Talk:Eliot Tokar/Archive 2

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 The only reference on the web I can find is [here], which tells me that the journal is not peer-reviewed. Since it's not peer-reviewed, the long biographical and case histories are essentially things that Mr.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

Me neither. Huh? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 06:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: