Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic toe

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate wasDelete closing this tar pit before gets out of hand. Hoax/OR. "Newbie" quite knowledgeable of the wikiways and policies. -- Drini 01:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic toe

[edit]

There is extensive discussion on the talk page which outlines the problems with this article. In a nutshell, it is all based on an article (published ten years ago) by one person. In the past decade absolutely nobody else has ever backed this theory. There have been no scholarly analysis of this theory. It is a new urban legend as the article itself even notes. IrishGuy talk 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per discussion. Zero verification for this, apart from one person's pet theory from ten years ago. --Nydas 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge verifyable content into foot, Morton's toe or digit ratio. The article is based on a paper published in a peer reviewed journal, there is no evidence that that paper is wrong, but there is little other work done on ethnic variation in relative toe lengths. There is a fair amount of scientific interest in relative finger lengths as indicators of prenatal hormone exposure, a topic this ought to be related to. There is some recently published work on relative big to second toe lengths as a function of the individual's sex, but none on variation between groups (at least not in humans). The term "Celtic toe" appears to be something of a neologism, and at least one other peer reviewed publication has documented this so-called Celtic toe in another ethnic group (in India). There is no data presented to support the claim that only Celtic descended individuals have this foot shape (and such a claim is not made in the primary source for the article). Likewise, the claim of a dominant Mendelian genetic basis is totally unsupported (and contradicted by other published research). This article could be the basis of an interesting article, or subsection of an article, on ethnic variation in foot morphology, but it doesn't really cut the mustard in it's present form. Much of the material is of real scientific worth, but it's presented on a slant that makes it very OR and subject to verifiability problems. Pete.Hurd 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Author cited in both Discover Magazine, and Current Archaeology has made the claim that the foot and toe bones of the celts can be distinguished from the Anglo Saxons in the United Kingdom. She has clearly identified the remains at many ancient archealogical bruial sites. Her work is published on the web and in Discover Magazine as well as Current Archaeology. Her work even includes photos of the foot bones where you can clearly see what she is talking about. How can this not be relevant? How can this not be sufficient? Its good enough for Discover Magazine and Current Archaeology, but not Wiki-Pedia, where content is generated by random people on the internet? Please. There is more than enough citations (5) Infact it should have kept with the rather brief article and single citation that it started with. Its more than sufficent. She is both a podiatrist and an archeologist and a far better expert on this matter than any one posting here.--Britton LaRoche 23:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your expert is the only person to believe this theory. One person's theory (regardless of credentials) isn't enough. One person can be wrong. IrishGuy talk 23:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the number of people believeing in a theory is all you care about and everyone shared your views then Einstein would never have made his theory known, and it would have never been undertsood. Neither would have Gallileo. Besides, I already gave you two, how about Raymond E. Hunter? If he is not good enough, then perhaps he can site the other Archaeologists and podiatrists that worked with Dr. Jackson. I can dig up a third and a fourth, but I'm not going to, there is no need. Her work can stand on its own. Her credentials are sufficent. --Britton LaRoche 23:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You really do love going for egregious exaggerations, don't you? You can't seriously be saying that what Einstein was to physics, Jackson is to podiatry...are you? In any case, Raymond Hunter impresses me none as well. One unsourced article on a geneology site by a man with no listed credentials...this is supposed to impress? IrishGuy talk 00:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point. Who's credentials are acceptable? Her credentials are. Is Raymond Hunter any comparison? He listed two other podiatrists and additional archeologists in his article. They are out there, but their credentials will be no better than the credentials of Phillis Jackson. In fact, I doubt any one could touch her. How many English podiatrists turned archaeologist / anthropologist currently digging through English cemetaries are there in the world? I'm betting she's the top of the field if not the only subject matter expert.
Ah yes, life is so unjust. AfD procedures were followed. It was tagged for potential merge which you continued to remove. You weren't bitten as a newcomer but were quite actively engaged in conversation before it went up for AfD. IrishGuy talk 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of getting into this argument about this stupid topic that (literally) almost nobody even believes in (much less cares about), I'm just going to go with delete per nom. -- Kicking222 03:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds? All previous complaints have been corrected. The article is flawless. Tell me what remains to be corrected? According to the 4 criteria above, what does the article lack? If you can't list a reason, then add your self to the list of vandals. --Britton LaRoche 03:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right. That is enough attacking people for their opinions. People aren't vandals for not agreeing with you. Behavior like that and like this [1] borders on harassment. And it is a bald faced lie to claim that all previous complaints have been corrected. Have you come up with anyone other than Jackson in the past ten years who believe this? No. Have you any evidence at all that this is a theory that stretches any further than Jackson's own head? No. IrishGuy talk 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't about what the sources are about, that's why it has problems with OR & Verifyability. You want to keep this stuff, then put what's in the sources, not what you think they imply, and put it in the appropriate articles, not under an article about your brand new theory. Pete.Hurd 03:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As already noted previously, the article WAS tagged. You kept removing the tags. At that point it goes to AfD. All of this was stated on the talk page BEFORE it went to AfD. Procedures were followed. IrishGuy talk 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the citation given for Phyllis Jackson lacks accademic credentials, even in the article no real evidence for this phenomenon is provided (ie it is not based on research, no data are given as to the the differing frequencies of this phenomenon in England compared to other UK countries), only that she noticed that the foot shape was different. Has she written about this in a peer reviewed article, has she done any real research? Remember Beware false authority. and especially Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence (from WP:RS). I do not think this constitutes a Reliable source (and therefore breaches the verifiability policy). The article also doesn't give the alternative POV (and so is in breach of the NPOV policy), which is that English and Non-English British people are really very homogeneous biologically. [2] Alun 05:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Phyllis Jackson Anyway ?

