum 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah Merkinsmum I see you are back to your true colors and fighting for deletion and you have brought new allies to hack this article into oblivion. Here we go again. To fulfull your citation requests we would not only need to directly contact Dr. Tokar, but all of the individuals mentioned on the page, not to mention get copies of airline tickets to prove that he traveled with these people. My God this Wikipedia is no democracy it is a dysfunctional mess. All your discussion of standards of proof are just straw men for an attack on the page.
Dr. Tokar is cited at minimum in: 1) two pieces in the NY Times, one being that Letter to the Editor (where the Times chooses to give him a professional credit, which the only do for selected contributors), as well as another article where they use him as a source; 2) in the San Francisco Chronicle article where he is featured; 3) by National Public Radio; 4) by the Xinhua News Agency (china's offical news agency); 5) by The Bejing Review; 6) by the Village Voice ; 7) he is further cited in Yoga Journal as one of only four Tibetan medicine resources listed for N. America; 8) in the Asia Society's "Asia in New York" book; 9) in the Buddhist Guide To New York as "one of the most knowledgeable resources in Tibetan medicine in America"; 10) by the book the Tibetan Art of Healing by Chronicle Books; 11) by The New Physician publication of the American Medical Students Association; and 12) by two health food industry trade papers Natural Foods Merchandiser and the Health Supplement Retailer. His work has been published in journals that are both peer-reviewed and in those that are not; and he has been published in Ayurvijnana, an authoritative journal on Tibetan medicine published in India; and in H. H. the Dalai Lama’s journal in the US, NEWS TIBET. I have even discovered that he is cited in the DVD for the film the Knowledge of Healing a documentary film on Tibetan medicine produced in Europe.

Here is your record:

Why should we have an article on him? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 03:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Tokar doesn't seem to be a particularly noteworthy person in general... Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 01:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see the page deleted... Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 02:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is almost worth listing for deletion...Merkinsmum 13:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
...deletion should be considered.Merkinsmum 14:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Christopher Hansard is a far more notable (if controversial) practitioner, the size of this article should reflect Eliot's degree of notability...Merkinsmum 14:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
..When I looked the other day Hansard's article was on here, I didn't realise it had been deleted. Merkinsmum 23:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that "Dr." Tokar..should be written up...Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have also said the page should probably be deleted, not just Zimbardo.Merkinsmum 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
What have you done with your time except slander people online hidden behind a cozy little screen name and violate WP:BITE and WP:FAITH rules. ?--DesiDoc 01:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Led a global conspiracy?. The journals you refer to do not satisfy the AS criteria of the ArbCom-PS case. The topic may be notable, but there are verifiability problems with many of the claims. Furthermore, could you please disclose any COI you might have, for example, whether your first name is Eliot or your last name is Tokar, or both? --Philosophus T 01:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Desi, I asked people's advice who have edited similar articles. Why is this slander, in your eyes? I've said nothing against Eliot. As to whether we would need to speak to all concerned to prove it, get plane tickets etc, no. That would be original research. It just needs to be published somewhere that's a wiki-able source that can be verified. I know it's frustrating. All the other editors here want, Desi, is for this article to be neutral and factual, and speaking for myself, not overly long either. As to what I get upto on wiki, you can read on my talk page. I don't tend to talk about my personal life any more than that on here, but I can assure you it's very fulfilling:)Merkinsmum 01:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting that this article, which I still think stinks, is *significantly* better than the version that was up for months and months. This process has been unnecessarily contentious and ugly, but it has resulted in a much better page. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 01:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to Verify Memberships

I looked up the "Steering Committee of the Roundtable on Traditional Medicine," so I could find a cite for Tokar's membership, and I'm having a heck of a time finding it. No help really when I looked for "steering committee" and "traditional medicine," trying to avoid the question of whether "roundtable" is one word or two. I searched the entire columbia.edu site for "Tokar" and found nothing. Went to the NY Presbyterian Hospital page; same thing. Searched the entire Cambridge website (where the Dharam Hinduja institute is) and couldn't find Tokar. Lexis-Nexis provided no love. Anybody had luck finding this? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 02:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some New Growth

