Talk:Tolly Burkan

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Tollyburkan (talk · contribs) / Burkan, Tolly This user has contributed to the article.

Publicity

His mentions include:

USA Today 4-2-90 Page 1, Section D Philadelphia Inquirer 5-1-02 (http://www.firewalking.com/glasswalking_article.html) Wall Street Journal 4-18-89 Front page Los Angeles Times 4-11-84 Front page

Author of: Extreme Sprituality (Amazon rank 116,000) Let It Be Easy (Amazon rank 109,000) Dying to Live (Amazon rank 865,000)

Mentioned in the following books: THE FOUR SPIRITUAL LAWS OF PROSPERITY by Edwene Gaines Rodale Books 2005 MIND GAMES by Michael Powell Barnes & Noble 2004 IF YOU MAKE THE RULES, HOW COME YOU'RE NOT BOSS? by Elaine Smitha Hampton Roads Publishing Company 2004 SECRETS OF SUPERSTAR SPEAKERS: WISDOM FROM THE GREATEST MOTIVATORS OF OUR TIME by Lilly Walters McGraw-Hill 2000 LIFESTYLES OF THE RICH IN SPIRIT by Alan Cohen Hay House 1996 QUANTUM LEAP THINKING by James J. Mapes Dove Books 1996 HARPER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MYSTICAL AND PARANORMAL EXPERIENCE by Rosemary Ellen Guiley Harper Collins 1994 THE WORLD ACCORDING TO DAVE BARRY by Dave Barry Wings Books 1994 THE NEW AGE CATALOGUE by the Editors of BODY, MIND AND SPIRIT Dolphin Doubleday 1994 FIREWALK: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PHYSICAL IMMUNITY by Jonathan Sternfield Berkshire House 1992 FIREWALKING AND RELIGIOUS HEALING by Loring M. Danforth, Ph.D. Princeton University Press 1989 RETURN TO THE GARDEN by Shakti Gawain New World Library 1989 TOO MUCH IS NOT ENOUGH by Orson Bean Lyle Stuart 1988 DAVE BARRY'S GREATEST HITS by Dave Barry Ballantine Books 1988 HEALING STATES by Alberto Villoldo, Ph.D. and Stanley Krippner, Ph.D. Simon & Schuster 1987

Web Site: Firewalking.com

Pasted from my talk page. Arbustoo 00:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain his connection to New Thought

Someone just added New Thought Movement and New Thought writer cat tags to this article, but there is no textual refence to this person being associated with the New Thought Movemenet in any way. Please expalin the reason, or the cat may be deleted. Note that simply writing about spirituality or unusual techniques of spiritual attainment does not mean that a person is associated with New Thought. Thanks. cat Catherineyronwode 11:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

world’s first firewalking class

Does the citation actually claim his class was the world’s first firewalking class? It seems more appropriate to say that at such and such a time he began teaching classes, etc. The linked article on Fire-walking says that it has been practiced since 1200 BCE. That alone is enough to edit the statement as suggested but the question is if the citation actually makes the claim that his class was the world's first? If there is no support for the claim in the near future I will make the edit. Arbalest Mike (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; such a statement is rather ridiculous. Primefac (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Change made. Arbalest Mike (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP policy violations

There are numerous aspects of the edit history of this article that bring up WP policy issues but I don't feel qualified to address them directly. Maybe a more experienced editor can decide what should be done, based on the following and maybe more.

Potential sock puppetry

Most of the edits to main article are associated with raw IP addresses rather than user names.
My recent good faith edit (clearly supported by WP policy) was reverted (as vandalism, no less) by a user at a raw IP address.
The edit history associated with raw IP addresses seems to focus on adding positive claims and removing others.

Edits by persons close to the subject

There is already a maintenance tag that suggests this but there is more to it than that.
The article was created (and has been edited) by a user with a user-name that is the same as the subject.
This user's edit-history comments actually claim that he is the same person.
All of this user's edits are of his biography and the related subject of fire-walking (i.e., no other interest in the WP)

Arbalest Mike (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Tollyburkan hasn't edited in eight years, we can pretty much consider that account abandoned. Other than RPP, I don't think there's really anything we can do to stop IPs adding promotional facts to the article other than simply reverting them. I would suggest AFD but Burkan is probably notable enough for that not to stick. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with the way the page is written now and I have no overwhelming desire to do battle with the people associated with the pages in question but out of curiosity I've done a little digging. I happened to notice that the (static) IP address that reverted my edit has has made 50 edits to the same family of pages and a the last router on the way to that IP address is pretty close (maybe 20 miles) to the address where the domain name of the subject person is registered and also located near the PO box listed on said person's web site site. So while the subject's account is no longer used for editing the page it is being edited from his neighborhood. Again, the page as it is, seems neutral enough to me. Arbalest Mike (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New user Scott wohlberg may be a sock puppet of Tollyburkan, given the recent edits to Firewalking. Tayste (edits) 23:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do have a check, the only people who call Tolly Burkan, the father of modern firewalking, is Tolly Burkan and the people who work for him. No-one else does or believes that to be the case.Firebrand12

Official website

WP:ELOFFICIAL is rather unambiguous in stating that official websites are generally considered appropriate. I see no reason why this one should be treated differently. Huon (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)http://www.tollyburkan.com is the official site of Tolly Burkan (surprise surprise), and I see absolutely no reason why it cannot be included in the External links section as the official site. WP:ELOFFICIAL allows it, as does almost every other policy I can find. Primefac (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tolly Burkan. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]