Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum anthropology (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. Consensus is that the sourcing is insufficient to show that this is a notable (or, indeed, serious) field of study. Opinions by very new accounts were given less weight.  Sandstein  19:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Quantum anthropology
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The content is sourced exclusively from fringe journals and hasn't received independent notice as an actual subject. jps (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Neuroquantology is apparently a peer-reviewed journal (to my surprise), as are Social Science Computer Review and Theological Studies. The subject is certainly fringe, but seems like it may be notable. Several sources are pay-walled, so I'm not certain they actually discuss the article subject. - MrX 13:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: At least Annual Review of Anthropology, Social Science Computer Review, NeuroQuantology and Theological Studies (journal) are peer-reviewed; Anthropology News is the official newspaper of the American Anthropological Association and Ethos published by its subdivision; Social Analysis is published by Berghahn Books; Systems, Man, and Cybernetics is by IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society (part of IEEE); Journal of Aerospace Engineering is by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (and a Committee on Publication Ethics member). Notwithstanding the nomination, not all sources are journals. Non-journal sources are by the Duke University Press and Blackwell Publishing, which are considered reliable.


 * The only ones that I find a bit dodgy are: Physics of Particles and Nuclei is by Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (whether they are reliable or not, I can't tell); Syntropy is an open-access journal by International Academy of Consciousness - probably not reliable; and Atlantic Journal of Communication (whom I don't know, but I do note they are published by Taylor & Francis).


 * While most of these sources are probably not houshold names to someone with a background in natural science - and we are dealing with a social science topic here - the overwhelming majority of them look very reliable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed a number of sources which contained no mention whatsoever of "quantum anthropology" and therefore were violations of WP:SYNTH. Note taht only true believers in this fringe proposal seem to be commenting on it. Otherwise, the idea is ignored. jps (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * did you check in the sources themselves or just whether or not the title includes the words "quantum anthropology"? It was quite a few sources that you, in a short time, and raises doubts whether you actually studied them or not. Please note that significant coverage does not mean "the main topic of the source" (WP:SIGCOV), so in order to determine if sources support notability, it's generally required to actually study them closely rather than just glance at the title. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually went through and read all the sources and did careful search in each for the term "quantum anthropology". Most of the sources were being used to promote ideas that were found in the article text (e.g. "embodiment") rather than framing the subject of quantum anthropology per se. The ones that actually use the term I kept in the article. jps (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTABILITY. I understand the argument above, but I respectfully counter that if a fringe topic (even a reputable one) were notable enough for inclusion here, it would be something those of us with an interest in fringe topics would have at least heard about.
 * In addition, the article does next to nothing to explain the subject. Indeed, it merely defines it as something about quantum mechanics and anthropology, cites where the term began, and then proceeds to wave its hands about wavefunction collapse and wave particle duality in a way that (frankly) makes little sense. It's enough info for me to think up a mystic-woo explanation, but nothing that even approaches the actual purpose of an article. In searching scholarly articles for the term, I find that it's usually used as an analogy for dualism, in which the particle is considered to be the body, and the wavefunction the soul. In some of these, it is explicitly defined as an analogy. Thus, from what I can find in scholarly sources, this is not a field of study, but a common analogy used by dualists in theology and religious contexts. One of the examples which explictly states this to be an analogy is the first reference used on the page.
 * Now, there might be a legitimate fringe area of science which can be identified by this term. I can imagine technologies using principles of quantum mechanics that are useful for anthropological research (in the most general sense, the computer is the most obvious one, followed by carbon dating). However, I cannot for the life of me imagine (or find on the internet) a legitimate field of science in which the principles of quantum mechanics have a direct bearing upon any anthropological research. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that part of the problem is that in certain areas of practical theology, what is proposed to be an allegory or metaphor and what is proposed to be the actual fact of reality get confused. It is unclear from reading the sources which actually propose that something like "quantum anthropology" exists whether the authors intend on quantum mechanics being directly relevant to human existence or whether it's just serving as a useful metaphor. Part of the problem seems to be that the authors who are using the term admit that they themselves only have a qualitative understanding of the subject and are not capable of determining whether the topics that quantum mechanics actually describe are relevant to discussions they are trying to encourage. The ongoing cacophony associated with various quantum mind proposals don't seem to help much in this.
