Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic shaman


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. With the observation that this discussion has been so corrupted by socking and other hijinx that it's difficult to determine what are real arguments and what are "plastic !votes". Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Plastic shaman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:WINAD and WP:NPOV Fbunny (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

*Delete. The term 'plastic shaman' is adequately explained as a dictionary term. Crediting Ward Churchill who claims to be native despite the objection of the Keetowah Cherokee tribe he claims to be from is not credible. Neither is the reference to the website New Age Frauds and Plastic Shamans. The site run by Alton Carroll who claims to be a Mescalero Apache contrary to representatives of the tribe also hurts the credibility of the article. At the very least these references should be reconsidered. Bill A Armstrong (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock. Pigman ☿/talk 21:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC) *Delete This entry is referred to on the New Age Fraud and Plastic Shamans site to try and legitimize their own site. It's bootstrapping. It is not a neutral article, it is also slang/jargon, and alternative viewpoints are not being given equal weight. My points on Uydsvi's talk page are deleted rather than being addressed. There is a current court case in Oklahoma State Court Case No. CJ-2009-10887  (Civil relief more than $10,000 LIBEL / SLANDER) regarding the NewAgeFraud.org site. This site has been removed repeatedly from Yahoo, for the last time in 2007. It has been dropped repeatedly by other "anonymous" hosting providers, most recently by Katz Global in 2013. This article is also about a spiritual/religious topic that is not a black and white issue. Who is to say whose spirituality is right or wrong. The reference that the NAFPS discusses "potentially plastic shamans" is misleading. In fact they declare people frauds through nothing other than Internet research. The link to the movie "White Shamans and Plastic Medicine Men" is also offensive. Shaman is a European term and the Sami and other traditional cultures that originated the term do in fact have white skin. I agree with Bill Armstrong in regards to the Churchill reference. He is a proven plagiarist who was dismissed from the university he taught at for academic violations. His appeals of this dismissal were all lost all the way to the Supreme Court. He is not a credible source and his inclusion proves the bias of this article. 24.212.187.116 (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock. Pigman ☿/talk 21:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is far more than a dictionary entry, and the notability of the subject is well-established in published literature. The article has been around for six years and is well cited. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Keep. No idea how this could be viewed as a dictionary page. It has numerous sources, satisfying both WP:V and WP:NOTABILITY. If the nominator has identified POV issues, it would be better to simply tag the article or, better yet, fix them. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pastic Shamans have a history in the US and beyond that needs far more coverage than an etymology statement in a dictionary could provide.  For this reason, nominator's WP:WINAD argument falls short.  WP:NPOV is not a reason for deletion, unless it falls under WP:SOAP.  I believe there are enough pulished sources available to keep this article from being accused of propoganda. Dkreisst (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per above.  Article needs work, but is well supported by the references.  Rwessel (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Classic example of systemic bias against Native people, that their culture can be hijacked. Notable, adequate sources, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
 * Keep per ; WP:DICT does not apply here, and any POV or sourcing issues would be addressed by editing, not deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is a discussion to delete the Plastic shaman article, not the website you're fixated on. Shaman is actually Asian in origin, not European, coming from the Tungusic languages. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Comment: IP 24.212.187.116, this is not the place for issues other than to keep or delete the article, its content is for the talk page of the article itself. It is also not the place to whine a out what Uyvsdi does on one's own user talk page. People can delete stuff from their talk.   Montanabw (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The point isn't if Uyvdsdi has the right to delete things from his talk page, it's that the discussion necessary to establish neutrality is not happening. This is the same point I'm making about NAFPS, their claims are opinions and there are many other opinions that the site is not credible which are not being given equal weight or any weight at all. 24.212.187.116 (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The article's talk page is the appropriate place to discuss issues with the article, i.e. Talk:Plastic shaman. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Comment: Uyvdsdi's talk page is not the correct place to have a discussion about the neutrality of an article, so his deletion of anything on his talk page remains irrelevant. Rwessel (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Rules, rules, rules, if Uyvdsi cares so much about the topic he/she should welcome a debate on his/her page. 24.212.187.116 (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're not taking Wikipedia seriously anymore, why should your harassment of Uyvsdi be tolerated on his talk page, much less here? Ian.thomson (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Harassment? Ha! You guys crack me up.  You are more serious about making allegations and quoting Wikipedia rules than you are about defending the content of this article.24.212.187.116 (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Let me explain why I labeled it WP:WINAD. Aside from the numerous POV problems with the page which have been documented on the talk page for years without anyone being able to solve the issue, this article has a fundamental problem: its very title is non-neutral. It purports to deal with a practice of illegitimate appropriate by outsiders of elements of native spiritual practice. This very notion is POV. The term "plastic shaman" is self-evidently derogatory, and this term is used to delegitimize anyone who borrows anything from native practices but does not have adequate kinship. Essentially it reserves legitimate use of the notion of shaman to native cultures and their specificities. This does not describe present day reality. The term is also derogatory and POV in that it stigmatizes taking payment for services. However, the role of money in exchanges in developed economies cannot be compared with its role in tribal societies. Some may dislike this and view it with cynicism, but this is hardly NPOV. The view of some native peoples that their culture is misused by outsiders seems to me a legitimate matter to report, but preferably within another article dealing with this topic (which probably would not only discuss shamanism I guess). At a stretch, an article devoted to this topic with a neutral title might be OK. But using a term which is intrinsically POV seems completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. That is why I think the definition of "plastic shaman" should be merely a dictionary item, and anything else of value in the article (which is anyway rather little) either retitled or preferably moved as a reference/section within for example shamanism, neoshamanism or core shamanism where it can be put into sufficient context to make it NPOV. For me, honestly, this is an open and shut case. Fbunny (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fbunny, according to WP:POVTITLE: "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue."
 * Here, the large number of reliable sources that use the term "plastic shaman", as indicated by the article's references section, should "override[] concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Boston Massacre example is hardly comparable and in any case factually wrong. The "large number of reliable sources" using this exact term consists of exactly one (judging at least by their titles), i.e. note 3, an article in a journal. This does not make it an established term for something specific. It seems more like an expression coined by Kehoe in 1990 for rhetorical effect and used only occasionally since; and even that expression seems more commonly "plastic medicine men" (an alternative I would find considerably less prejudicial as "medicine man" is not an expression in widespread global use). Furthermore, my point is not merely that the title is POV but that it inevitably gives rise to an article which is POV, which seems to me a consensus position of all commentators other than those who have looked at the question from the narrow standpoint of cultural appropriation of native American traditions - which is a perfectly valid standpoint, and one which I would sympathize with within the narrow range of phenomena which is actually being considered by these contributors, but is only a small part of the inspiration behind non-native shamanism globally and inevitably POV. Thus: Plastic Shaman is not an established term for a specific phenomenon, and the article represents a biased account of that phenomenon, which it also labels misleadingly Fbunny (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you want to propose a name change, the guidelines are available at: Requested moves. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Comment: Much of the above is, in fact, another POV, and from what I can tell, a minority one (willing to be corrected, of course). Like it or not, the discussion of the appropriateness of the acquisition, particularly for one's profit, of another’s culture, artifacts, etc., has been going on a long time.  That side of the debate may well be missing from the article (I am, however, not sure how much weight that POV requires - from what I've heard, my inclination would be "modest", but I am, of course willing to be convinced otherwise).  In any event, you've argued for adding more coverage of the alternate POV and perhaps a name change for the article, not deletion.  Rwessel (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The authors of the article have not managed to make it NPOV, and nor has anyone else over the - at least - 8 years it is in existence, despite frequent insistence on the talk page that it is POV. I conclude from this that it cannot and will not be made NPOV and hence should be deleted. I think this is crystal clear. However, since I am not paid to enforce WP policies, I personally would settle for changing the name and flagging the new article as having POV issues. If there is consensus on this, I would be willing to drop the deletion request. However, I maintain my view that the article should consistent with WP policy be deleted. Can I get views from those who propose to keep the article if they are happy to rename it "Plastic medicine man" and to restore the POV flag? In this case I will also make some further edits myself to the article to make clear that there is a distinction between fraudsters who go round pretending to have access to the wisdom traditions of this or that culture (most of whom BTW are not Westerners but members of the culture itself), and people who practice neoshamanism in ways which merely draw on elements of native culture, without purporting to be some sort of authentic continuation of that culture. Is that acceptable? (Also to those who are pro-deletion?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbunny (talk • contribs) 09:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: A name change to plastic medicine men would be an improvement and somewhat more accurate description but it is still not deserving of it's own page. It belongs as a section of the shamanism page. Terms such as false shaman or pseudo shaman are just as accurate without the POV baggage of the plastic shaman term. There is no Wikipedia page for quack which is a much more recognized term. There has been no NPOV reached in 8 years because it is inherently a POV term.   My POV is that this is in part due to the fact that no traditional tribal elders would a) use the Internet in this way, or b)criticize people in this way in any medium.  Medicine men and women recognized by their tribes have always accepted offerings for their services, including money. Finding the line between a traditional offering and selling out is splitting a hair. The only people who can split this hair are the members of someone's own tribe or group.  There is no way for this page to become NPOV.Msc008 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Quackery. Yes, tribal elders are on the internet discussing topics like these, though more likely on Facebook than Wikipedia. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Indeed. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 19:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You realize it is Idle No More and not Idol No More right? Traditional beliefs tend more towards letting the universe decide who is a fraud not judging by who has the most likes on Facebook. This is not just a Native American concept.  Karma baby.  We are all hypocrites to some degree and we all make mistakes, including 'authentic' medicine men.   You two seem determined to prove yourselves 'right' in an area where there is no 'right' only shades of grey.  Everything happens for a reason including people dying in a James Arthur Ray sweatlodge. If arguing that you are the cultural warrior fighting against injustice makes you sleep better at night than keep it up.  I for one have learned something through this debate and that is not to take Wikipedia seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.187.116 (talk • contribs)


 * "You ... seem determined to prove yourselfs 'right' in an area where there is no 'right' only shades of grey": Pot, meet kettle.
 * "I for one have learned something through this debate and that is not to take Wikipedia seriously": If that's your attitude, why should anyone take your continued activity seriously, or regard your continued posts as anything but WP:GRIEFING or even trolling? Ian.thomson (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Take it however you want. That's up to you. If anything is pot and kettle it's calling my comments trolling.  All the Wikipedia trolling is what has helped launch Citizendium and other efforts.  I'm not saying I'm right I'm saying none of us are right.   24.212.187.116 (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I can only agree. I was just trying to find a compromise... but it is a pretty lame one I have to acknowledge. The problem is that this discussion mainly features, as is understandable, people with a vested interest in keeping the article and willing to creatively interpret WP policy to that end. What is needed is an impartial review (I mean in addition to the one we have already given it...). Unfortunately while it is obvious to me that this article should be deleted I do not have enough experience of WP to know how to go about building whatever consensus to that end is required. PMM is also a poor title, what this article is really about is "allegations of misappropriation of cultural shamanic traditions by imposters and moral qualification of the same". The ludicrous nature of any title which would actually be descriptive of the content goes to show that this is not an article, but merely a (minor) comment on another article.Fbunny (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should WP:AGF and not cast aspersions on the motivations of other editors here. If nothing else, it doesn't exactly keep the discussion on point.  Consensus is consensus.  If you wish to alter it, it'll happen by the strengths of your arguments.  Even if you're fully convinced that your position is correct, the consensus may go the other way.  Maybe you're right, and the others are wrong.  Or maybe vice versa.  But no matter which way it goes, *someone* is going to be disappointed.  I've "lost" more than a few battles.  C’est la vie.  Rwessel (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not casting any aspersions, as I said it is perfectly natural that those who take an interest in the article are those connected with it. This bias is inherent, and nothing to do with the particular users and the particular subject. Fbunny (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Further on this problem, see Public_choice. Again, having a POV does not mean not being in good faith; it just means that it is hard for the common interest to prevail given Rational ignorance, certainly if arguments are not weighed qualitatively Fbunny (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

*Delete. The title and article are POV, and the credibility of the references are questionable. The edit history of the article shows this. Uyvsdi is correct in saying shaman is 'Asian' in a cultural/language sense. Technically Northern Scandanavia and neighboring Russia were the term shaman origninates are in Europe as 24.212.187.116 notes. Msc008 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock. Pigman ☿/talk 21:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Uyvsdi. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 01:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Oversight/Arbcomm has been notified about the hounding and privacy issues. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 20:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Members of ArbComm are now looking at this AfD as there has been significant sockpuppetting and hounding among the "deletes". Experienced editors know about looking for SPA's in these discussions, and the use of logged-out editing to sockpuppet. Without disclosing users' IPs here, I'll simply say that that issue is very relevant here. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 21:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * CommentArbCom is being notified about the User: Conflict of Interest and non-Neutral Point of View issues with the Kathryn NicDhana user in regards to the Plastic Shaman articleChiefClancyWiggam (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment. It should be noted that a sockpuppet investigation has been opened on some of the participants in this discussion. It hasn't been evaluated yet by a CheckUser admin but I'm reasonably certain most of those accounts will be tied together. Cheers, Pigman ☿/talk 02:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and run Checkusers on most of the delete votes Article is well sourced and subject is notable, the sockpuppetry in the deletenut gallery is unacceptable and a sign of either sockpuppetry or off site collusion. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Run Checkusers on most of the keep votes. As yet, none of the objections to the article have even been remotely addressed and it seems there is a preference for playing games. Actually I have no idea what "checkusers" is but I can imagine that those voting "keep" are mostly or all linked to the http://www.newagefraud.org/ site, which seems to "like" this article a lot.Fbunny (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't vote multiple times, and if you don't know what "checkusers" means, then look it up instead of parroting what other editors are saying. It's easy to find out how established users are by their editing histories. It's suspicious when multiple accounts appear out of nowhere and have only contributed to this deletion discussion: . The IPs and your account seem obsessed with this website, which appears to be the end game. The IP couldn't successfully removed the website, so you want to have the entire article deleted. Wikipedia is not censored. -Uyvsdi (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Ah, sorry, didn't want to vote multiple times! I have deleted that. I have not checked how established any users are, on either site of the debate. I have nothing to do with any of the others, but whether they have anything in common I cannot of course say. For the rest I am not quite sure what you are saying. I think it is a very valuable public service to expose frauds or even merely to put information in the public domain which allows others to make up their minds. I just wonder how so many people came so quickly to know that I had proposed this article for deletion, if that fact had not somehow been brought to their attention. I don't even "want" the article to be deleted, it merely seems to me that it should be deleted. I have nothing against the website and don't know any of the other people who have argued here for deletion. Hope this clarifies. Fbunny (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All of the "keep" votes are from editors with thousands of edits, to hundreds or thousands of different articles, and years of history at WP. And heck, unless I missed someone, I'm the baby with only 2300 edits.  The probability that any are socks of each other, or are all part of some cabal tied to a specific website (and there you went and did it again) seems pretty darn low.  Of course, that a bunch of relatively experienced editors feel one way is hardly definitive proof of the correctness of that position.  As to notification, anyone who has ever edited the page would by default have it on their watchlist (it can be removed from a watchlist, of course), and would have been notified via their watchlist as soon as the AfD was put on the page.  For a quick scan of the list on contributors, that would appear to cover at least five of the "keep" votes.  Nor are AfD's any secret, if you'd like to see all of them, just watch Afd.  Rwessel (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well we agree at least on the point that the majority is not necessarily correct, and you have not contradicted my, I believe, uncontroversial point that this majority may have a specific angle on the question. It is notable that none of my points pro-deletion are addressed and that none of the points regarding POV were ever addressed in the 8+ year history of the article. You yourself say it "needs work". Are you or any of the other editors and keep voters willing to do this work? I would like to see an article which does NOT claim that the appropriation of certain elements of native cultures by persons not associated with those cultures is ipso facto proof that the latter are charlatans. I am happy that the article may say that this is the view of certain groups and even that certain people who act in this way may indeed be charlatans, but there is NO consensus that native groups have some sort of intellectual property rights to their symbolic universe which others may not touch. There is also no consensus that asking for or accepting money is ipso facto evidence of being in the category of charlatan: everyone has a right to live from their work. After 8+ years, surely someone can make this clear and take responsibility for their vote to keep the article by accepting that it needs to be NPOV? Fbunny (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fbunny wrote: "there is NO consensus that native groups have some sort of intellectual property rights to their symbolic universe" Yes, there is. There have been many statements by tribal councils (Cheyenne River) and groups of Elders (real ones from the communities in question, not the fraudulent ones set up by cultural outsiders to exploit the idea of "elder" for personal profit - Lakota Declaration of War is one). Then there's the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
