599:
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
392:
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.
789:: 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
823:: 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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.
1619:
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
Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) in general. Knowledge (XXG) has grown in popularity while simultaneously becoming less authoritative and the trend continues.
1722:
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.
1912:: 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.
1548:: 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.
772:: 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.
1778:
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
Knowledge (XXG). 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.
970:
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.
1318:
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
331:. 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.
887:
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
Knowledge (XXG) seriously.
695:
Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that
Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.
1299:
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
724:
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
267:. 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.
1342:
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?
474:: 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.
1337:
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
729:
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
1160:: 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. -
1064:. 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.
1363:" 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
217:
1703:
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
1424:
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
1317:
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
728:
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
1777:
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
1298:
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
1645:
Knowledge (XXG) 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
992:
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
598:
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
1721:
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
1618:
Knowledge (XXG)'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
1341:
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
391:
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
1372:
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,
969:
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.
886:
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
1811:
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
1275:
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
723:
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
1336:
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
694:
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, Knowledge (XXG) generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria).
1664:
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 Knowledge (XXG) are ones that have been made in scholarly journals and by
460:: 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.
1395:". 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
946:
Take it however you want. That's up to you. If anything is pot and kettle it's calling my comments trolling. All the Knowledge (XXG) 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.
1253:. 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
1757:= 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,
1934:
1704:
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.
1011:
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.
1507:
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,
928:"I for one have learned something through this debate and that is not to take Knowledge (XXG) seriously": If that's your attitude, why should anyone take your continued activity seriously, or regard your continued posts as anything but
1684:
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.
993:
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.
702:
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 Knowledge (XXG) might appear as endorsing one side of an issue".
161:
649:
1212:
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,
1562:
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
1279:. 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.
1930:
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
52:. 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".
1466:. 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."
114:
571:
Harassment? Ha! You guys crack me up. You are more serious about making allegations and quoting Knowledge (XXG) rules than you are about defending the content of this article.
1188:
ArbCom 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 article
669:
520:: 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.
155:
629:
793:
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?)
1364:
1885:
1373:
medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts.
1209:
1480:
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.
1425:
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.
1936:. 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. -
1415:
1176:
1148:
1116:
877:
121:
1571:
1280:
1650:
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?
1567:
1303:
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.
1665:
professional authorities. Hardly ad hominem or an attack. Merely my observations. If I'm having a temper tantrum why I am laughing so hard?
557:
If you're not taking Knowledge (XXG) seriously anymore, why should your harassment of Uyvsdi be tolerated on his talk page, much less here?
1666:
1620:
1481:
1432:
948:
903:
572:
542:
475:
393:
1994:
87:
82:
1563:
301:: Classic example of systemic bias against Native people, that their culture can be hijacked. Notable, adequate sources, and so on.
17:
1030:. 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
91:
1797:
It now appears that you are arguing that the article should be moved to a different title -- that's not an argument for deletion.
1388:
925:"You ... seem determined to prove yourselfs 'right' in an area where there is no 'right' only shades of grey": Pot, meet kettle.
712:
317:
255:
74:
1957:
Would you like to address any of the points I have made for deletion or are you going to continue making casuistic comments?
846:. Yes, tribal elders are on the internet discussing topics like these, though more likely on Facebook than Knowledge (XXG). -
176:
143:
1409:
1170:
1142:
1110:
871:
1828:
809:
2017:
751:
40:
246:. If the nominator has identified POV issues, it would be better to simply tag the article or, better yet, fix them. –
1857:
Britannica is no longer paper either. Not hard to see why there are 4 million articles when the bar is set so low.
1382:
1574:, because, as a tertiary source, Knowledge (XXG) goes by what's been published in secondary published literature. -
336:
1361:
there is NO consensus that native groups have some sort of intellectual property rights to their symbolic universe
1848:
1802:
1690:
1193:
137:
1670:
1624:
1485:
1436:
952:
899:
576:
546:
479:
397:
1463:
611:
where it can be put into sufficient context to make it NPOV. For me, honestly, this is an open and shut case.