[edit]
"1992 Work of Phillis Jackson, Reference to other Archaeologists"
The Saxon/Briton question warranted further investigation. Chiropodist Phyllis Jackson's expert examination of the foot bone clarified the mystery - this was a native Briton. Radio carbon dating analysis revealed he died between 340 and 550 AD.
"Field Work, Articles and notes of Jackson in 2002"
Phyllis Jackson has continued her work on foot bones from sites throughout the city. She has now studied over sixty burials, from excavations at Gambier Parry Gardens, London Road, St Oswald's Priory, Blackfriars and Southgate Street. Her research, which looks at the structure of the foot, provides evidence for ethnic and tribal origins, deformity, disease and way of life (for an introduction to Miss Jackson's work see Current Archaeology 144, pp466-70). As always, volunteers and work experience students have provided invaluable assistance with improving the documentation and storage of archaeological material held at the unit. RA
7 ages of Brittian
I think that there has been no evidence that this phenomenon is specific to non-English British people. One cannot make a definitive statement that English people have different feet to non-English people just through a generalised observation. The archaeological references are irrelevant, as these assume that this is a real phenomenon. Where is the evidence that this is indeed the case? You need an accademic article stating that there is a higher incidence of Celtic toe in the non-English British population than in the English one. This seems to be nothing more than someone making a claim and then applying it to archaeology, with no evidence that the claim is in fact correct. Alun 07:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct: To everyone, all I've done is try to communicate, maybe I did not choose the best methods. Feel free to delete everything, or keep it. Its up to you. I will now go quietly away. Sorry for the bother, but I don't want any ill will or bad feelings.--Britton LaRoche 07:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Morton’s toe. The problem with this article is that it over cooks the information and tries to make out that there is more to the evidence than their actually is. Because of the way it is worded, when I first stumbled across it I thought this was a recognised medical condition when only closer examination it is an interpretation of anecdotal evidence with one small study. I don’t think that this is an intentional distortion of the data by the author as has been suggested here, just the result of somebody getting to ‘into’ their subject, and not seeing the wood for the trees. We should give them the benefit of the doubt. I should also like to gently remind some of the people on this page of Wikipedia’s policy of civility. You don’t have to agree, but please refrain from verbal attacks and abuse – it spoils it for everyone. Although the article can’t remain in its current state, (there are too many unfounded statements and weasel words) it can’t be denied that a) Celtic toe exists as a concept (even if it is an old wife’s tale) and that b) Somebody has tried to prove it scientifically and published it (regardless of how flawed the study is). I think therefore that this should be moved to a paragraph on Morton’s toe. Ideally I think this should contain a description of the myth, maybe taking a couple of the illustrations and then a couple of lines explaining what the study attempted to show, with the reservations clearly explained Mammal4 12:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just another Ignorant newbie, please don't bite.

[edit]

After what I percieved as a not so nice initiation process to Wiki-Pedia, I stitched my wounds and took some time to reflect on the experience. I'm a firm believer that human nature is basically good. We as people do not tend to misbehave unless we feel we have been mistreated. In genral, it is my opinion that ill will and bad feelings toward another is based on frustration and mis-understanding. It is hard not to let your emotions overide your sense of Wikipedia:Civility when you are frustrated and feel you have been mis-treated.

  • What Happened? I believe that my bad experience was not due to either my nature or to the nature of the other people working here on Wiki-Pedia. Wiki-Pedia is a great concept and produces a lot of good. I think the reason why I had a bad newbie experience is because the Wiki-Pedia initial submission process could be improved. If we look at the process, Wiki-Pedia's current process is a process of exclusion, not a process of inclusion. Any one can submit, and then another must remove it if its not good enough. This causes pain and strife between those who submit and those who review. A minor change in the Wiki-Pedia process, can save the newbies from what appears to them as a severe bite. On the surface it may seem only a minor change in policy, but underneath it is a major change to the Wiki-Pedia psyche that will affect the well being of all those involved.
  • Wiki-Pedia, provider of light and wisdom to all for free. How does it work? The concept of Wiki-Pedia is to let anyone contribute. Something is better than nothing. On the whole it works, because on the whole human nature is good. That being said, human nature is not always good. The problem with allowing any one to contribute is that it allows the lesser side, the dark side of human nature to rise and voice its opinion too. This leads to garbage contribution: lies, malicious rumors, untuths, vanity and self glorification posts which have nothing to do with the purpose of Wiki-Pedia. We as contributors, and especially as editors must be vigiliant and constantly clean up these things.
  • Ouch, Bad newbie! Bad! The problem is that we newbies, good people new to the process, are basically ignorant of how it works. We are bound to make mistakes, and we are sometimes lumped in with the rest of the garabage. Feelings are hurt, and those who have great potential to contribute may leave and never return.


  • Don't Bite, Lick. A suggestion and Possible Solution. Instead of tagging someones article as unverified after someone has spent time working on it, the suggestion is that all articles must start out with an unverified tag, and a note that it can or will be deleted. (This can be accomplished through code or perhaps a default template setting for new users) The editors job is now to remove the tags once they feel it is worthy of being part of Wiki-Pedia. We all mean well. We are all here for the dissemination of the truth, and basically put hard work in for free. We do this because we feel this is right, and because we believe in it. This kind of person should not be abused, either because they are doing their job as an editor, or doing their job as a newbie contributer learning the ropes.
  • Little things add up. A minor change in the process can make a major difference. When the article is first posted it is automatically marked with a tag that it is unverified and subject to deletion, until it has passed editorial review. The newbie has been educated. No ones feelings will be hurt by this. And... the best part is the editors are now viewed as the good guys by the newbies. They newbie hopes that an editor will come along and help him or her remove the tag. The Editors remove the unverified tag... or they submit it for deletion. The editor's main task now is to include the work. The whole of Wiki-Pedia changes from a process of exclusion to a process of inclusion.--BrittonLaRoche 17:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the fact that some articles are verifiable and notable from the beginning and others never will be. Why tag something in its gestation when it is already verifiable? IrishGuy talk 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose some one as educated, experienced and wise as you should not have such an impediment. As for the rest of the newbies, how can you tell the good from the bad? --BrittonLaRoche 16:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because like Gil Grissom - I follow the evidence (or I did when I was that new) - how long has the article been there? Where are the sources? What attempt has been made to find sources? What is the conversation like on the talkpage etc? so to conclude I'd like to say:


Since this AFD is about an article based extensively on the work of one Expert - people may wish to check the AFD discussion about that expert. See here - read to the bottom, share my pain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phyllis_Jackson