Good Evening everyone. Sorry I'm late. Looks like we got quite a bit done today aven't we? I like that you pushed that list of Tibetan doctors down to his training where it belongs. I think it's shaping up but the 'citations needed' all over the manor is a real eye sore. I'll leave the attributions to me betters to sort out, ahem Zimbardo, but I will say this - I think we hold this chap to an impossible standard of documentation. Just take a look at the entry for the villian Ian Brady huge swaths of text with not a footnote in sight. Your looking for a cite every time the subject goes to the Gent's. There needs to be some moderate application of the rules for all, is all's I'm saying. Any rate night,night all, I've got to be in Battersea early in the morning. - Stig --65.188.192.230 03:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... looks like a good candidate for a surprise {{fact}} ambush! However, note that the references are there. --Philosophus T 04:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Stig, this is very true indeed. I have looked at numerous biographies of living and deceased individuals and many have citations and many do not, however, none have citations for every fact listed, as they are demanding here. I tell you this is simply an attempt at deletion using legalisms. There is no attempt at editing going on here and there never has been. These people specialize on Wikipedia in targeting pages that they are opinionated against and then attack them in order to destroy them. Electronic book burning. How sad. --DesiDoc 03:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, no. Read my user page. I do not attack pages in order to destroy them. I attack pages to "brutally suppress nonsense and artificially bias articles toward reality," as do my fellow Einstein's Witnesses (though none of them are here right now). At worst it this would be analogous to a process involving ink and copious quantities of whiteout, but no fire. It is quite possible that Tokar is notable, but we still need to verify the claims made so that this is not just an advertisement. By the way, you still haven't told me whether your first name is Eliot. Is it? --Philosophus T 04:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Desi- errr, no. If you click on my name there is a page about what my interests are on wiki- which is in making sure that articles have a neutral point of view. Though I do like pages where I can discuss with other people in the talk pages. As to other pages not having sources, just because other pages are not very good, doesn't mean this one should be too. Some articles are pretty untouched apart from the by the people who first wrote them. Once lots of editors got fired up on Gillian McKeith, I think we've got everything that the article says properly sourced etc. The reason why I want this page thoroughly sourced, is I don't think it's fair that Eliot claims superiority over other practitioners, it's just not very nice. And the claims that were originally made, shouldn't be made without being backed up. In fact the article is slightly more accurate now about how Eliot got his training etc. The page shouldn't be free advertising for Eliot is the main point.Merkinsmum 08:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

1)I have archived. This means, earlier discussions on this talk page can be found by clicking on the Archive link at the top. This is as suggested by the machine when I tried to edit. It's just so this page isn't cumbersome for us all to use.

2)Intro section. Should be a summary of why he is noteable/interesting. Where he's travelled etc isn't that noteable, others will have done that and it's not what Tokar's reknowned for. Also that he's been to a Uni and studied Tibetan medicine isn't noteable as he did so at a university where the course was open to all.

What's noteable is that he has lectured internationally on it, and that he's perhaps one of the few westerners to have had an apprenticeship in it (although we still need sources for that.)Merkinsmum 09:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

Another reason for the 'citation needed' tags is to avoid the article containing Original Research. This is another wiki guideline. What it means is you can't make your own interpretation and opinion about Tokar in the article. So if the article says 'Tokar was one of the fist Westerners to do this' you need to link to another person or verifiable source saying that. That's another reason it needs a 'citation needed' tag. Sometimes seems mad, I know:)Merkinsmum 09:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edit by Bklynbrn

Uh, what? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] At Subject's Request

