Talk:Eliot Tokar

Proposed language with citations

I think that there is an error insofar as he presented a paper in 2006 at the IASTAM conference. He is not a "frequent speaker at the conference". I think that it would be worthwhile to add back in the language characterizing his writings because as I have suggested here previously it takes the spotlight a bit off of the man and focuses more on the content of his work.--DesiDoc 16:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are proposed sets of language with citations:

a) Tokar has served as an advisor to organizations such as the American Medical Student Association (1997-98) [citation: http://www.amsa.org/pdf/heavenearth.pdf] and the Dalai Lama's diplomatic office in the USA, the Office of Tibet [citation: http://theintegratorblog.com/site/pdf/CHRFNewsFilesBackIssues.pdf see page 46].

b) He has presented papers at conferences such as the first modern International Academic Conference On Tibetan Medicine in Lhasa, Tibet [citation: http://www.china.org.cn/Beijing-Review/Beijing/BeijingReview/2000Aug_28/20.htm] and at the 2006 annual conference of the International Association for the Study of Traditional Asian Medicine, entitled "Sense and Substance in Traditional Asian Medicine: [citation: http://www.iastam.org/pdf/programme.pdf]

c) His articles have appeared in several journals[citation: WRITINGS section] and he has lectured at American universities, medical colleges (citation: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.herbs/browse_thread/thread/1f6e5625e208333d/6946ccaf654bc8b3?lnk=st&q=%22university+of+michigan%22+%22eliot+tokar%22&rnum=1&hl=en#6946ccaf654bc8b3) and institutions [citations:http://cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/ad/ad1.html, http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.herbs/browse_thread/thread/75bd5cf049c5bb69/90d7c58161e1fbb7?lnk=gst&q=%22eliot+tokar%22+&rnum=2&hl=en#90d7c58161e1fbb7, http://www.ny.shambhala.org/program_detail.php?id=213].

d) Tokar has been featured in publications such as the New York Times [citation: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9404E7DA1339F930A25755C0A96F958260, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E5D61E31F934A35754C0A9639C8B63] and the San Francisco Chronicle [1].

e) 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. In regard to the latter he has consistently explored topics such as biopiracy, the intellectual property rights issue, standardization, the role of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM), the utilization of appropriate research protocols for the study of traditional Asian medical disciplines and the integration of diverse medical systems with biomedicine. He has consistently called for the promotion of medical pluralism, healthcare freedom and cross-disciplinary cooperation in the medical field, but has argued against a hegemonic application of biomedical standards and approaches in the use of and research upon traditional Asian medicine. [citation: the articles listedin the Writings section]

I still strongly assert that the tag after the statement regarding his studies with Dr. Trogawa Rinpoche needs to be removed based upon what I have cited above. In addition to what I have already cited since the AyurVijnana journal[2] is written in Northern India with TIbetan doctors and Western scholars on staff do you actually think that they would say that Dr. Tokar is a student of this man if it was not true? You can cite them as a source if you desire, but otherwise this tagging is foolish. Since the statement regarding his studies in Chinese medicine and Japanese medicine cannot possibly be citable via the internet that sentance should be removed. Do not forget what I have written above, creating standards of proof that are impossible is not neutral.

[Also FYI I noticed that Dr. Tokar's website has a three star (out of a possible 4 star) rating from the THE ASIAN STUDIES WWW MONITOR a very long standing service for asian studies scholars of the Austraiian National University. This once again demonstrates that objective scholars appreciate his work as more than advertisement.] --DesiDoc 16:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI this is the website of the organization that publishes the India based AyurVijnana journal [3] if these Tibetan, European and Indian experts accept that Dr. Tokar was a student of Dr. Trogawa Rinpoche this is sourcing enough. I have also mentioned in my previous discussion points above this evidence:

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

And again with Dr. Trogawa as depicted in a documentary photo taken by the poet Allen GInsberg: http://trogawa.blogspot.com/2006/05/photo-by-allen-ginsberg-of-chagpori.html}.--DesiDoc 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We had all this in the previous version of the article, but Tokar said he didn't want it in. None of the rest of us had much of a problem with his lectures and advisory roles being mentioned, as long as there are sources for it. Merkinsmum 16:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Merkinsmum, I think to say that "Tokar said he didn't want it in" is not precisely the correct. As far as I can see Dr. Tokar has not spoken here. It is true that Bklynbrn has asserted that he has communicated for him but we have not certainty of this. Given this, what Bklynbrn said that he was objecting to was the manner in which the material was "edited" by you all. I have place language above with citations and I think that we should see if this is acceptable to Bklynbrn. I have put it here instead of just posting it in an attempt to try and collaborate with you all. Is that possible?

