Talk:Eliot Tokar

message: Zimbardo I did not take your failure to insert citations as a rejection. We all certainly have many other things to do.. That is why I want to refocus on progress and not get distracted by some of what Brklynbrn wrote that seemed controversial. Please be so kind as to suggest your "appropriately distancing language" HERE first. In the past we have seen too much biased skeptical language proposed, and I think that we need neutrality instead. 
Also be aware that the ITTM site does not refer to Dr. Tokar with whom they fortunately do not seem to have a direct relationship. However given their expertise in this field, the fact they are in Kalimpong in India which is neighbor to Darjeeling where Dr. Trogawa Rinpoche was based, and that they include Tibetan experts in their ranks, it is meaningful that in their official journal they felt safe reporting Dr. Tokar's relationship to him. I feel that we have direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence [SEE ABOVE] of the certainty of this relationship. In ADDITION to this, why would he be invited to speak at very established and credible institutions such as Asia Society or to conferences in Tibet if his CV is not considered provable in the minds of experts in Asian studies and Tibetan medicine? We should have proof but also not be too skeptical if we wish to be neutral.--DesiDoc 21:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually looks like an author-penned biography at the end of a piece by Tokar in a non-peer-reviewed journal.  However respectable the journal is, I'm not overwhelmed by the endorsement.  However, even treated as self-published information, I think it's okay under WP:A, so I cited it and removed the fact tag. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 14:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refocus on Progress 

message: The writings section, could be an NPOV'd version of Desi's statement (e) above! perfect:) Then the writings are the citations for that, so they are not in a list in their own section, but used as cites.Merkinsmum 21:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably want the traditional AFD process, not the speedy deletion process.  When you were the only editor to have written on this page, you could have made an argument for speedy deletion, but not now.  If you put it up for AFD, I will happily vote yes. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 00:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (e)/writings

message: I've been contacted by the subject and have been asked to proceed with a deletion request.  The ham handed efforts at attempting to devine meaning and attribution of work based on traditional and not scientific sources, by misinformed and unskilled editors who are immune from expert review is more than he can bear. On a personal note, watching the NCAA playoffs, how good faith editors can devote thousands of words and hundreds of hours on parsing a basic entry, when someone who is highly visible like Dick Vitale goes unscrutinized without a trace of parity, is a tribute to the hypocracy and lack of balance in this vehicle.  And to think, Wikipedia announced it is going in to the for profit search engine business today. I expect deletion prior to 22:00 UTC .  --Bklynbrn 22:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably want the traditional AFD process, not the speedy deletion process.  When you were the only editor to have written on this page, you could have made an argument for speedy deletion, but not now.  If you put it up for AFD, I will happily vote yes. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 00:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Submission for Deletion

message: "Anonymous user" claimed erroneously that this article meets the criteria for speedy deletion due to being inflammatory!  If someone puts 'speedy delete' notices at the top of the page, simply remove them as they do not apply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merkinsmum (talk • contribs) 23:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: to everyone- Tags at top of page

message: It's only this bit we are not clear on: here is my attempt-
Tokar believes in cooperation between traditional Asian medicine and biomedicine, but has argued against the creation of research protocols for traditional Asian medicine.  He believes that to be an inappropriate application of biomedical parameters.
-what do you think, Des?Merkinsmum 23:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We would put this section we are working on, which summarises Eliot's lectures and writings, and then the articles as sources/references for the statements, like we have with the other refs, then the interested reader can look them up and they will be listed in the references section.  That way it's not just a list.
-----That version's ok except it's a bit wordy, try and make the language a bit simpler
Tokar believes in cooperation between traditional Asian medicine and biomedicine, but has argued against integration and the creation of research protocols that do not fully analyze the specific approaches used in traditional Asian medicine.
?  Only I'm not quite sure what you mean by a 'biomedical parameter' and it sounds like a wordy way of saying something tendentious :):)Merkinsmum 01:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like original research as well as you Des:)  But they don't allow it in a  wikipedia article.  It's still a belief system, even if Tokar shares it with others.  I'm not saying he's the only one that thinks it.
--Tokar's writings and lectures concern the theory and practice of Tibetan medicine as well as the role of traditional Asian medicine in the context of its current globalization. His work supports cooperation between traditional Asian medicine and biomedicine, but argues against integration and the application of research protocols that do not analyze the specific approaches used in traditional Asian medicine.
I've no problem with that I suppose:)  So Desi, can you put the things listed in the writings section, as refs for those statements there?Merkinsmum 01:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: They are not peer-reviewed scientific journals.  Like the British Medical Journal.  These are like the journals nutritionists might write in.  It doesn't make what they are doing any more valid to ousiders. :)Merkinsmum 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In accord with Merkismum, nor are they peer-reviewed "academic" journals containing dissertations appropriate for masters or doctorate degree consideration.  Footnotes do not make an article scholarly. Original, insightful research which expands the body of knowledge does.  Furthermore, repeated invitations to speak during an academic program, such as a survivor of the Bataan Death March being routinely invited to address history classes covering the Pacific Theater during WW II, again reflects an individual having experienced or witnessed a significant event or area of knowledge without necessarily being a scholar.  Per, the article subject's account, his teacher's might well have qualified as scholars given their affiliations with institutions.  Finally, in those cases of individuals who have made substantial contributions to the body of knowledge of a field without participating in the academic study of it in any formal sense, an honorary degree is often conferred upon such notables in recognition of their achievements. Perhaps a run down of the subject's academic credentials, earned and honorary is in order. Schist 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Added balance to advisory affiliations. Counters seeming prestige to make neutral Schist 02:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Granted. The latter point in particular has been a lightening rod for critics, but true the discussion best rests with Dalai Lama article and as you point out this is already linked.
Schist 04:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to the 'writings'