I've been contacted again by the subject and at his request spurious and misleading text has been removed, and the entry minimized so as to merely provide a brief summary of his existence and work. The remaining content is supported by his writings which are cited on the page. If there are further efforts to manipulate or skew his activities, he has asked that I arrange for the article's deletion from Wikipedia in total. However, he has made the offer of appearing on this discussion page one time, to answer any serious, respectful questions any editor's might have about Tibetan Medicine, how it is transmitted, his career, or his writing and addresses to the Asian Medicine community. Please keep in mind, as a Buddhist, the subject tries to base his life and work in serenity, peace, and healing, and watching this ongoing battle and rudeness by all parties has caused him great pain. He would prefer to remain low profile or even anonymous if would prevent further conflict being done on something associated with his name. Please advise if a personal contact to this page would be helpful. Thank you. --Bklynbrn 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi we need more sources than taking Eliot's word for it I'm afraid. None of us have it in for him or anything like that. I for one wish him well. Having the article shorter like this is probably good. Thanks Bklynbrn.Merkinsmum 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Remember that wikipedia is a site where anyone can edit any article. No-one owns the articles. If you are unhappy with your work being edited it's best not to have a page, and it can be deleted at Eliot's request.Merkinsmum 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm ashamed I am. And I feel I had a hand in it as well, although with best intentions. This chap only looks to help people and we've done violence to his name. I couldn't ask him anything except to beg'n his pardon. I feel awful he's upset. Better leave it for now, it's too raw. - Stig --65.188.192.230 21:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that discussion on the talk page isn't reliable. If instead he were to put the information on a website that was clearly his, it would be usable, but still couldn't be presented as fact. If he has concerns about the article and would like information removed, I would highly suggest that he contact the Wikimedia Foundation via OTRS. Danny can remove things properly, whereas I will need to revert significant parts of your changes since they violate NPOV and WP:A --Philosophus T 21:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What do people feel about deletion?

It would be an easy way to get the page removed if Eliot so wished. The current version of the page, doesn't establish notability. What do people think? If people agree, I will nominate the page for a deletion debate. That debate could then be hidden from view afterwards to protect the subject's reputation.Merkinsmum 22:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel it would be most honorable for me abstain from any opinion on the matter. --Philosophus T 01:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You will finally get what you wanted from the very beginning you bloody fascists. Your dishonesty about your negative intentions from the beginning has been so very transparent, it is no wonder that you would want the discussion hidden. Having had this experience I understand very well why Wikipedia is regarded in academia as the rough equivalent of the British tabloids. The amusing thing is that on the other hand Dr. Tokar is welcomed amongst us because his work is up to standards. In Hinduism & Buddhism we say that ignorance, and aggression are two great poisons of the mind; it would seem that we are correct. The most cynical joke of all is that the most aggressively and proudly ignorant of you has tagged himself with "Philosophus" This is an insult to your Western tradition, which while not without problems, is most admirable. Certainily your "Philosophus" would have been one of the first to force the poison on Socrates for his "original" ideas. Our ideas in Asia are not original or unproven, they are centuries old, tried and true and only a racist would even imply otherwise. You skillfully attempt to use Wikipedia legalisms to cover your true goals, but no one is fooled here, I think not even yourselves.--DesiDoc 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

DesiDoc, please try to keep the conversation calm. I've just had a brief look, and I'm not familiar with the background of all this, but honestly, from reading your post, I don't even know if you want the argument deleted or kept. If you could make arguments about the merits of keeping or deleting the article, it might help me to come to an informed decision, but the "bloody fascists" stuff just makes me feel it's less trouble to edit other pages. ElinorD (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Non Socratem damnavissem, sed neque caece secutus fuissem. Namne qui omnes caece suscipit vere cogitat? --Philosophus T 01:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Page size overrun drew my attention. I've reviewed last 2 weeks of traffic. New version gives a fair rendition for a limited size bio page for an obscure subject/limited notability. Short, sweet with attributions and useful links. --Bensachs 23:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the version you left doesn't use the WP:FOOT style that I carefully added earlier, and doesn't have any of the sources we tried to find for the various claims. The article doesn't go near to establishing notability. It doesn't have the references/external links style common to these pages, and again a couple of the links should go under WP:EL. How exactly does page size overrun draw your attention? Merk shortened the talk page significantly yesterday. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 00:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither Philosophus nor Zimbardo nor I have used any abusive language or said anything aggressive towards anyone. I'm sorry if anyone has felt offended by people asking for verifiable sources.Merkinsmum 23:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD, very sorry if you were offended Please accept my appology. But also please read everything that has been going on here for the past few days and if you are a fair person you might understand my feeling. These three regularly violate WP:BITE challenges WP:FAITH and have had nothing to check their actions.
To Merkinsmum, you sent me a note and I responded, although I do not know if I did so in the correct manner. I must disagree with the veracity of your statement. You might not have used particular language but the approach the three of you have taken as a team has been highly aggressive. You have wanted this page deleted from the outset and have said so repeatedly. You have then worked together to create a process that would achieve that result. Admittedly you have been very skillful, you seem to know how to manipulate this medium, but your approach has been based upon bias and has meant to undermine this article. Some of you have even bragged about your past successes at sabotage upon articles whose themes you disagree with. I am surprised that you have not yet demanded a source to prove that this fellow is alive. And if you had and if we found his birth certificate online you would have questioned its autheticity as well. --DesiDoc 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Desi I'm not that cunning you know:) To be able to engineer a long term conspiracy:) I thought we all felt we were getting somewhere with the previous version, but Bklynbrn said Eliot wasn't happy with it. This version is very basic and completely unsourced, as to deletion I genuinely wanted to help Eliot if he wants it gone. Because the peril of wikipedia is that if you have an article up, anyone is free to try to improve upon it etc, it also has to be from a neutral point of view, not promoting any therapy.Merkinsmum 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Merkinsmum, I did not claim that you were cunning or conspiratorial, just practiced at manipulating this process in a very biased manner with fellow hobbyists. Also as I have told you skepticism is no more neutral than advocacy. You rejected all attempts to collaborate on neutral language. Maybe you are cunning after all. --DesiDoc 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


