Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllis Jackson

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 was Delete snowballing this tar pit before gets out of hand. Hoax/OR. "Newbie" quite knowledgeable of the wikiways and policies. Despite of it being so long, it's just a single "newbie" which is quite knowledgeeable of the wikiways and policies -- Drini 01:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Jackson[edit]

User who created the article is attempting to spread the hoax of Celtic toe. That article is under Afd and this was created today about the only person who believes in said false phenomenon. The creator is attempting to do an end-run around the Afd of Celtic toe. Also, Dr. Jackson fails to meet any standards of notability. The only google hits [1] are for one single article from Discover magazine ten years ago. Discover, by the way, is not a peer reviewed scholarly magazine. IrishGuy talk 08:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to put Phyllis Jackson's name in quotes when googling so it only searches for that exact name and not anything with both names in it. When you do so you get the following: "phyllis jackson" chiropodist 32 total hits. Far less unique hits. "Phyllis Jackson" Archaeologist 98 total hits. Again, far less unique hits. "Phyllis Jackson" Archaeologist Chiropodist 20 total hits. A minor handful of hits, the vast majority are repeated articles. None of this illustrates notability. IrishGuy talk 20:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You quote WP:ATTACK and then turn around and say This user is clearly upset over personal issues? Did you actually read the WP:ATTACK guidelines? The very first line of the guidelines states: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. I believe you just did. Not to mention your further insinuations and outright accusations below. IrishGuy talk 19:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My statements are only statements of fact. I have made no false statements anywhere. Your actions have exposed yourself for the newbie biter that you are. Please take this matter to arbitration, I beg you. A brief snopsis of your activities and mine will clearly bring these issues to light. You have bitten upon the newborn flesh one time too many--BrittonLaRoche 19:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I note further, for you to say that I am clearly upset over personal issues and then take it a step further to say what your statements are only statements of fact is a clear violation of WP:ATTACK. Should you continue to do so, you will only risk getting yourself in trouble. My edit history is open for anyone to peruse. Simply because I put your pet project up for AfD does not in any way lend credence to an outrageous and offensive claim that I have bitten upon the newborn flesh one time too many. IrishGuy talk 19:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely believe that you are a newbie bitter, and that most newbies attack you back through vandalism. I will not do such a thing. I will use Ghandi's method of peaceful civil disobediance. I defy one thing, your actions. And I am prepared to be hurt by the process. Just like Ghandi, I draw fire upon myself and I am willing to suffer the consequences.--BrittonLaRoche 19:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't care less what you sincerely believe. My edit history in no way backs up your wild claims. I put your pet project up for AfD. Period. Since then, myself and other editors have been attacked and harassed by you. If you have a martyr complex, I suggest you find somewhere else to vent. IrishGuy talk 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you find somewhere else to vent