 * All that said, it's not up to us as Wikipedia editors to critique the idea, but if the idea does not have the requisite notice that would allow for a coherent article to be written on the subject (and so far I haven't seen any evidence that such sources exist), I think that the typical argument for deletion is that it fails on either the WP:NFRINGE or WP:NOR fronts.
 * If people can find coherent sources that explain what precisely "quantum anthropology" actually is (the current sources use the term as a placeholder for the author's particular ideas without so much as bothering to frame it), that would be greatly appreciated.
 * jps (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks independent coverage. Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Independent of what? The article is not about an organization or a person. Are you suggesting that the peer-reviewed journals are not independent of each other, or the subject?- MrX 17:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Independent of its fringe milieu (i.e. WP:FRIND). Peer review guarantees little. What I'd be expecting to find is serious/analytical (and coherent) secondary treatment that defines this as a topic of mainstream interest. Alexbrn (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Either the journals are controlled/influenced/edited by a person or organization affiliated with the subject, or not. If you are claiming the former, I think you have the burden of providing some evidence. Does anyone else think that "Fringe milieu" sounds like an appetizer in French restaurant? - MrX 18:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I want (to repeat) "serious/analytical (and coherent) secondary treatment that defines this as a topic of mainstream interest". Show me the beef (the main course, not an appetizer). Or do you think we have sources that meet my criteria? Alexbrn (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Being mainstream has no bearing on whether something meets our notability guildelines. In fact, we are supposed to be facilitating access to the sum of all human knowledge. I'm sorry, but I'm not especially interested in your personal criteria.- MrX 19:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite right too. But you should know that I merely want what our guidance requires, that this topic be "referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers". Alexbrn (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: This is indeed a fringe topic within anthropology, which seems to be promulgated by scholars who have no idea what quantum mechanics is. The notion of quantum anthropology is at best a poorly defined metaphor, which is actually best usurped by well-developed theories of cultural and sociology, such as agency, practice theory, or structuration theory. Delta13C (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: The theme is mentioned in peer reviewed magazines and in others as well. I think that the goal of Wikipedia is sum of all human knowledge. For this reason there is a need to cover also new emerging fields, otherwise Wikipedia be a dictionary of old terms and theories. I am convinced that creation is better than deletion. I think that there is better to work on this article than find reasons for deletionWikiditor (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Seems to be a synthesis of some examples of the term being thrown around in different ways, followed by a mention of Russell (2013). That one paper isn't enough to justify founding a discipline, nor is it enough to meet the notability requirements. Russell's abstract is available online, though (1) it seems unclear how this is quantum mechanics and (2) it seems unclear how this is anthropology. As an essay in religious studies, it's probably fine...though still not notable. Geogene (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: The last place that needs to get infected by the New Age/quantum mechanics hybrid abomination is Wikipedia. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Quantum delete this quantum flapdoodle. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some of the content should be put into Quantum mysticism with a redirect? Delta13C (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: For reasons stated above. If I mentioned how this is synthesis, OR, non-notable, and so on, it would violate the Pauli exclusion principle, so there's no need to duplicate arguments already stated. Roches (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * After 's careful work of going through the used sources, we are down to 5 (and a handful of further reading and external links). I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc above says he has eliminated OR and SYNTH problems by narrowing content and sources to these ones. Anyone claiming those or WP:FRINGE should look at the discussion above; the nominator thinks these 5 sources are directly relevant to establishing notability and are not fringe sources. I think if we accept that, we also have to accept that the present sources are enough to meet WP:GNG. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources are not fringe sources, the topic is fringe and really makes no sense. This is not a topic that is well-known within anthropology. Delta13C (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Three of the five remaining sources are misused as original research to demonstrate that various authors have used the term "quantum anthropology" before, apparently in different ways. Geogene (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now removed that part, in order to show how little there really is to work with here. Geogene (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nowhere near convinced that the remaining sources are actually being used properly. I only didn't remove them because they actually use the term. However, it is not at all clear to me that their use of the term justifies the article. Very suspicious. jps (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: I am senior researcher in anthropology and I know works of Wendt, Kirby, Barad, and Russell well. These sources share the coherent interpretative framework and their content is not fringe in cultural anthropology. The deletion of this article may elicit the danger of discrimination of one of fields of cultural anthropology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaterialistX (talk • contribs) 07:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am also an anthropologist, but our statuses has no bearing on this discussion. Having a "coherent interpretive framework" does not convey notability. That statement is original research. I'd actually be really interested in understanding how you came to this notion, because the framework I see with quantum anthropology is absolutely quantum flapdoodle. Where are the multiple, reliable sources that demonstrate otherwise. Since being conjured up in the mid-nineties, very few scholars in or related to anthropology have written about it. Contrast this fact with another topic like Complexity theory or Actor-network theory, which came to anthro at more or less similar times and have proliferated in the field. Feel free to discuss this with me on my talk page. Delta13C (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to see a source that identifies these four authors as sharing a coherent interpretative framework. Such a source would go a LONG way toward establishing notability. Right now, it looks like this is just the beliefs of various Wikipedia editors which is basically original research. jps (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I find several sources using this phrase, but all of them discuss different ideas and it's apparent there's no coherent topic here that passes GNG. The first source in the article refers to concepts in Christian theology, equating wave/particle with body/spirit, and falls neatly into quantum mysticism; another source from 1996 advocates incorporating "quantum" ideas into cultural anthropology, without clearly explaining what this entails, and calls this "quantum anthropology". There are a few other examples, but they again seem to refer to unconnected, vague, and probably incoherent ideas. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Equating wave/particle with body/spirit" is not included in the content of the current version of Wikipedia article Quantum Anthropology. Further, Pownell´s article from 1996 (mentioned as "source from 1996[2]") that only introduced the term "quantum anthropology", is not referenced for the support of main ideas of quantum anthropology in the current version of the article. So, these arguments are irrelevant. MaterialistX (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No coherent theme. Non-notable junk science and junk anthropology. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC).
 * I would like to provide a more detailed explanation of coherence between works of Wendt, Kirby, Barad, and Russell for all discussants who have not read these works. 1) All of these anthropological studies have integrated the observer effect into anthropological theory with various important implications. 2) Wendt (2006+2015), Kirby (2011), and Barad (2007) extensively included the interconnection between agency and the observer effect. 3) Wendt (2006+2015), Kirby (2011), and Barad (2007) developed the issue of the entanglement between the observer, observed, and the apparatus in the context of anthropology. 