You are still looking for citations that are not realistic but here are some:

I found you some sources of his international lecturing:

A photo of him actually speaking in Taiwan can be found at: http://www.mtac.gov.tw/action/showpic.php?id=37

A list of high ranked individuals who spoke at the Tibet conference included in the list is Dr. Tokar: http://www.china.org.cn/Beijing-Review/Beijing/BeijingReview/2000Aug_28/20.htm

A photo of him actually studying in Ladakh with Dr. Trogawa is incorporated in the article on page 48: http://www.jcrows.com/EliotInterview1.pdf

And again with Dr. Trogawa as depicted in a photo with Allen GInsberg: http://trogawa.blogspot.com/2006/05/photo-by-allen-ginsberg-of-chagpori.html

I do not expect much at this point. --DesiDoc 03:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay I'll use the ref to the list of speakers desi, I'll put it in, it was in the other version, if you look back there are probably sources you can use there.Merkinsmum 12:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] refs/sources

I'm not good at formating them properly so if my attempts are poor, please improve:) I tend to just go [1] so don't blame Desi, it's me:)Merkinsmum 12:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of articles

Needs to be a summary or just a couple of his most noteable ones. List is still too long, IMHO:)

ONLY the first, the Tricycle, one can reasonably be deleted. This is why your efforts are so apparently not about editing, and so clearly an attack. On one hand you call for sources, and for neurality, but on the other hand you want to eliminate info about his work published in professional publications where the standards are more objective than those of this Wikipedia faux democracy. You are merely attempting the suppression of information about traditional Asian medicine. But you couch your racism with false editorial demands. We in the East have seen this before. --DesiDoc 16:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Invitation

Merkinsmum and Zimbardo Cookie Experiment, we've been watching your work critically on enforcing accurate and reliable citation and are impressed. You are invited to join us on the Nuremberg Project. We are focusing on cleaning up Category:People convicted of war crimes , which consists mainly of improperly sourced Nazi War Criminals. See Sepp Dietrich and Ilsa Koch for prime specimens. Please assume a fresh identity prior to pursuing. Best. --Bensachs 14:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Best wishes to you on your admirable work, but I prefer to use a single identity when editing pages. That way it's easier to see if I violate WP:COI. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 18:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I frankly do not think that your sarcasm is helpful, but unfortunately after days of this foolishness I cannot say that its message is inaccurate if not (perhaps intentionally) absurdly overdrawn. I am surprised that our deletion crew has not asked for a citation proving that he is an "American". This is after all unproven and a non-neutral strike against the Canadians isn't it? --DesiDoc 16:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Desi,Bensachs, have I not just added a source to the page? and Philosophus has added a quote from NPR about how special Eliot is, so I don't think you can say we are not editing in good faith. Neither have we been insultative to you in any way. Eliot has this free advertising space, you can't really complain at that.:)Merkinsmum 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


There you go again Merkinsmum. This is why I can never accept your claims of neutrality. If a major media outlet like NPR in America, which has objective journalistic standards that far exceed those of Wikipedia, says something about Dr. Tokar you deride it as making him "special". I am sorry but some people have legitimate professional accomplishments, if this makes such individuals "special", i.e. suspect of some negative characteristics in your eyes, that is too psychological for a supposedly objective forum. Your very nasty comment about "free advertising space" is also a sign of prejudice. What is this man selling? All that is promoted here, and in Dr. Tokar’s articles is information about Tibetan medicine as well as other healthcare related issues that have been discussed routinely and prominently in newspapers and journals for the past two decades. Specific discussion of this aspect of his work was censored from this article by your efforts. --DesiDoc 17:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Desi, I am not sure how one measures neutrality; although it's true that both Merk and I initially thought the page was non-notable and worth deleting, we have spent a significant amount of time trying to get it into proper shape. I spent a while searching library catalogues for Tokar's work, searching to verify his various memberships, searching cites to his work, etc. I edited a lot of text for style and grammar in what I think are uncontroversial ways. I wouldn't have done this stuff if I'd thought the page would be better deleted; in fact, I could have almost certainly gotten it past a deletion argument if I'd left it in the CV form that was defended so fiercely by Bklynbrn. Almost everything that I've done has been met with hostility from you or Bklynbrn or "stig" or Bensachs. This is all excusable considering that none of you have ever edited Wikipedia before, and I hope this has been a learning experience.
Tokar is getting advertising from this page; it shows up pretty highly in Google searches for his name, and if he's mentioned here, it suggests that he is at least somewhat notable. The deletion of the vast majority of the article text was done by you; you also continue to remove cite tags and other things that we use to build the page.
It is certainly true that not all pages are properly sourced; this includes war criminals and so on. But we also have an obligation under WP:LIVING to be especially stringent about biographies of living people, and when I see those biographies, I will do my best to make sure that everything we say can be verified by external sources and is written in a neutral point of view.
I'm going to revert the deletion of cite tags that you just effected. It is not an insult to Mr. Tokar that facts in his biography are, at the moment, unsupported. Those tags serve two purposes: they alert Wikipedia editors of an opportunity to improve pages, and they warn readers of the page that Wikipedia editors have not yet verified those facts. Look around and you'll see many respected people with multiple cite tags in their biographies. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoa! Time out Partner. I'm just passing through and saw a chance to help. I complimented you on your question on your Talk page, and mentioned your work to my own team mates. We extended you and Merkinsmum an invitation to join us. How is this attacking your contributions with hostility? I'm just working a list. Our Nuremburg work requires a fresh id, because with each id you increasingly betray your own annonimity, and given the subject there are some rather rough individuals we are dealing with. Strictly for safety. Over and out. --Bensachs 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Zimbardo, If we are going to truly cooperate to improve this page I am your ally. It is true that I have not edited in Wikipedia before, rather I have previously only contributed to editing in professional settings. However, I have also noted that very many bios on Wikipedia, even of living persons, are not disputed due to a lack of citations for every single pertinent fact.

As far as deletions most of them were done because every word had a citation tag added. When I very fairly summarized the content of his writings, in the former “Intellectual and Scholarly Work” section, which had citations clearly below in the “Writings” section, citation dispute tags were placed up like graffiti. If you want I can add back that text, it would help focus the article less on the individual and more on his contribution. Please let me know.

I honestly appreciate that you are taking a more cooperative tone, although your use of the term advertising is still offensive since he is not selling anything. Given all of the citations that I have mentioned on this page and those that you would have seen if you did the research that you claim, he is obviously notable in his field while admittedly not being a celebrity. His web page is in the top few listings in Google, Yahoo, etc. for “Tibetan medicine” despite there being many pages on Tibetan medicine on the Internet. Do you believe that these corporations are also in cahoots with him?

My student was visiting me (he is an American) and I showed him all of this and he laughed saying, “Wikipedia has hundreds of articles dedicated to celebrities, commercial products, and TV programs that live and die on advertising and selling and these people are saying that speaking about a person who has done credible scholarly work is “advertising”?! This is why Wikipedia is not respected.”--DesiDoc 20:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags, Neutrality and Citations

As far as your replacing the tags, I have already placed evidence on the discussion page above available on the Internet showing his connection to Dr. Trogawa Rinpoche. The reason that I object to these tags is that they show a kind of inappropriate skepticism, not a neutral view. Unless you are willing and able to contact Dr. Tokar (which you cannot ) and have him open his records it is IMPOSSIBLE that an apprentice's relationship to his master would be documented and citable; especially not on the Internet. Creating an impossible standard of proof is NOT a sign of neutrality and as a result we do not use them in proper professional settings. Since both academic and popular sources have accepted his connection to these teachers in citing his biography, [and we at least have photographic proof of his work with one of them] so should we. That is if we are neutral in any traditional sense.