message: Finally back in the States.  And I followed Mum's advice and got an id.  Still waiting for those benefits.  Wasn't suprised to see bklynbrn's message and the speedy delete tag.  I'm suprised Tokar tolerated this as long as he did.  I finally agree with you on something Zimbardo high price is no gauge of quality and given all the poor citation and rephrasing going on, I vote for deletion.  Imagine a middle school lad trying to use this article for an assignment over 3 or 4 days.  Reduce him to tears I'd say.  Pull the lever Zim and you'll have my support.  I'm worn out. I brought back some decent bangers for supper then it's off to bed for me. Good bye all. Stig99 02:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD It Should Be

message: Yo, I don't mean any disrespect to y'all, but I have read over some of this discussion and the article versions and Gaaahd. Listen I see that Desi and Merk have been workin together real nice -- major respect to y'all-- so feel free to restore the page if you like but I jus wanted to try and make it flow better for the readers -- like yrs truly. Yo again no disrepect and I don't want to add more flames to the inferno so if it works for y'all cool if not sooorrry, but just trying to be helpful. If I left our any refs I see from above that there's lots to choose from for this dude. Long live Wiki! Peace-->out--Stavrosgreek 17:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No Disrespect

message: Clearly under Wikipedia's own definition this is non-qualifying.  Per definitions:
An academic is a person who works as a researcher (and usually teacher) at a university or similar institution in post-secondary (or tertiary) education. He or she is nearly always an advanced degree holder who does peer-reviewed research. In the United States, the term academic is approximately synonymous with that of the job title professor. In the United Kingdom, various titles are used, typically fellow, lecturer, reader, and professor (see also academic rank), though the loose term don is often popularly substituted. The term scholar is sometimes used with equivalent meaning to that of "academic" and describes in general those who attain mastery in a research discipline. It has wider application, with it also being used to describe those whose occupation was scientific or pseudo-scientific research prior to mass organized higher education.
The subject is neither a researcher nor affiliated with an accredited institution of higher learning. He is an applied practitioner of traditional arts documented earlier by another culture.  His writings do not represent original research but opinion and do not appear in peer-reviewed research journals. They do not present hypothesis, evidence, and conclusions. Appearing at a university does not confer academic standing or rigor.  Otherwise when Pearl Jam appeared at my college they would be considered scholars in music. Schist 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not peer-reviewed scientific journals.  Like the British Medical Journal.  These are like the journals nutritionists might write in.  It doesn't make what they are doing any more valid to ousiders. :)Merkinsmum 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In accord with Merkismum, nor are they peer-reviewed "academic" journals containing dissertations appropriate for masters or doctorate degree consideration.  Footnotes do not make an article scholarly. Original, insightful research which expands the body of knowledge does.  Furthermore, repeated invitations to speak during an academic program, such as a survivor of the Bataan Death March being routinely invited to address history classes covering the Pacific Theater during WW II, again reflects an individual having experienced or witnessed a significant event or area of knowledge without necessarily being a scholar.  Per, the article subject's account, his teacher's might well have qualified as scholars given their affiliations with institutions.  Finally, in those cases of individuals who have made substantial contributions to the body of knowledge of a field without participating in the academic study of it in any formal sense, an honorary degree is often conferred upon such notables in recognition of their achievements. Perhaps a run down of the subject's academic credentials, earned and honorary is in order. Schist 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Added balance to advisory affiliations. Counters seeming prestige to make neutral Schist 02:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Granted. The latter point in particular has been a lightening rod for critics, but true the discussion best rests with Dalai Lama article and as you point out this is already linked.
Schist 04:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename Section on Scholarly Work

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Eliot Tokar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824131918/http://cc.purdue.edu:80/~wtv/tibet/ad/ad1.html to http://cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/ad/ad1.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amsa.org/pdf/heavenearth.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928074058/http://theintegratorblog.com/site/pdf/CHRFNewsFilesBackIssues.pdf to http://theintegratorblog.com/site/pdf/CHRFNewsFilesBackIssues.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified