Talk:Eliot Tokar/Archive 1

message: This reads like a CV, and doesn't establish the importance/notability of this person.  Why should we have an article on him? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 03:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content of the Article

message: I posted the stuff below to the author's (User:Bklynbrn) talk page.
: I wrote about this on the discussion page, but there have been no replies.  You are the author of this article.  I am not clear on why we need it at all; Mr. Tokar doesn't seem to be a particularly noteworthy person in general.
: I did 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.  Switched to "Medical News" and got nothing.  I can find most of Mr. Tokar's journal articles, but very few cites to them in other articles.  
: But even if we stipulate that the guy is notable, the page reads exactly like a résumé.  I don't think we need a complete list of his publications and lectures, since we don't generally have that for other scholars (even ones who have credentials and Ph.D.s).  I don't see the purpose of including a bunch of tendentious stuff about "industrialized biomedicine" and so on.  Why should his page be significantly longer than, say, Kenneth Alan Ribet's?
: I propose deleting everything after the first paragraph.  Your thoughts? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 01:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further notes on this article

message: There are no notable sources included in this article.  Unless they are put in soon, deletion should be considered.Merkinsmum 14:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources needed

message: What a funny bird you are Mum.  Why you and that zimbardo cookie seem to have it in for this Tokar chap I will never fathom.  I was using this page just yesterday and there were some useful links posted. Now I do not see them. And last time I was back in Brighton the fellow who runs our local Indian take-away was telling me about an interesting article on herbs that he read by this very fellow. Move along and take up suduko or some other hobby and leave this editing be. I hope they restore this lot. Maybe go for a walk on the heath.  There's a good girl. - Stig
--65.188.192.230 04:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to use the article history to find any material that might have been removed.  Take care.  Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 05:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor Editing and Daft Comments

message: Well done! It looks like you've made a real balls-up of it now Cookie love! Here, I've set things right so it's actually useful and the bloody barristers aren't hot on your trail. I'm beginning to detest these vile little skermishes between arrogant little prigs. Been looking at your track record and see no contributions but a host of reversions.  Bloomin destructive little parasite, aren't we?  And you try to hide behind the rules and get it wrong more often then not.  Sod off old darling, least I have a word with Jimbo. - Stig --65.188.192.230 15:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to be as open and friendly as possible about this entire process.  I'm not terribly concerned with what an anonymous editor with 0 previous article edits thinks of my record, but you might want to check out WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.  I am not worried about legal action resulting from my removing a bunch of arbitrary external links.  Best wishes.  Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 18:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: You probably mean "solicitors" instead of "barristers."  Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 19:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Petty Squabble

message: One supposes the only thing in life you won't be able to correct is your ego. Probably an Arsenal supporter. Life is too short for this. Please fight amongst yourselves. I'll leave you with some Byron:
Eternal Spirit of the chainless Mind!
Brightest in dungeons, Liberty, thou art;
For there thy habitation is the heart -
 
The heart which love of thee alone can bind;
And when thy sons to fetters are consigned,
- To fetters, and the damp vault's dayless gloom -
 
Their country conquers with their martyrdom,
And Freedom's fame finds wings on every wind.
Chillon! thy prison is a holy place,
And thy sad floor and altar, for 'twas trod,
Until his very steps have left a trace,
Worn, as if thy cold pavement were a sod,
By Bonnivard. -May none those marks efface!
For they appeal from tyranny to God.
- Stig --65.188.192.230 03:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Charming to the Last

message: I think it now does him a bit more justice, the article had not mentioned before the positions he served on commitees etc, which I have now included, and the lectures.
Its the abundance of links and list of articles that needs to be summarised now rather than listed, and only one or two most important ones mentioned, not a list of everything he has ever written.  So please pick out those articles/links  you think are most important.  Can you see the encyclopedic tone coming out a bit?Merkinsmum 04:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: does him a bit more justice