Also I would like a direct response to what I have stated about the http://www.ittm.org/ as a source for Dr. Tokar's relationship with Dr. Trogawa Rinpoche. --DesiDoc 17:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect to mr.Tokar he has no right to dictate how anyone edits etc, as long as they don't add anything libelous about him (which no-one on this page ever has.) I'm not an expert on sources Des, I would say they are ok. I don't mind what you put as long as the tone seems objective about Tokar and about tibetan medicine, rather than like an advertisement.Merkinsmum 18:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Tokar's request to pare back the article was based on the fact that what had been written distorted his direct observations. He was content with the original representations that had been made about his early entry into the field and subsequent training and scholarly work. When verbiage was added such as Tokar "claimed" he became very uncomfortable with how his observational abilities and subsequent capacity for performing diagnosis was being represented and opted to remove the information. If the prior exposition can be re-introduced, in a non-judgemental NPOV fashion, he would be willing to have the information included. Use of neutral wording such as Tokar "observered that a happened after b was tried" would be acceptable. It suggests that no causal relationship is being defined or endorsed. Finally, Mr. Tokar applaudes the efforts being made to associate citations with his work. He just cautions that it should not be overdone to the point of being a distraction or suggesting that the original source author, bklynbrn, is incapable of synthesizing information into sentences containing several valid facts. Respectfully, --Bklynbrn 19:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see any reason to pay attention to Tokar's whims and wishes here. You deleted a bunch of text, much of which needed cites, and that was probably a fine decision. But Tokar has no right to any particular representation of his work, as long as the text isn't libelous.

You and DesiDoc seem to believe that cite needed tags are an expression of disbelief. They are not. They are helpful tools to future editors and warnings to readers. If there are lots of things about Tokar that can't be properly referenced, then we don't have to include them.

On another note, do we need the writings section? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information; if the particular writings are important to his career or if they support some fact in the biography, then great. But we don't generally include long lists of the articles of scholars and practitioners. For example, a tiny fraction of the work of Linus Pauling is listed, and only one of his papers. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 19:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bklynbrn I think that you are getting us off the point here. I also see non-neutral terms like "advertisement" being bandied about again. I made some suggestions here but have gotten no reasonable responses. Merkinsmum has said that the sources are OK but what can we do constructively here.

We DO need the WRITING section because it is most pertinent to Wikipedia as an educational medium. This article should be about Dr. Tokar's work, not about him as a personality. I thought that we did not want mere "advertisement".

To compare the WRITINGS list here to that of Linus Pauling is completely disingenuous Zimbardo because there are a great many examples of articles with more and with less publications listed. [There are also many biographies that are not tagged and that have few or no citations!] Please do not misquote me to prove your example. I have NEVER said that "tags are an expression of disbelief". Rather I said that they should be used reasonably and not merely to create an impossible and non-neutral standard of proof. I agree with you that we do not need to listen to Dr. Tokar's so-called "whims" and I am not sure what Bklynbrn is trying to contribute here, or if he truly represents Dr. Tokar, but I do think that the editing process needs to be fair and neutral. Despite your protestations I do not think that this has been true in the past. It is libelous to explicitly say that someone is a liar when they are not, and it is similarly libelous to IMPLY that they might not be exactly truthful. Either way, both approaches are non-neutral and everything cannot be proved by souces existing on the Internet.--DesiDoc 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that there are a number of articles with more and with fewer publications listed. My point with Pauling is that although he's widely perceived as a great scientist and his publications are often read and cited, very few of them are listed. By comparison, Tokar's much smaller contribution to public knowledge is listed in detail. My choice of Pauling wasn't "disingenuous;" in fact it was almost random. We note we have no list of Albert Einstein's papers, of Jonas Salk's papers, of Francis Crick's papers. In a field that I know much better, mathematics, there are no lists of Andrew Wiles' papers or of Barry Mazur's. Tokar considers himself a scientist, at least according to the transcript of the radio program, and I tried to compare him to notable scientists.

I have not misquoted you as saying that tags were expressions of disbelief. I said that it seems as if you think that, and it still seems that way when you complain that we're implying that Tokar is a liar. We're doing nothing of the sort. Instead, we're trying to make sure that everything we say about Tokar can be referenced somewhere else.

Not everything can be proved by sources existing on the Internet. But I will do my best to make sure that things that can't be referenced by external sources aren't listed in this article.

I propose deleting the Writings section. Merk, what are your thoughts? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please address my cogent points in this section Proposed language with citations as listed above with citations.--DesiDoc 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's generally considered immodest to call your own arguments cogent. I don't see the point of (b), (c) or (d). I think (e) is tendentious in tone, but it seems an appropriate addition. (a) looks good. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 20:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Zimbardo, I do not feel that e) is tendentious, because it does not say if Dr. Tokar's opinions are correct whatsoever, it promotes nothing. Rather it reports accurately and neutrally what he writes about. For example if an encyclopedia states that "George Bush has said that the war in Iraq will advance freedom in the Middle East", or that the Ayatollah Khomeini wrote that "America is the great Satan", it does not mean that the encyclopedia is promoting these points of view but merely reporting their positions and opinions faithfully. Similarly in characterizing Dr. Tokar's writings I do not say if he is correct or if his ideas are good, but merely state his positions, that are also held by many others such as Vandana Shiva. Are his ideas correct, we CANNOT say if we are neutral, but we can let people know what he has said and let them judge objectively. This is neutral and educational.

Therefore, since you are the best expert here in formatting on Wikipedia, please put a) and e) up. Or FIRST, suggest other language HERE before placing it up.

Also please respond to my assertion regarding the fact that http://www.ittm.org/ willingness to print that Dr. Tokar had a relation to his master, Dr. Trogawa Rinpoche, here [4] is acceptable as a citation for that fact. If these India-based multi-ethnic experts on Tibetan medicine's, who have no direct relation to Dr. Tokar, assertion of this fact is not sufficient along with the other sources that I have cited ABOVE, then what is the neutral , i.e., possiblely obtainable, standard of proof that you would accept. --DesiDoc 20:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gone through every single reference and so on that you've put together; I do other things in addition to this. My failure to insert citations is not equivalent to rejecting your suggestions.

I think (e) can be saved with appropriately distancing language; I will take a crack at it when I get a chance, and I will also look at the ITTM site to see if we can use it to cover the apprenticeship citation. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 21:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Zimbardo I agree with you the writings section is too long, I'd prefer a summary sentence or two. We can incorporate into it some of the bits Desi wrote above, once they've been NPOV'ed. I'm going to be bold and start it:) Merkinsmum 21:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Refocus on Progress

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)

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)

(e)/writings

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)

My only concern is if this renders the page less user friendly for educational purposes? If people can see the articles in a list then they can pick and choose what is useful for themselves instead of having to search everything. If it can be done artfully then it is OK. Beware of non-neutral skeptical language though.--DesiDoc 21:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Submission for Deletion

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)

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)

"Tokar's writings and lectures are about the role of traditional Asian medicine in the Western world. He has covered topics such as globalization, biopiracy, the intellectual property rights issue, standardization, and the role of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. He believes in cooperation with medical doctors, but has argued against using conventional scientific research techniques on traditional Asian medicine. [citation: the articles listed in the Writings section]"

-What do you all think? --- Bklynbrn- who gets their article looked at is a matter of luck and people's interest. It's not our paid employment after all. But most articles get looked at and edited about a fair bit sooner or later. I'm sorry if Tokar goes ahead with deletion. what do you mean 'I expect deletion?' has he spoken to the wikipedia office, only they can delete at the will of the subject, even then they are not obliged to.Merkinsmum 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I find Bklynbrn is being counterproductive.

On the other hand as for Merkinsmum suggestion I would alter it slightly for accuracy:

"Tokar's writings and lectures concern the theory and practice of Tibetan medicine and the role of traditional Asian medicine in the context of globalization [This since he speaks about modern Asian issues not just about the West]. He has covered topics such as globalization, biopiracy, the intellectual property rights issue, standardization, and the role of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Tokar believes in cooperation between traditional Asian medicine and biomedicine, but has argued against an inappropriate application of biomedical parameters - such as in the creation of research protocols- to traditional Asian medicine. [citation: the articles listed in the Writings section]"

What do you think?--DesiDoc 22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Although the access to the articles still needs to be be user friendly for interested parties.--DesiDoc 22:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI I have found another published source that also states Dr. Tokar's biography regarding Dr. Trogawa etc. (http://www.amazon.ca/Knowedge-Healing-Franz-Reichle/dp/product-description/B000A0GY28), which according to the IMDB Dr. Tokar has no connection to and does not appear in.--DesiDoc 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

to everyone- Tags at top of page

"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).

Back to the 'writings'

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)

This is incorrect though,The opposite is true. He argues specifically FOR the creation of research protocols for traditional Asian medicine. He only recommends that they be designed to analyze all aspects of the clinical approach of traditional Asian medicine.

You must understand that research is not a one-dimensional affair or only of one type (e.g. RCT's cohort studies, etc.), so to argue for the development of new protocols to apply to a new subject is not radical. Dr. Tokar is not the only person who has written about this. There are biomedical doctors (MD's) who have done so as well.

How is this: CORRECTION Tokar believes in cooperation between traditional Asian medicine and biomedicine. However he has argued against both integration and the application of research protocols that do not fully analyze the specific approaches utilized in traditional Asian medicine, such as those that apply only biomedical parameters. --DesiDoc 00:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there is a difference between biomedical parameters and scientific parameters. They are not the same thing.--DesiDoc 01:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

How will the articles in the writings section be listed. They are important if this article is to be educational and not just a personality profile.--DesiDoc 01:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Not knowing the definition fo a word does make it tendentious.

Parameter: parameter |pəˈramitər| noun - technical • (in general use) a boundary that defines the scope of a specific process or activity.

It still needs changing because such protocols have already been created: [Also proper form has us write about writings in the present tense. Even things written decades or centuries ago.]

CORRECTION: 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. --DesiDoc 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The citation needed tag on his relationship to Dr. Trogawa Rinpoche also needs to go. There are enough citations listed above at this point to use. Ignoring this fact makes us non-neutral and expressing a POV.--DesiDoc 01:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Merkinsmum you must understand that the topics that Dr. Tokar discusses are also discussed in medical anthropology journals, bioethics journals, medical journals, etc. They do not constitute a belief system. They are part of an academic and scientific debate that is well established. That is why you see Dr. Tokar being invited to speak at medical schools and institutions like the Asia Society that are conservative institutions as opposed to for example New Age centers where what you term as "Original Research" is greatly encouraged. --DesiDoc 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

There has been some misunderstanding. What I was attempting to explain is that what Dr. Tokar is writing about is not "original research" but well established in academic discussion, and as such dealt with at respected scholarly and academic institutions, by government agencies and in academic and scholarly journals.

I am still a relative novice on this Wikipedia formatting but I will attempt to do so, I will put up the text first then second try and work on the reference formatting, but I do not have time to do the second part immediately. Please be patient.--DesiDoc 02:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'citation needed tag' regarding his relationship to Dr. Trogawa Rinpoche also needs to go. There are enough sources and evidence to use listed above at this point. Ignoring this fact makes us non-neutral and expressing a POV --DesiDoc 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Merkinsmum, I am going to add one very short NPOV phrase that allows us to link to other Wikipedia articles. If you object please let me know, but I think we need to make this article as educational as possible. I apologize for the afterthought.--DesiDoc 02:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

AFD It Should Be

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)

I am a newbie editor but old user. Don't understand meaning of language under writings. Sounds like a political agenda. Is he a medicine man or a lefty agitator? Schist 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not interrupt a positive editing process. If you do not understand things then please do not misinterpret them and make mischief. Please see David Suzuki, Vandana Shiva, bioethics, etc. And Stig please try to be constructive here, we have had enough negativity.--DesiDoc 03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No Disrespect

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)

Gotta be true. My moms helped me a bit. Haah!--Stavrosgreek 17:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename Section on Scholarly Work

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)

Cool Schist. Thanks for the heads up, I am just a learner. I tried for a smoother version after you chkd in. Hope its OK? No disrespect. Thanks for the wisdom--Stavrosgreek 18:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

OK Shist thaks for the wisdom. "Guest" sounds very wierd in the USofA. like he was on the TV or something. Unless there's a smooother one that works seems cooool. Sorry for not discussion first. No disrespect.--Stavrosgreek 19:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yo Schist. Hows about "Areas of Interest, Writings and Lectures" does it swim across the ocean in the UK. No biggie just trying to give back. Peace. --Stavrosgreek 19:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to correct Schist on his facts. Dr. Tokar is published in two peer-reviewed journals 1) Alternative Therapies in health and Medicine and in 2) Asian Medicine: Tradition and Modernity as listed in the now named Publications section. These articles all have extensive footnotes -as do the ones published in non-peer-reviewed publications -and follow academic form for the kind of publication that he is engaging in. To state "They do not present hypothesis, evidence, and conclusions" is a POV polemic. You are correct that his publications state opinion but so do certain articles published in prestigious journals such as the N. E. Journal of Medicine. To compare his work to that of a research laboratory or a field researcher is inappropriate and would not be the standard used in scholarly circles. I state this merely as a correction to your facts not as an attack. I greatly appreciate that you understand that his work does not represent "original research'.

In addition, whereas it is true that "appearing at a university does not confer academic standing" having a record of being invited to lecture within the academic programs of universities is enormously different than a musical group performing on campus. So while it is correct that Dr. Tokar's consistent work at scholarly institutions and conferences does not confer upon him academic credentials it should not be diminished as pop culture. Balance and neutrality is what we have tried to achieve here and comparing Dr. Tokar to this Pearl Jam is POV to an unfortunate extreme.--DesiDoc 19:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Woaw dudes this is all my fault. Sorry. I was jus trying to give back. Cool the heads and lets be in harmony. Apologeez to you both. Please let me be your dove. OK? Peace--Stavrosgreek 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Greetings to you Merkinsmum. It is not necessarily so black and white in the scholarly world. This is why whereas so-called alternative medicine had no place in academia a generation ago, now even Harvard and the American NIH have meaningful budgets for its study. It is true that top-tier journals like BMJ or JAMA have great prestige. However if every article that was not published in a top-tier scientific journal and every academic who did not teach at Oxford or in the American Ivy League were eliminated from consideration there would be little scholarly discourse occurring, and also little work to go around. Some of what Dr. Tokar publishes is in peer-reviewed and some in non-peer-reviewed publications, but if his work was not considered valid within sectors of the establishment then he would not get the institutional invitations to speak, or be cited in other’s academic works as he has. Many shades of grey exist along with the blacks and whites. Some in the establishment will find his work very credible and some will not and some will pick and choose. That is also true of how academics are with each other. That is why for all the standards and peer-review academic politics are famously harsh. Research is also not monolithic. As opposed to what most laymen believe, it is performed with varied approaches and protocols. Debates go on all the time regarding research methodology. True scientists never make a claim on the truth but rather understand that they are merely in the pursuit of it. In India, due to our old culture, we sometimes appreciate this better than some do in the West. Yours--DesiDoc 21:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Yes, you are certainly correct in part, but he quite clearly is not an academic -as are others who publish in some of these journals-, a research scientist, a rock and roll group or a witness to history, and he has never made claims to any of these designations, as far as I can ascertain. To compare him to any of these provides a POV and we need to maintain neutrality. Also this area of study is much too young in the academic arena for honorary degrees to have been created and he frankly seems too young even if this was not the case. Most of the serious academic interest in this area began in the early 1990's. It is a baby in its Western academic phase even if the traditional medical systems and practices are very ancient.--DesiDoc 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Removed critical comments on AMSA and Dalai Lama. These were cut and pastes from Wikkipedia articles on both subjects respectively. Redundant as Tokar article has links to them already. Additionally, these are one offs. Tokar's consulting for either group no way implies his endorsement of any of these controversial positions. Particularly, comments on political status and conditions in pre-Chinese takeover of Tibet have no bearing on traditional medicine, to which the subject's scope of expertise in the article is limited. Bensachs 04:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)