 * "Article 31 1. 'Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.' -CITEREFUN200811, e-wiki note, source text from UN Website"(bolding added). See also Indigenous intellectual property, which it looks like is also under attack per "I don't like it". And that's just a start. These things are serious, documented issues for Indigenous people. If you are unaware of that, may I gently suggest you gain more familiarity with the field. Your entire argument for deletion, and that of the entire sockdrawer, boils down to WP:DONTLIKE- Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 19:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indigenous people is everyone in the world, we are all from somewhere. Even if the delete votes boiled down to DON'T LIKE (which they don't) what does that prove?  You want to frame it as 'don't like' because you think that makes your argument, but it doesn't.  You need the 'don't like' sentiment to exist to prove your point that you are not an outsider but a cultural warrior fighting for the Lakota or Cheyenne or whoever it is you think you stand with.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.187.116 (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Removing something because you don't like it is censorship. Wikipedia is not censored.  Would you have us remove our articles on evolution, women's rights, and the Holocaust?  No?  You mean you're not a Nazi?  Then don't say "take this off because I don't like it."  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The only person who said 'take this off because I don't like it' is you. You just proved my point that you need 'don't like' to exist to validate yourself.  24.212.187.116 (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article appears well cited with reliable and verifiable sources. I'm rather confused about the accusations of "keep" votes here being connected with the internet forum New Age Frauds and Plastic Shamans. The site appears to be a very small part of the article's sourcing and citation. Cheers, Pigman ☿/talk 19:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The issue is all the sources but one do not use the term plastic shaman.Msc008 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: For my part this may have been an overreaction to being lumped in with the sockpuppet accusation, with which I very clearly have nothing to do (and this could easily have been verified before making the accusation). The question is not about reliable and verifiable sources, it is about whether the term "plastic shaman" is really appropriate and has passed into general use (I argue no, and the article does not provide evidence to the contrary) and whether the POV problems, which several of the defensors of the article even accept, can EVER be solved given its intrinsic nature. If they haven't been solved in the last 8 years, I would argue this is strong evidence they never will be. Fbunny (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get into a POV discussion here, since this is the place for a deletion discussion (talk page of article would be the place for the POV discussion); however, you'll want to read Neutral point of view, especially Neutral point of view/FAQ, and then Identifying reliable sources, because, as a tertiary source, Wikipedia goes by what's been published in secondary published literature. -Uyvsdi (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * You continue simply to ignore the point I am making. Fbunny (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because this is a deletion discussion, and I have already voiced my disagreement to your proposal. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Wikipedia's rules favor consensus over truth and are being used here to avoid a discussion of the real problems with this article. The editors that win an argument are the ones who have the most time to waste arguing rules and sitting at a keyboard.  On controversial subjects like this, the editors with the most biased point of view win out as they have the most to lose, and therein lies the systematic bias.  The best Wikipedia editors are ones who edit few topics with accuracy.  The ones who edit many topics do so with the least accuracy.  The fluffing up of this article with the 'Part of a series on indigenous rights' textbox and notes and further readings with sources that don't use the term only makes it less authoritative.  Now instead of having a short article on a subject that is not listed in any real encyclopedia you have a long poorly written one that is listed nowhere else.  More does not equal better, in this article, or in Wikipedia in general.  Wikipedia has grown in popularity while simultaneously becoming less authoritative and the trend continues. 24.212.187.116 (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia favors consensus over "truth" because "truth" is subjective and consensus is closer to being objective. As for whether or not this topic appears in encyclopedias, there are other academic sources besides those tertiary sources, such as secondary sources like documentaries, scholarly journals, and books by professional authorities on sociology, religious studies, and related fields -- and that's what the article cites. And what do your ad hominem attacks against the site have to do with this discussion?  Do you have any real arguments, or just temper tantrums? Ian.thomson (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus like the 1933 German Federal election? Like Churchill said 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others we've tried.'  That's Winston not Ward.  My comments on the authoritativeness of Wikipedia are ones that have been made in scholarly journals and by professional authorities.  Hardly ad hominem or an attack.  