message: I think that we all need to find a compromise that works here. Our friend Bklynbrn would still like to add a great deal of narrative and our friend Zimbardo wants the minimum. I smell another battle brewing.  I think that the model offered by Merkinsmum provides a good middle ground and at least a starting point. I have made some changes: 
1.  I think if we want to be encyclopedic we must understand that the historical significance of Dr. Tokar is that he is one of the first Westerners to learn, practice and teach about this Tibetan medicine. 
2. I have added a note about his work with the Dalai Lama's office as suggested by Zimbardo. 
3. I have added some more details that the academic mind would find useful such as the location of the conferences cited. 
4. I have deleted two of the articles listed because they do not seem to be key to his published work. 
5. I have deleted some of links as suggested by Merkinsmum, consolidating the information with the remaining articles. Wikipedia users can now find relevant narrative without it taking up space on the page. 
I hope that we can work together in a harmonious fashion to make a page that does justice to Dr. Tokar's most significant work within the framework of Wikipedia's structures. Adding useful information is fine but we need to be concise, accurate and to the point as well. Please let me know what you all think. I apologise for my lack of skill in this Wikipedia environment, but this is all a new experience for me. Warmest Regards--DesiDoc 05:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let Us Compromise

message: There are still no sources for this article except his webpage.  One page that might describe what is meant by this if you feel you might benefit from it is [Wikipedia:Citing_sources].  Only certain sources are actually really counted.  The problem is the 'christopher hansard phenomenon.'  I'm not saying Tokar or his followers are making it up, just that there's no sources for any of these claims in the article.  And after Hansard, I would like to see sources cited for claims such as these. Please put them in.  I'm going to put the unreferenced tag back in, someone took it out.  It's not a slur on the article, just a fact about it and it will also help us improve it to be reminded.  So please no-one remove it until we have a larger number of acceptable sources in.Merkinsmum 11:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merkinsmum, Your desire for sources is quite fine, however, I think that from what I have read the Hansard analogy is most highly inappropriate.  Their work and careers seem wholly different even though it touches on the same field. To make the comparison therefore does not help us solve the source problem that you assert and can cause others to feel that we are forming a slander. For example, from what I can determine Dr. Tokar does not seem to have any "followers" whatsoever and he has built much of his reputation through his connection with objective academic and cultural institutions. What kind of references would be useful here that we can obtain without directly contacting him? Please give specific actionable suggestions so that we can move forward. Thank you for your ideas. --DesiDoc 13:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean it like that, just that if we could find sources to back it up, (which we should be able to easily do- such as details of these conferences, commitees etc that mention him) we can prove that he is not like that.  Because personally I sometimes am involved in alternative medicine circles, and people make all sorts of claims.  We should be able to prove that Eliot Tokar is the rare exception.:)  Finding sources is not something I am expert at and none of us seem to be able to understand how easily.  Please try and find independent sources that mention the conferences, commitees etc.  I am going to request a wikipedia admin or someone more experienced than I comes and helps us do so.Merkinsmum 16:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you very much for clarifying your point. I think that this helps enormously. Regards--DesiDoc 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Bloody hell Mum! If you want something done right, you must do it yourself.  I saw this bollocks between you and Bklynbrn and you both got it wrong. You cut out all the fat and the meat at the same time! Leave it be I tell you. This poor devil has suffered enough at our hands. I've never seen him on the telly. His face is not plastered all over the market. He's not a shill for Horlicks or Aero bars. Now stop tinkering.  - Stig --65.188.192.230 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to improve on what Stig has added making corrections based on the sources that he has cited and that are available. I have also tried to add some sources in line with Merkinsmum suggestion. In this area there are some natural limitations to what sources may be available but we can try to do our best. I do not know if I have done this properly or what you all might think but I hope that we can arrive at a result that is proper through creative cooperation. Namaste--DesiDoc 19:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stig if you don't like the article, feel free to discuss any constructive changes you would like to make.  There is no need to take a 'tone' with other editors.  You might like to make an account too, then the machine signs for you and there are probably other advantages.Merkinsmum 21:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Fair and Proper Rendering