--Charlesknight 21:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment also please note that much of this AfD has been deleted by Britton LaRoche which definitely changes the appearance of certain comments. People were called vandals for voting for deletion. With others, Britton LaRoche asked for their editing priviledges to be revoked. [3] IrishGuy talk 21:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Everything is based on a single study over 10 years ago, which was not peer reviewed as far as I can tell, by an author who has not published anything in peer reviewed articles. If this pattern has validity, it would by now have been repeated, and extended and other studies would have been published.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • Strong Keep Its not over. Far from it. Just because I was duped by one misguided source does not mean that she was not peer reviewed. Remember, many articles start off in pretty bad shape. Should you delete it, then in all good conscious you should re-write it, if it turns out do be peer reviewed and academically note-worthy. If not then let me finish it with the proper credentials. I had never heard of "Osteoarcheology" before. At least the misguided source gave me a new keyword to use in my search. I have found new articles on my own that I will now investigate."Phyllis Jackson Osteoarcheology Academic Reviews" --BrittonLaRoche 16:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't vote more than once. IrishGuy talk 19:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - OK that does not link to articles but rather a 68 pg document called "Current and Recent Research in Osteoarchaeology: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the Osteoarchaeological Research Group (The Osteoarchaeological Research Group) (Paperback)" published in 1998 about their meeting in 1995. The ORG seems to be a hobbist organization - "The Osteoarchaeological Research Group (ORG) was set up in 1993 with the intention of bringing together anyone who works with or has an interest in human and/or animal remains. The core function of the group is to provide a forum for the exchange of news and ideas through quarterly newsletters and regular meetings. We are also interested in promoting the provision of careers advice and training in this field, providing information on services for specialists and considering standards for recording/reporting." - I can find no evidence that this organization has been notable in any way or has made any significant contribution to this area of endeavour. A cursory examination also suggests that none of it members are notable (again happy to be corrected and please do). So what we appear to have is a mention of a non-notable person in a non-notable book by a non-notable organization. I still find the evidence of notablity for this person and their claims to be lacking. Those who wish to keep need to provide something more solid than we have seen before. --Charlesknight 17:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least while it is still being investigated and reviewed. It will turn out to be a great article that with both promote fact and dispell fiction. My skin is thick now. I intend to correct the article on my own while we review it. I believe this can be accomplished in a reasonable amount of time as I am learning the rules of the game, and what a proper artcile is all about. We have done this because of many good comments and great suggestions given in this discussion. It is no longer one persons article, the feedback will shape it in to proper form through team effort. Don't let your good feedback and time go to waste. --BrittonLaRoche 16:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have already lost the "Celtic Toe Ring" its gone forever. Wikipedia will never have a reference to it again, but other sites such as google will always have such a reference. Actually thousands of references. "Googles: Celtic Toe Ring" Google 9,510, Wiki-Pedia 0 --BrittonLaRoche 16:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't vote more than once. IrishGuy talk 19:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Morton's toe, where it deserves about a sentence among the other disputed ethnic/anthropological interpretations of toe length. I've tidied the latter, which was somewhat confused about which Morton was being cited. BTW, I think a little reminder about Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and the general dislike of obfuscating AFD discussions is in order. Tearlach 19:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The position of Celtic Toe in the academic literature

[edit]

OK I have found myself involved in this due to my interaction on the Phyllis Jackson AFD. I have consulted all of the academic databases that I have access to. I can find no mention of this theory at all. It is not even mentioned to dismiss it. Can anyone find a reference to it anywhere in the academic community?

--Charlesknight 17:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is pretty near to my research interests, and I havn't heard of it. I've looked hard and can find zero evidence of it beyond the references originally provided by the editor. I do have one paper in my bibliography collection that deals with an ethnic group in India that has about 7 to 10% of the population with the second toe longer than the big toe, other than that I know of one other published study that finds sex differences in the relative lengths of these two toes in undergraduate students in Texas. That's all I'm aware of for humans. (A reasonable amount of research has been done on various non-human animal find limb digit ratio in the last few years) Pete.Hurd 04:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Celtic_toe&oldid=1068886631"