Talk:Eliot Tokar/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Sources tag

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Easy way to improve this page

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: neutrality disputed tag

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: duplicated content

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Desi- explaining what I mean by neutrality

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Trying to Verify Memberships

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Some New Growth

message: 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)
thread_title: Changes

message: 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)
thread_title: Original Research

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

text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Latest edit by Bklynbrn

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: At Subject's Request

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

message: 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)
replies: text: What do you want to list?--DesiDoc 21:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: update?