541:
Rules, rules, rules, if Uyvdsi cares so much about the topic he/she should welcome a debate on his/her page.
1377:
over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions." -CITEREFUN200811,
1990:
1378:
1998:
1966:
1945:
1921:
1904:
1866:
1852:
1832:
1816:
1806:
1787:
1768:
1731:
1713:
1694:
1674:
1659:
1628:
1612:
1598:
1583:
1557:
1540:
1519:
1489:
1475:
1440:
1428:
1419:
1404:
1351:
1331:
1312:
1292:
1266:
1245:
1223:
1197:
1180:
1165:
1152:
1137:
1120:
1105:
1086:
1043:
1021:
1002:
979:
956:
941:
891:
881:
866:
855:
832:
813:
797:
781:
763:
738:
716:
681:
661:
641:
620:
580:
566:
550:
529:
509:
483:
466:
451:
414:
380:
353:
305:
293:
276:
259:
243:
229:
207:
133:
56:
1189:
493:
2013:
1931:
1655:
1471:
1241:
937:
562:
332:
36:
1927:
1840:
1646:
journals, and books by professional authorities on sociology, religious studies, and related fields --
1396:
1392:
929:
688:
183:
1844:
1798:
1686:
216:. This is far more than a dictionary entry, and the notability of the subject is well-established in
1603:
Because this is a deletion discussion, and I have already voiced my disagreement to your proposal. -
895:
708:
497:
376:
371:
does not apply here, and any POV or sourcing issues would be addressed by editing, not deletion. --
313:
251:
169:
78:
1277:
238:. No idea how this could be viewed as a dictionary page. It has numerous sources, satisfying both
1981:
1958:
1913:
1758:
1590:
1549:
1509:
1356:
1343:
1304:
1258:
1213:
1076:
1035:
1031:
1013:
971:
801:
730:
612:
439:
404:
343:
272:
199:
192:
1812:
medicine man doesn't belong as an article either, but as an entry under shamanism, if at all.
1375:
They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property
1327:
998:
777:
677:
657:
637:
525:
289:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2012:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1754:
368:
196:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1962:
1941:
1917:
1862:
1824:
1783:
1763:
1727:
1709:
1651:
1608:
1594:
1579:
1553:
1536:
1514:
1467:
1347:
1308:
1288:
1262:
1237:
1218:
1081:
1069:
1039:
1017:
975:
933:
851:
828:
805:
759:
752:
Knowledge (XXG):Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves
734:
616:
558:
505:
447:
409:
348:
225:
203:
149:
1319:
989:
1500:
1742:
1233:
704:
608:
461:
427:
372:
309:
247:
70:
62:
53:
1746:
1504:
239:
1750:
1027:
268:
1323:
994:
773:
673:
653:
633:
604:
521:
285:
435:
108:
1937:
1889:
1858:
1820:
1779:
1738:
1723:
1705:
1604:
1575:
1532:
1284:
1097:
1065:
847:
824:
755:
501:
443:
364:
221:
1132:: Oversight/Arbcomm has been notified about the hounding and privacy issues. -
284:. Per above. Article needs work, but is well supported by the references.
600:
1531:: The issue is all the sources but one do not use the term plastic shaman.
1236:
is unacceptable and a sign of either sockpuppetry or off site collusion.
843:
750:. If you want to propose a name change, the guidelines are available at:
1232:
Article is well sourced and subject is notable, the sockpuppetry in the
496:
is the appropriate place to discuss issues with the article, i.e.
2006:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1884:- there's been a whole lot of socking going on at this AfD. See
220:. The article has been around for six years and is well cited. -
1843:
for one reason there are over 4,000,000 articles and counting.
1568:
Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus
1254:
1462:
Removing something because you don't like it is censorship.
650:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
1978:
and a trout for the pointy nomination on spurious grounds.
1034:, certainly if arguments are not weighed qualitatively
104:
100:
96:
1737:
To be a little more precise about the Google results,
168:
1589:
You continue simply to ignore the point I am making.
1230:
Keep and run Checkusers on most of the delete votes
182:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2020:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1886:Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Msc008
1391:, which it looks like is also under attack per "
1365:Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
1257:site, which seems to "like" this article a lot.
692:
670:list of Language-related deletion discussions
8:
1572:Knowledge (XXG):Identifying reliable sources
668:Note: This debate has been included in the
648:Note: This debate has been included in the
628:Note: This debate has been included in the
430:article, not the website you're fixated on.
630:list of Canada-related deletion discussions
667:
647:
627:
1276:contributed to this deletion discussion:
1251:Run Checkusers on most of the keep votes
1499:. The article appears well cited with
1564:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view
426:. This is a discussion to delete the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1648:and that's what the article cites.
24:
1926:Even the article's talk page is
1389:Indigenous intellectual property
438:, not European, coming from the
1464:Knowledge (XXG) is not censored
1281:Knowledge (XXG) is not censored
1072:) 20:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
1028:Public_choice#Special_interests
400:) 05:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
339:) 01:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
1:
1999:21:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
1967:09:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
1946:19:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
1922:10:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
1905:10:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
1867:21:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
1853:15:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
1833:13:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
1807:12:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
1788:10:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
1769:02:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
1732:00:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
1714:23:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
1695:19:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
1675:05:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
1660:05:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
1629:04:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
1613:16:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
1599:16:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
1584:14:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
1558:09:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
1541:00:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
1520:19:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
1490:05:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
1476:05:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
1441:04:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
1420:19:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
1352:09:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
1332:05:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
1313:14:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
1293:13:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
1267:12:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
1246:02:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
1224:02:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
1198:02:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
1181:21:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
1153:20:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
1121:01:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
1087:21:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
1044:14:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
1026:Further on this problem, see
1022:12:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
1003:21:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
980:16:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
957:05:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
942:05:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
882:19:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
856:16:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
833:15:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
814:09:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
782:18:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
764:18:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
739:17:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
717:16:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
682:14:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
662:14:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
642:14:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
621:10:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
581:05:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
567:05:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
551:05:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
530:18:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
510:18:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
484:14:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
467:08:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
452:06:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
415:21:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
381:03:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
354:21:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
294:21:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
277:19:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
260:17:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
230:17:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
208:16:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
57:09:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
1208:. It should be noted that a
1383:source text from UN Website
1255:http://www.newagefraud.org/
2037:
1387:(bolding added). See also
1882:Comment for closing admin
2009:Please do not modify it.
1210:sockpuppet investigation
436:actually Asian in origin
32:Please do not modify it.
1755:"plastic medicine man"
1386:
697:
1932:intellectual property
1370:
687:Fbunny, according to
218:published literature
1320:Knowledge (XXG):Afd
988:Perhaps you should
932:or even trolling?