message: This is good but some of the notes [2] are just like that, please try and fix them.  Now it has some good stuff in it, much better than the earlier versions, brill, thanks Desidoc:):)  My only concern is it might be taken from somewhere, a book or something? we can't quote a lot without copyright issues.  But it's brill, thanks.Merkinsmum 21:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as it is is completely unsourced and a total mess.  It will need to be fixed.  I don't have the time to deal with this in more detail at the moment.  Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 06:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  Zimbardo, yesterday I left a request for admin to come and look at this article, hopefully they'll check the sources, neutrality, notability etc.  Stig please do not be abusive to others or make racist comments.Merkinsmum 11:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good but

message: Our process is once again threatening to take on dysfunctional qualities. I believed that we were actually getting somewhere. Even Stig, as rude as he is on this discussion page, was trying to make a contribution of some sort. Now, Zimbardo reemerges suddenly, making blanket negative assessments, but failing to make any positive or constructive suggestions. This is exactly why I cautioned earlier that there are varied forms of bullying. 
Please forgive me Zimbardo, but if you wish to take a position of authority you must take a responsible approach as well. If we truly are seeking to engage in honest debate, express credible opinions, critical thought or editorial ideas they should appear in the form of contributions and suggestions and not merely hyperbolical expressions such as “completely unsourced and a total mess”. 
The responsibility of a competent editor is both to guidelines and to content, and good editing resolves that dialectic in a manner that promotes knowledge. Those of us who have written and published in peer-reviewed journals know about the use of citations and the need for proper editing. I would like to assert once again that editing is a constructive and creative process not merely a legalistic one. 
We must be careful to use Wikipedia rules to improve this page as suggested by Merkinsmum, not merely to reflect bias. Excuse me for saying so, but it was the latter approach that made a necessary editorial process, originally properly recommended by Zimbardo, descend into a foolish fight that he was a regrettable participant in. Now after many useful changes that have been discussed on this page we are back to hyperbole. I fear that soon we will be back in a mess as well. 
I would hope that Wikipedia is able to be a source for information about more than celebrities, pop culture, and academic subjects. In the West you already have enough sources of information about these bloody things, and, excuse me for saying so, you increasingly treat knowledge as consumerism. In your evolving system, only creatures of the media, academics and publicity firms (which are all increasingly tied under corporate aegis) can have a voice. [America seems to lead in this area, and now it has even gone to war based on falsehoods promoted by authorities who justified their actions based upon “sourced” intelligence.] These 21st century approaches to hegemony are why our cultural expressions like Tibetan medicine and other forms of traditional knowledge are having their existence threatened, unless of course they can be categorized as “intellectual property” or placed in sterile packages and sold on your store shelves. It is Dr. Tokar’s continuing willingness to speak out on subjects such as biopiracy, and not any kind of personal celebrity, that, in my opinion, makes his work of note.
	
My request to Zimbardo is that when you have the time to come back and “deal” with this you do so in a manner that is fair and appropriate to both Wikipedia and this subject matter and not merely engage in a legalistic exercise. Democracy must also retain civility for it to function. As I have stated before no respected journal in America, Europe or Asia is merely legalistic about what they publish. No journal is edited based solely on guidelines; they require individuals with expertise in a given field of knowledge who make good judgments about what is sound. 
I, therefore, appeal to our friend Zimbardo to use his knowledge to help those of us who have been trying to improve this page, and not to chop it to bits. I would also like to appeal to our friend Merkinsmum to continue to advocate for improvement and depth in this page, and to not be too anxious to give into assumed authority. Your efforts over the past few days have helped us go from chaos to a good, although admittedly imperfect, result. Others now need to also contribute intelligently, with consideration to the nature of the subject matter, if we are to make the article better, and not merely the center of another rude struggle. Regards to you all --DesiDoc 17:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let us try and keep to a fair and postive process