4) Kirby (2011) and Barad (2007) also covered the relation between material-discoursive practices and construction of human concepts.MaterialistX (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no scholarship that shows the "observer effect" in quantum mechanics has any relevance whatsoever to macroscopic systems. As said above, this is at best a poorly constructed metaphor. I would be surprised if any of the people making the claim that the observer effect in quantum mechanics is relevant has ever dealt with the actual mathematics of how the effect works. This is fast spiraling into classic pseudoscience. jps (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Even though quantum anthropology is new field of anthropology, there is evidence of attention of this issue in peer-reviewed journals and books. Unfortunately these important references have been deleted from the article (by just one person?). Thanks to this censorship, no one can verify their relation to the content of the article discussed here. + The article is brief now, I reccomend to enlarge it rather than to delete it. The above discussion also seems to me as classical conflict between natural sciences and social sciences/humanities. Ideas of quantum anthropology may sound fringe to natural scientists, but as is mentioned in Notability versus acceptance guidelines, non-acceptance of the idea by some experts does not mean the article should be removed from Wikipedia.CulturAnt (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC) — CulturAnt (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What worries me in terms of this AfD is that the article has undergone several drastic changes during it, so we're not talking about anything remotely similar than in the beginning. We began with ' inline references that were cited only once each with somewhat disperse views. Then we had only ' that was naturally coherent with itself, but lacking proof of significant coverage. Finally, we have  that are referenced extensively (23 instances of citation in total) and coherently. Participants who have voiced concerns regarding earlier versions should look at the current version. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. The attempts to reform the article are legitimate parts of the AfD process as new eyes and ideas are incorporated. Removing problematic sources is something we should always do regardless as to whether there is an active AfD or not. jps (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: I just created my account, because of this discussion. I am teaching cultural anthropology for 14 years, incl. writing and reviewing of journal (Q4) articles. I am noticing significant development in quantum biology in last couple of years. It means for me, that it was only a question of time, when this will be defined for the man – logically, as the quantum anthropology. Finally, I’ve found comprehensive (this is not about one sense or meaning of the term), well resourced (this is not only about quantity of relevant records) entry here on Wikipedia and I can’t believe, that quantum anthropology is considered for deletion from The Free Encyclopedia.Qbiol (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC) — Qbiol (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Your logic is no good. We should keep quantum anthropology because quantum biology is a thing? What about cultural or human behavior exhibits quantum properties? I don't think quantum means what you think it does. Delta13C (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don’t know "no good" or good logic. But I use e.g. inductive or deductive logic. And I’m not reasoning nor saying anything about “cultural or human behavior”. The strong need to define quantum anthropology is evident, instead of guessing of (my) thoughts - or deleting the term. Qbiol (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as original synthesis of rather dubious sources that discuss disparate topics. One source says quantum anthropology is a subset of Christian anthropology and deals with mind-body duality. Two seem to be feminist theories, with one of those two saying nothing about anthropology, quantum or not, except that "Bohr erred [...] by drawing analogies between physics and biology or physics and anthropology". The remaining two are by a political scientist who argues that the brain should be studied by using the methods of quantum physics but, at least in one of the cited works, does not use the term "quantum anthropology". So of five sources at most three use the term, and all three give different meanings. No evidence is given that any of those three meanings meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Besides, the article is rather heavy on meaningless buzzwords. No sourced information on quantum anthropology itself is given. Who are the main proponents? When was this theory developed? Is it considered fringe or accepted by mainstream anthropologists/physicists/sociologists/theologists? The article doesn't tell, the sources do not tell. Huon (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No surprises. The article is drivel from beginning to end. Its inclusion would make Wikipedia into a fringe freak show. Because it was deleted less than two months before being brought back again, there is a case to Salt too. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC).
 * I wonder if this article is a new Sokal hoax. If so, it has fallen flat because Wikipedia editors are a bit smarter than the editors of the journal Social Text who fell for that hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC).


 * Explanation of coherence: 1) Works of Wendt, Kirby, Barad, and Russell do not discuss disparate topics. Agency is one of main areas of interest in current social and cultural anthropology and all these sources include the interconnection between agency and the observer effect (and also relations with other quantum principles). So, the argument that some of these sources "is saying nothing about anthropology" indicates rather little familiarity with the contemporary anthropological discourse. Focus on agency and integration of the observer effect into anthropological theory are things that make all these 5 sources coherent. 2) Social and cultural anthropology has much more different discourse that natural sciences = for example, some of sources may have different labellings of the same thing. For example, Wendt (2006+2015) does not use the term "quantum anthropology", but use the expression "A quantum model of man" in both works including parts that are anthropological in nature (and including the issue of agency as well). In contrast, natural sciences have unified, strictly defined terms with almost absolutely exact meanings. So, the argument of "disparate topics" may stem from the evaluation of anthropological works by positivistic discussants. 3) Wikipedia is The Free Encyclopedia and should not present only articles which content corresponds well with the field of natural sciences.MaterialistX (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment In my point view, there is no doubt that quantum anthropology is an issue (several authors write about it). I understand that maybe it is not a ,,mainstream theory and theme", maybe this article also is not so good, but I think that this is a typical example discussion on Deletionism and inclusionism. And I am convinced that Wikipedia should be open and inclusive (as - not only - Jimmy Wales want). And in term of notability I have to say that all - nowadays mainstream - theories was emerging in the past.Wikiditor (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Believe it or not, the article is now even worse than it was when I nominated it, containing outright false statements and many citations that do not support the sentences onto which they are tacked. WP:TNT is perhaps relevant. jps (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply: Some parts of the article have been accused from false statements and they have been labeled as "not in citation given". It is simply not true - below I offer the exact subparts of the sources where these information are included:
 * "The observer, observed, and the apparatus are entangled" - [2] page 76 and also other parts of book of Kirby (2011) + [3] page 139 and also other parts of book of Barad (2007) + [4] page 36 and pages 66-69 in book of Wendt (2015)
 * "They are not three different "entities", but they interact." - [2] page 76 in book of Kirby (2011)
 * "Quantum anthropology understands humans and cultures as actualizations of potentiality in time and space" - [1] pages 937 and 946 and also other parts of paper of Russell (2013) [5] in the subsections "Toward a quantum model of man" and "Toward a quantum model of society" of Wendt (2006) MaterialistX (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG. Every field anthropologist knows and it trained to recognize the "observer effect" adding the word quantum to field discipline that has been practiced for close to a century is utter bollocks. As near as I can tell from the sources some are trying to use a popular understanding of QM as a metaphor (a strained one at that) but there is no indication of any mainstream acceptance. J bh  Talk  15:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Notification I have found Wikiditor to have been canvassing heavily over the last 24 hours. They did it, , , , and . I have reasons to suspect off-wiki canvassing as well. At least two users registered during this discussion with the sole purpose of commenting in this discussion in support of keeping it. Moreover based on behavioral evidence seen above, I suspect we might have some ducks with socks on here as well. All of this may have compromised the discussion. Tvx1 18:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I promote the discussion about this article but from NPV - I wrote there: ,,So if somebody has a time for quick view and discussion (keep or delete) the article will be glad"! I spent on this article so much time, for this reason I wanted ask others for their opinion on this theme. But I am not a duck and sock! I contribute to this article just from this account and I did not create others! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiditor (talk • contribs) 19:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply However in your calls for opinions in the discussion you also wrote: "...it is threaten by deletion (probably from people who are interested in another fields)." That is clearly not neutral. Moreover the choice of places where you posted, such as WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship, is also at odds with the canvassing guideline. Tvx1 20:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree there's an off-wiki canvass happening somewhere, this page averaged about 10 views a day before the AfD. Now this many new users? Closing admin will likely take that into account. Geogene (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I apologize if I canvassed on Wikipedia in inappropriate way, but I was really concerned that this article should view more people. Because I do not understand, why peer reviewed article and other titles from well known publishing houses are not good enough here, when many other articles use a really ,,fringe references". And phrase quantum anthropology is definitely used in english (if you say it is not a science/field, what it is - could we try to define another?). I understand that this article could be not good enough - but I think that it will be better to work on improve it, instead of working hard on arguments to discussion. Wikiditor (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's okay, we all make mistakes. In the future, the best way to avoid canvassing is to post to the WikiProjects rather than to talk pages of policy pages. As for this page, the biggest problem you have is that the favored sources for the article are all utterly disconnected from each other. There is no over-arching description of what exactly quantum anthropology is supposed to entail. If you want there to be an article in Wikipedia on this subject, the first thing to do is get better sources. That may mean encouraging people who can create such sources to create them, because right now the wide-ranging claims and differing ideas associated with this broad idea make it fairly incoherent and it is going to suffer from WP:REDFLAGs and WP:OR concerns until that time. jps (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per Jbh. Wikipedia needs to aggressively defend itself against being used to promote crackpottery. Reyk  YO!  11:43, 24 February 2016 (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.