498:Talk:Plastic shaman
1753:= 3,580 hits, and
1032:Rational ignorance
440:Tungusic languages
48:The result was
1836:
1819:comment added by
1745:= 8,960 results,
1431:comment added by
1234:deletenut gallery
1190:ChiefClancyWiggam
1089:
908:
894:comment added by
817:
800:comment added by
684:
664:
644:
417:
356:
322:
308:comment added by
2028:
2011:
1997:
1988:
1984:
1902:
1899:
1897:
1835:
1813:
1766:
1743:"Plastic Shaman"
1517:
1443:
1418:
1414:
1407:
1406:Kathryn NicDhàna
1221:
1179:
1175:
1168:
1167:Kathryn NicDhàna
1151:
1147:
1140:
1139:Kathryn NicDhàna
1119:
1115:
1108:
1107:Kathryn NicDhàna
1084:
1074:
907:
888:
880:
876:
869:
868:Kathryn NicDhàna
816:
794:
464:
412:
402:
351:
341:
333:Bill A Armstrong
321:
302:
187:
186:
172:
124:
112:
94:
34:
2036:
2035:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2018:deletion review
2007:
1986:
1980:
1979:
1895:
1893:
1890:
1845:Alanscottwalker
1814:
1799:Alanscottwalker
1764:
1747:"pseudo shaman"
1687:Alanscottwalker
1515:
1426:
1412:
1405:
1400:
1393:I don't like it
1219:
1173:
1166:
1161:
1145:
1138:
1133:
1113:
1106:
1101:
1082:
889:
874:
867:
862:
795:
462:
410:
349:
303:
129:
120:
85:
69:
66:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2034:
2032:
2023:
2022:
2002:
2001:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1907:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1809:
1772:
1771:
1749:= 2,060 hits,
1698:
1697:
1678:
1677:
1667:24.212.187.116
1662:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1621:24.212.187.116
1543:
1523:
1522:
1493:
1492:
1482:24.212.187.116
1478:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1433:24.212.187.116
1270:
1269:
1248:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1183:
1155:
1124:
1123:
1075:Blocked sock.
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1024:
1006:
1005:
983:
982:
960:
959:
949:24.212.187.116
944:
926:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
896:24.212.187.116
836:
835:
818:
784:
767:
742:
741:
720:
719:
699:
698:
665:
645:
624:
623:
609:core shamanism
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
573:24.212.187.116
554:
553:
543:24.212.187.116
533:
532:
514:
513:
492:The article's
487:
486:
476:24.212.187.116
469:
455:
428:Plastic shaman
403:Blocked sock.
394:24.212.187.116
384:
383:
342:Blocked sock.
324:
323:
296:
279:
262:
233:
190:
189:
126:
71:Plastic shaman
65:
63:Plastic shaman
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2033:
2021:
2019:
2015:
2010:
2004:
2003:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1987:Pigsonthewing
1983:
1977:
1974:
1973:
1968:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1908:
1906:
1903:
1901:
1887:
1883:
1880:
1879:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1837:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1810:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1785:
1781:
1776:
1770:
1767:
1762:
1761:
1756:
1752:
1751:"false shaman
1748:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1720:
1716:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1702:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1683:
1680:
1679:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1663:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1644:
1643:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1617:
1616:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1587:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1566:, especially
1565:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1544:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1521:
1518:
1513:
1512:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1495:
1494:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1460:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1417:
1411:
1408:
1403:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1385:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1369:
1368:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1340:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1297:
1296:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1249:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1222:
1217:
1216:
1211:
1207:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1184:
1182:
1178:
1172:
1169:
1164:
1159:
1156:
1154:
1150:
1144:
1141:
1136:
1131:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1112:
1109:
1104:
1099:
1095:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1088:
1085:
1080:
1079:
1073:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1004:
1000:
996:
991:
987:
986:
985:
984:
981:
977:
973:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
958:
954:
950:
945:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
924:
923:
905:
901:
897:
893:
885:
884:
883:
879:
873:
870:
865:
860:
859:
857:
853:
849:
845:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
834:
830:
826:
822:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
792:
788:
785:
783:
779:
775:
771:
768:
765:
761:
757:
753:
749:
746:
745:
744:
743:
740:
736:
732:
727:
722:
721:
718:
714:
710:
706:
701:
700:
696:
690:
686:
685:
683:
679:
675:
671:
666:
663:
659:
655:
651:
646:
643:
639:
635:
631:
626:
625:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
597:
594:
593:
582:
578:
574:
570:
569:
568:
564:
560:
556:
555:
552:
548:
544:
540:
537:
536:
535:
534:
531:
527:
523:
519:
516:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
490:
489:
488:
485:
481:
477:
473:
470:
468:
465:
459:
456:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
416:
413:
408:
407:
401:
399:
395:
390:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
359:
358:
357:
355:
352:
347:
346:
340:
338:
334:
330:
319:
315:
311:
307:
300:
297:
295:
291:
287:
283:
280:
278:
274:
270:
266:
263:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
244:WP:NOTABILITY
241:
237:
234:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
211:
210:
209:
205:
201:
198:
194:
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
135:
132:
131:Find sources:
127:
123:
119:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2008:
2005:
1995:Andy's edits
1991:Talk to Andy
1982:Andy Mabbett
1975:
1909:
1891:
1881:
1815:— Preceding
1774:
1773:
1759:
1718:
1717:
1700:
1699:
1681:
1647:
1545:
1528:
1510:
1496:
1427:— Preceding
1401:
1374:
1371:
1360:
1338:
1300:
1250:
1229:
1214:
1205:
1204:
1185:
1162:
1157:
1134:
1129:
1102:
1093:
1077:
1061:
1059:
1058:
890:— Preceding
863:
820:
796:— Preceding
790:
786:
769:
747:
725:
693:
605:neoshamanism
595:
538:
517:
471:
457:
431:
423:
405:
388:
386:
385:
360:
344:
328:
326:
325:
304:— Preceding
298:
281:
264:
235:
213:
191:
179:
173:
165:
158:
152:
146:
140:
130:
117:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1928:not a forum
1841:WP:NOTPAPER
1652:Ian.thomson
1570:, and then
1468:Ian.thomson
1397:WP:DONTLIKE
1379:e-wiki note
1238:Ian.thomson
934:Ian.thomson
930:WP:GRIEFING
689:WP:POVTITLE
559:Ian.thomson
156:free images
1505:verifiable
1339:ipso facto
861:Indeed. -
2014:talk page
1976:SNow Keep
705:Prototime
674:• Gene93k
654:• Gene93k
634:• Gene93k
601:shamanism
494:talk page
463:Montanabw
373:Arxiloxos
310:Montanabw
248:Prototime
54:Lankiveil
37:talk page
2016:or in a
1829:contribs
1817:unsigned
1501:reliable
1429:unsigned
1359:wrote: "
904:contribs
892:unsigned
844:Quackery
