Talk:Plastic shaman

Blackface

How does this article relate to Blackface? Jojalozzo 16:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is assuming the identity of a stereotype of another culture. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

In fear of this article giving the impression of being itself "plastic"

I would suggest a way to make this seem less POV:

- Do something with the fact that nearly all of the article cites the same source.

- Remove that really long Reference list at the end that is not cited in the paper and seems to have as only function to distract you from the fact that the article needs more references (by definition References refers to papers CITED in the text, unlike Bibliography, which refers to cited or uncited papers related to the subject). Wawawemn (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Its not POV. It just documents.

Henry123ifa (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Another thing:

Please let me draw your attention to another reason why this article can be considered POV:

Shamans themselves are not generally ethnocentric. If they were, we probably wouldn't know as much as we do about them (i.e., they let us learn about them, teach us about them, and in a great respect seem to be proud to show us their customs, and seem to understand their similarities with our (Westerners', Europeans' etc) beliefs.

I personally can cite countless examples for what I just said - shamans who are happy to welcome those "dreaded" "Whites" and let them fully participate in their shamanic rites.

Talking about matters of ethnicity in this article seems to portray shamans with the erroneous image of egoists with delusions of grandeur (which goes exactly against their own concepts). When trying to understand indigenous people, we should be weary of projecting our own obsessions onto them, which is what I believe happened here.

So taking the matters of ethnicity out of the question, we are left with those people (who could or could not be "real" shamans) who try to take advantage of other clueless people interested in shamanism. Now to be honest, and sorry if I offend those who wrote it, I believe that the article could be much more simply summarised in one or two sentences:

"Plastic shamanism" is a term first coined by BLAH BLAH and refers to a number of people who try to exploit students interested in shamanism by selling them fake "traditional" spiritual ceremonies, fake artifacts, fictional accounts in books, illegitimate tours of sacred sites, and often the chance to buy spiritual titles. These deceivers could even have no or small actual connection to the shamanic tradition "

The rest of the article seems like fanatic propaganda made by people who try to pass on as "shaman specialists" to scare people off of "true" shamanism (whatever that may mean in their book); and has little, if any, actual information to offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wawawemn (talk • contribs) 12:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This article documents the term.

-In what context do you mean by shamans being non ethnocentric here? And how is it relevent to the article? Shamans usually work on the behalf of his/her community. The shamanic practices are generally pretty distinct to a particular tribe/ethnic group(as documented by anthropologists). Participating in a ceremony does not make one into a shaman.

"Talking about matters of ethnicity in this article seems to portray shamans with the erroneous image of egoists with delusions of grandeur (which goes exactly against their own concepts)." The article talks about "plastic shamans". I believe it is them (plastic shamans) who are egoists with illusion of grandeur. What do you mean by "their" concepts? And which "concept" are you refering too? Every tribe/ethnic group has their own distinct beliefs.

Now of course most articles in wiki could be summarised into a 'nut shell, so to speak.

As for the rest of the article being propaganda. I think one can easily do an internet search. Theres alot of native sites about plastic shamans etc.

Now I am all for expanding the article.

Henry123ifa (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Wawawemn, and would suggest deletion of the article Fbunny (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The article appears to have number of major errors and contradictions. Among these it says that Native Americans don't call their spiritual people shamans but later uses the term in relation to them. It also was written from a North American tribal view, ignoring the traditions in other parts of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.194.128 (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

External links

I've noticed the ongoing efforts to remove "New Age Fraud" from the external links section. Although it does list many links ("A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations"), it also has much more (essays, news, etc.) and New Age Frauds & Plastic Shamans is an organization who are the most of top of the "plastic shaman" phenomenon. I would love it if a scholar published a peer-reviewed academic tome exploring "Plastic shamans" and naming names with citations; however, since the overall trend has died down since the 1970s and 1990s, this is not likely to happen soon.

Hanksville.org is linked in over 50 other Wikipedia articles, so it's perfectly fine here. At only 10 external links, the article falls within the acceptable number. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I agree with having ten external links, especially, as noted by Uyvsdi, given the lack of peer-reviewed material currently coming out. Dkreisst (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion

The POV nature of the article appears amply demonstrated from the discussion on the talk page.