Otherwise we need to put up a citation tag next to the wholly unsupported statement that he is an American. Sincerely --DesiDoc 20:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The tags say "cite needed," not "we dispute this fact." They don't show skepticism. They show that we want this article to be well-sourced. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 07:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Zimbardo here is an example of why I have doubted the truth of other's research efforts and have been so critical of what they have chosen to call an editorial process here. I just read that San Francisco Chronicle article and it cites Dr. Tokar's studying with Dr. Dhonden (along with many other facts that have been hounded into deletion here). Please use this and the info regarding Dr. Trogawa listed above to cite that which you want.
I still do not think that this needs citation as per what I have said above -and based upon many other non-cited biographical articles on WIkipedia - but if you are insistent on this, use what has been provided but without imposing any editorially cynical language. If neutrality is truly what you seek I am certain that you will be happy to help out here. Please answer my query re replacing the former Intellectual and Scholarly Work section that was deleted. Also why did you leave out the page on Taiwan in your citation of his international lecturing.--DesiDoc 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
We didn't delete the section, it was deleted by Blykbyrn at Eliot's request, he said

At Subject's Request--I've been contacted again by the subject and at his request spurious and misleading text has been removed, and the entry minimized so as to merely provide a brief summary of his existence and work. Merkinsmum 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that we know if Blykbyrn is in fact in touch with him. However since the text was hacked into a "spurious and misleading form" I feel that he did the responsible thing under the circumstances. --DesiDoc 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I will look at the Chronicle article and see what's citeable from that. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 07:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] update?

The last mention in earlier versions of this article of him speaking at one of these conferences is in 2004. The current version of the article concerns what he did in the 80s. The article should really say what he's currently working on.Merkinsmum 20:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you want to list?--DesiDoc 21:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I could be incorrect but in the original -what Zimbardo said was like a "CV" - version of the article I believe that the listing of lectures were up to the present. But say specifically what you want so that others can chime in with info. But be specific so that you will not follow merely tagging and disputing whatever is described. Please remember that everything that is done is not archived on the Internet. This page needs to be complete at some point.--DesiDoc 21:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The earlier versions mentioned a lecture in 2004, but nothing after that. Just curious:) And this is a wiki, a page is never 'complete', even after most of us have stopped working on Eliot's page, other people will turn up and edit it at some point.Merkinsmum 22:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I could be incorrect but in the original -what Zimbardo said was like a "CV" - version of the article I believe that the listing of lectures were up to the present. But say specifically what you want so that others can chime in with info. But be specific so that you will not follow merely tagging and disputing whatever is described.

SEE ALSO: For 2006 IASTAM Conferernce - http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:uHnX7kzvcOEJ:www.utexas.edu/cola/insts/southasia/news/current/iastam/noformat/conferences/IASTM/IASTM_schedule.doc+tokar+%22Pacific+College+of+Oriental+Medicine%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Conference at what an acupuncture college with both East and West (USA) coast campuses - http://www.pacificcollege.edu/prospective/admissions/advertisements/ny/2006/fall/many_paths_one_medicine.html --DesiDoc 23:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there was also a mention of a talk at the Rubin Museum of Art in NYC that appears to have been held in March 2006 called Menlha: The Medicine Buddha -- Intimate Secrets of Healing from Tibetan Medicine with H.H. the Dalai Lama--DesiDoc 23:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi I have put a bit about him frequently lecturing at the IASTAM conference in.:) It was Tokar himself wanted the previous version removed, which had lots about his lecturing work in. I like the length of the current article, but having a mention of what he gets up to nowadays is good. I'm going out now, perhaps you could put a sentence or 2 about other noteable lectures he does Desi. Thanks for finding the sources above:)Merkinsmum 11:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)