Merely my observations. If I'm having a temper tantrum why I am laughing so hard?24.212.187.116 (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment The term "plastic shaman" has no more passed into general use than the terms "false shaman" or "pseudo shaman". Google any of those terms and you get roughly 3,000 results. Google "plastic medicine man" and you get about 400,000 results. The question is not about the right to culturual inttelectual property, it is about who it is making these claims. There is a big difference between a tribe, say Oglala Lakota issuing a statement about culturual appropriation and an Internet site of activists not from the tribe objecting to the same thing. Msc008 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The widely available sourcing suggests that this is a notable concept, which can be treated in an encyclopedic fashion. The article itself does not appear to need being deleted to achieve NPOV, there are editorial ways to do that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment Of all the sources cited in the notes and references, only one of them actually uses the term "plastic shaman" - notes item 4. The New Age Fraud and Plastic Shamans site speaks to a point that has been on the Plasstic Shaman talk page for some time. Which is that the plastic shaman articl is in itself plastic. The person who credits himself with running the site has himself been accused of misrepresenting his cultural background. In a court of law you have to have standing to bring a claim of fraud. For instance if you are suing someone for infringing on a Starbucks trademark you have to work for Starbucks. If you work for Dunkin Donuts you can't bring a suit for infringment of Starbucks trademark. It sounds ridiculous but that's exactly what that site is doing with native american culture. This is why this article has never been able to acheive neutrality. Uyvsdi's reference to the quakery wiki page is a good exmaple. The plastic shaman page would have to be "plastic shamanery" to mimic that example, and the subject is clearly not worthy of such a page. Msc008 (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To be a little more precise about the Google results, Msc008, "Plastic Shaman" = 8,960 results, "pseudo shaman" = 2,060 hits, "false shaman = 3,580 hits, and "plastic medicine man" = 326,000 hits. I also encourage you to take a closer look at the article as it stands now, particularly the sources, which appear to be substantially expanded. At a glance, it looks like seven of the sources include the phrase "plastic shaman". Cheers, Pigman ☿/talk 02:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment Don't try and make it a precise number it isn't. "plastic medicine man" yields 375,000 results, the other three are all two orders of magnitude smaller. Going from one of eleven sources that mentions the term to four out of twenty-two makes little difference. I encourage you to take a closer look at the actual sources cited. Every keep voter has been saying all along these sources are reliable without looking at them to see if they actually use the term. This is the kind of article that leads to accusations of systematic bias against Wikipedia. This article is only here because it is the opinion of a small disproportionately active group representing one side. The editors here are more interested in pleasing each other than achieving NPOV. It would never be an entry in Encylopedia Brittanica or any similar professionally edited resource. This is counterproductive squabbling and just goes to prove how 'plastic' this article is itself. Msc008 (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It now appears that you are arguing that the article should be moved to a different title -- that's not an argument for deletion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What I said is this article would never appear in a real encyclopedia, which is an argument for deletion. The point I'm making about 'plastic medicine man' versus 'plastic/pseudo/false shaman' is that the first is more accurate and has 100 times as many references as any of the others.  Plastic medicine man doesn't belong as an article either, but as an entry under shamanism, if at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msc008 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See, WP:NOTPAPER for one reason there are over 4,000,000 articles and counting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Britannica is no longer paper either. Not hard to see why there are 4 million articles when the bar is set so low.  Msc008 (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment for closing admin - there's been a whole lot of socking going on at this AfD. See Sockpuppet investigations/Msc008 - A l is o n  ❤ 10:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: If certain tribes, for instance, have the notion of "power animal", that is something that for them actually exists in the otherworld. Therefore anyone can access it and work with it. Certain tribes do not have a monopoly over the spirit world. This is the sense in which I said there is no consensus about intellectual property. The very idea is nonsense. In all of history, cultures have borrowed from each other, and if the knowledge in question concerns a supposedly objective reality, then either this claim is false, in which case it doesn't merit protection against "frauds" being itself fraudulent, or else anyone can discover it, describe it and work with it. It's like as if you are arguing that Galileo has rights to the heliocentric view of the universe.Fbunny (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Even the article's talk page is not a forum for discussion of the topic, and this deletion discussion is definitely *not* the place to voice your unsourced personal opinions on the subject. Specific ceremonies and ceremonial items are intellectual property . If you want to have a free form discussion on the subject of non-Native appropriation of Indigenous culture, starting a blog might be a good idea. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Would you like to address any of the points I have made for deletion or are you going to continue making casuistic comments? Fbunny (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * SNow Keep and a trout for the pointy nomination on spurious grounds. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.