In addition, please see WP:WINADFbunny (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

i notice that user:Uyvsdi has archived a lot of the older discussion. I am not against this per se but I just want to signal that the older discussion is worth reviewing in the context of the proposal to delete because it illustrates many of the problems associated with the article and the inability of these problems to be adequately addressed over a long timeframe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbunny (talk • contribs) 10:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I realized this talk page was 55,309 bytes. Talk pages usually get archived after 35Kb or 90 days, but no one ever set up a bot to archive this page. The conversation from 2006 and 2007 is all still accessible, either at the archive link above in the box or here: Talk:Plastic shaman/Archive 1. There's a four year gap between comments, and the ones from 2011 onward are on this page. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Indeed Fbunny (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently despite the fact that not a single valid argument was raised in defence of this page, and not a single one of my points rebutted, this article gets to stay. Wikipedia democracy is impressive... Fbunny (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The deletion process fortunately doesn't work on a democratic basis, the issue is whether an article is notable by our criteria, and this one clearly is as was demonstrated during the discussion. We do not delete articles because there is NPOV content, someone doesn't like the title, etc. Your arguments were about content and title, not notability. So far as the title goes, we have similar complaints that other titles are NPOV simply because someone has a different pov -- eg all the 'denialism' articles - holocaust, climate change, etc. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Strange idea. You do not even get to publish an article when it is POV. Plus, under this title, it is not notable at all. It is not even about anything, as not only I, but numerous commentators, have pointed out. Fbunny (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

And yet the decision at the AfD was Keep - 10 keep !votes to your one objection - pretty overwhelming. May you should think about the fact that with only 126 edits to your name you might still have a lot to learn about Wikipedia. Or maybe you just don't like our policies, in which case you'll be happier someplace else. I note that two of the commentators at the AfD were a puppetmaster and his sock. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly the discussion is over; result was to keep. End of story. Instead of griping about vague/undefined, theoretical problems with the article, find published, NPOV reliable sources to add to the article. Just because an article doesn't fit your POV, doesn't mean is it POV. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Duh. And thanks for the ad hominem sh*t, always a sure sign of being right Fbunny (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Discussion about this page located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic shaman mentioned the questionable nature of including Ward Churchill's writing as a reference. I'm fine with removing it, especially since it's not actually cited anywhere in the article. I'm placing it here on the talk page just in case others want it restored to the article.

• Churchill, Ward. From a Native Son: Selected Essays in Indigenism, 1985-1995. 1996, Boston: South End Press. ISBN 0-89608-553-8

-Uyvsdi (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

nnpov

tagging; the tag should stay until the problem is fixed, as per wikipolicy.

i think we can safely say that the nnpov-ness of this article is well-established.

Lx 121 (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not established. This is a stable article, well-sourced and fairly comprehensive. Usually people who flag it for POV simply don't like that the issue exists and is being discussed. But the communities that are concerned about this issue have spoken for themselves, and are quoted herein. The only POVs are those documented in the sources. - CorbieV^☊☼ 18:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Without any new specific details the tag needs to be removed. Let's see what policy violations User:Lx 121 thinks are in the article. Doug Weller (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

you really want to do this?

let's try previous discussions, for starters? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Plastic_shaman

shall i bring up the full history of this talk page, as well? :)

Lx 121 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

So... you think a snow keep full of banned sockpuppets is somehow relevant? - CorbieV^☊☼ 18:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree - most of the "controversy" in the past has been WP:IDONTLIKEIT, rather than any real evidence of a meaningful alternate viewpoint that needs to be represented. Rwessel (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No point in pointing to an AfD or previous history of the talk page, I still want details of specific violations in the article as it is today. Doug Weller (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Specifically, what are your current concerns with the article's content, Lx 121? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

New Age Fraud gone?

Both newagefraud.org and the New Age Fraud Facebook page are gone. Has this organization folded? 2601:186:8100:65E4:9133:8C00:9A96:6888 (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone recently removed the external link based on that concern, but the removal was reverted by @CorbieVreccan: with the comment "Per announcement on group FB page, this is temporary" Perhaps CorbieVreccan could comment further, especially if there is any information about how "temporary" this is expected to be. Rwessel (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, prior to reverting I checked the org's Facebook Page. The IP editor is mistaken; the FB page is up, and there's a notice about the situation, which was updated yesterday. They had some kind of hardware issue at the main site and are doing a rebuild. ETA: "Real Soon Now." - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 15:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Plastic shaman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130305155048/http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/features/spirg-hagan.html to http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/features/spirg-hagan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019234344/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019234344/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement

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) 22:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)