810:contribs
798:unsigned
713:contribs
318:contribs
306:unsigned
269:Dkreisst
256:contribs
193:WP:WINAD
115:View log
39:or in a
1910:Comment
1775:Comment
1719:Comment
1701:Comment
1615:Uyvsdi
1586:Uyvsdi
1546:Comment
1529:Comment
1324:Rwessel
1295:Uyvsdi
1206:Comment
1186:Comment
1158:Comment
1130:Comment
995:Rwessel
858:Uyvsdi
821:Comment
791:draw on
787:Comment
774:Rwessel
770:Comment
748:Comment
726:article
539:Comment
522:Rwessel
518:Comment
472:Comment
458:Comment
424:Comment
369:WP:DICT
286:Rwessel
197:WP:NPOV
162:WP refs
150:scholar
88:protect
83:history
1959:Fbunny
1948:Uyvsdi
1938:Uyvsdi
1914:Fbunny
1859:Msc008
1821:Msc008
1780:Msc008
1765:☿/talk
1760:Pigman
1739:Msc008
1724:Msc008
1706:Msc008
1605:Uyvsdi
1591:Fbunny
1576:Uyvsdi
1550:Fbunny
1533:Msc008
1516:☿/talk
1511:Pigman
1357:Fbunny
1344:Fbunny
1305:Fbunny
1301:should
1285:Uyvsdi
1259:Fbunny
1220:☿/talk
1215:Pigman
1098:Uyvsdi
1096:. Per
1083:☿/talk
1078:Pigman
1066:Msc008
1062:Delete
1036:Fbunny
1014:Fbunny
990:WP:AGF
972:Fbunny
848:Uyvsdi
825:Msc008
802:Fbunny
766:Uyvsdi
756:Uyvsdi
731:Fbunny
613:Fbunny
596:Delete
512:Uyvsdi
502:Uyvsdi
454:Uyvsdi
444:Uyvsdi
432:Shaman
411:☿/talk
406:Pigman
389:Delete
365:Uyvsdi
350:☿/talk
345:Pigman
329:Delete
232:Uyvsdi
222:Uyvsdi
200:Fbunny
134:Google
92:delete
1839:See,
1402:Slàn,
1163:Slàn,
1135:Slàn,
1103:Slàn,
864:Slàn,
177:JSTOR
138:books
122:Stats
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
1963:talk
1942:talk
1918:talk
1863:talk
1849:talk
1825:talk
1803:talk
1784:talk
1728:talk
1710:talk
1691:talk
1682:Keep
1671:talk
1656:talk
1625:talk
1609:talk
1595:talk
1580:talk
1554:talk
1537:talk
1503:and
1497:Keep
1486:talk
1472:talk
1437:talk
1348:talk
1328:talk
1309:talk
1289:talk
1263:talk
1242:talk
1194:talk
1100:. -
1094:Keep
1070:talk
1040:talk
1018:talk
999:talk
976:talk
953:talk
938:talk
900:talk
852:talk
829:talk
806:talk
778:talk
760:talk
735:talk
709:talk
678:talk
658:talk
638:talk
617:talk
577:talk
563:talk
547:talk
526:talk
506:talk
480:talk
448:talk
398:talk
377:talk
363:per
361:Keep
337:talk
314:talk
299:Keep
290:talk
282:Keep
273:talk
265:Keep
252:talk
242:and
240:WP:V
236:Keep
226:talk
214:Keep
204:talk
195:and
170:FENS
144:news
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
50:keep
1989:);
1322:.
1283:. -
754:. -
607:or
500:. -
442:. -
434:is
184:TWL
113:– (
1993:;
1965:)
1944:)
1920:)
1896:is
1888:-
1865:)
1851:)
1831:)
1827:•
1805:)
1786:)
1741:,
1730:)
1712:)
1693:)
1673:)
1658:)
1627:)
1611:)
1597:)
1582:)
1556:)
1539:)
1488:)
1474:)
1439:)
1399:-
1381:,
1367::
1350:)
1330:)
1311:)
1291:)
1265:)
1244:)
1196:)
1042:)
1020:)
1001:)
978:)
955:)
940:)
906:)
902:•
854:)
831:)
812:)
808:•
780:)
762:)
737:)
715:)
711:·
691::
680:)
672:.
660:)
652:.
640:)
632:.
619:)
603:,
579:)
565:)
549:)
528:)
508:)
482:)
450:)
379:)
367:;
320:)
316:•
292:)
275:)
258:)
254:·
228:)
206:)
164:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
1985:(
1961:(
1940:(
1916:(
1900:n
1898:o
1894:l
1892:A
1861:(
1847:(
1823:(
1801:(
1782:(
1726:(
1708:(
1689:(
1669:(
1654:(
1623:(
1607:(
1593:(
1578:(
1552:(
1535:(
1484:(
1470:(
1435:(
1416:♫
1413:♦
1410:♫
1346:(
1326:(
1307:(
1287:(
1261:(
1240:(
1192:(
1177:♫
1174:♦
1171:♫
1149:♫
1146:♦
1143:♫
1117:♫
1114:♦
1111:♫
1068:(
1060:*
1038:(
1016:(
997:(
974:(
951:(
936:(
898:(
878:♫
875:♦
872:♫
850:(
827:(
804:(
776:(
758:(
733:(
707:(
703:–
676:(
656:(
636:(
615:(
575:(
561:(
545:(
524:(
504:(
478:(
446:(
396:(
387:*
375:(
335:(
327:*
312:(
288:(
271:(
250:(
224:(
202:(
188:)
180:·
174:·
166:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
136:(
128:(
125:)
118:·
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.