The above comments only validate what I've been trying to point out. If you want me to go away, I wont do it. If you like wasting my time and yours, you are doing a good job of it. I've learned zero from you but a ton from most everyone else. The reason the whole don't bite the newbies article is here is for exactly this reason.--BrittonLaRoche 21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at the comment in its entirety, shall we? If you have a martyr complex, I suggest you find somewhere else to vent. This was in respose to your statement: I will use Ghandi's method of peaceful civil disobediance. I defy one thing, your actions. And I am prepared to be hurt by the process. Just like Ghandi, I draw fire upon myself and I am willing to suffer the consequences. How is that not attempting to martyr yourself? Look through this AfD as well as the other two. The bulk of the text is yours. Long rants accusing people of things, long rants repeating the same things again and again, etc. Now let's look at what I said again...nowhere did I ask you to leave. I did, however, ask you to find a different place to vent. There is a difference. IrishGuy talk 21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but perhaps the person who has the last word takes things the most personal. --BrittonLaRoche 21:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Werewolf Pack Identified I'd like to point out what I see as a clear example of a clique of rather recent additions to wiki-pedia, bitten newbies gone bad. I recommend we investigate why the same individuals attack the same articles. I believe the actions we see here is nothing more than an organized attempt at vandelism. The pack has a leader, and I'll not make any mention of the other individuals. Not every post here reflects the membership in the attempts to form an organized vandelism effort, but one or more posts are a clear example of such and are nothing more than personal attacks, and an attempt to remove ligitimate content from wiki-pedia. I suppose the correct term should be Werewolf Pack as the bite of the werewolf according to legend can turn you into one.--BrittonLaRoche 17:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you are through making accusations about me, maybe you could find the time to outline how this subject is even remotely notable. IrishGuy talk 18:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I trully am sorry that it came to this. But, your repeated actions made it necessary to expose what I consider to be an organized effort to vandalize wikipedia content, and crush valid submissions made by people new to wiki-pedia. I tried to offer an appology. I looked at your submissions and made one of my own that matched yours. A simple two sentence statement of fact. I was surprised that you attempted to delete this as it exposes your true motives. I hope that this does go to arbitration. I want to bring all of this to light. I want the truth and nothing more. --BrittonLaRoche 19:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should you do so, you will have to explain why you made various personal attacks on a previous AfD and then deleted them all while leaving up the responses to those attacks. Which, of course, made it appear that people were attacking you without basis when that clearly wasn't the true case. IrishGuy talk 19:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation is simple I was ashamed of my behavior and I was going to quit wiki-pedia. I am not used to this type of treatment. I was determined to leave and to delete the article myself. I realized my ill will and bad feelings were not rational. I stopped, and licked my wounds and pondered. Because I come from a background of repect, love and tollerance, I decided to take a stand for truth and these principles, to return and make the way safe for other newbies. I wish to change the environment here, to make it more open and friendly. --BrittonLaRoche 19:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being ashamed of your behavior doesn't give you the right to alter an AfD. What you did went against the very policies you have proudly bragged about reading in their entirety. Your behavior doesn't denote a stand for truth and principles, but moreso yet another article to propagate your pet project which you have outright admitted is your aim [2]. IrishGuy talk 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted them before I knew much about wiki-pedia. I am ashamed of those comments, but I stand by them. --BrittonLaRoche 20:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, to clarify: You stand by claims that people who voted delete were vandals and asked for those who voted for deletion should have their editing privileges revoked [3]? IrishGuy talk 20:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those that posted an opinion with nothing to back it yes, and as for you, yes. I believe you have behaved like a big meanie, with a vicious bite.--BrittonLaRoche 20:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So when someone votes for deletion without writing an in depth analysis why...that person becomes a vandal in your book? I am a big meanie? Because I have been correct in putting three non-notable articles up for AfD? Three that you now admit you had no real cause to write in the first place [4]? I fail to follow your logic. IrishGuy talk 21:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The logic is simple. I'm new and trying to learn. Anyone who just says "Delete" does not teach me anything. Someone who rubs it in is just down right mean. Phillis Jackson and the Celtic Toe may be urban legend similiar to the brass monkey if so it belongs here just as much as the others do. I'm trying to contribute, not defile. Why do you discourage contribution? Sayng something is nonsense and deleteing it is not the same as others have suggested as, labeling it correctly and putting it in its place. --BrittonLaRoche 21:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, this subject is nonsense. Not all urban myths get Wikipedia articles...simply the ones that are notable. Celtic toe just plain isn't. A google search shows that there is one entry on the Urban Dictionary and that is all. Eminently non-notable. My behavior which you categorize as mean is only that way because you insist on creating numerous articles about the same subject even though every single AfD illustrates that none of this can be backed up. IrishGuy talk 21:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but perhaps the person who has the last word takes things the most personal. Shhhhhh. --BrittonLaRoche 21:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Britton, what does the above statement even mean? - Tapir Terrific 21:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the two of us are taking it personal. I'm trying to determine his psychological nature by giving him a choice between being right (not more at fault), or having the last word. I may have my answer as to how he handles making his choice. Perhaps he sends in a friend to gather more info. Did he imply you should ask this question? --BrittonLaRoche 21:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for goodness sake. This is not some big conspiracy against you, Britton. Take a look at our respective edit histories: I have never communicated with IrishGuy, and to imply that we're in cahoots isn't doing anything to boost your credibility. - Tapir Terrific 22:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about Instant Message or Email? It takes two to make a conspiracy. But, that is enough. I really don't belive you are working with him to attack me. I honestly count you as one of the ones helping me. I was just pulling your leg at this point. I just wanted to see if I could put out apossible flame war with the comment. I feel much better now. My skin is much thicker. And I bit myslef today. I was fooled into posting peer review articles that were nonsense, thus supporting his claim that this is nonsense. Someday's you just can't win for losing. --BrittonLaRoche 22:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to remind everyone of wikipedia:Civility and Don't bite the newbies
  • Comment - "The pack has a leader, and I'll not make any mention of the other individuals." - I'm of the viewpoint this is the worst sort of slur. If you have something to say to anyone here, say it. Don't use weasel words - get to the point and come straight out with it. --Charlesknight 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did say it, as clear as possible. --BrittonLaRoche 18:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have a group of people attacking newbies, and deleting valid content. I see this as an organized act of vandelism. --BrittonLaRoche 18:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF (the results are about a different person). None of her findings have been published in any peer-reviewed, scholarly works (Current Archaeology is not a scholarly journal). Article may have been made in an attempt to make a WP:POINT, per the previous AfDs. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please Read the article
Review of Phyllis Jackson's work on foot bones at ancient grave sites, Listed Sources from International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Roberts, C.A., Knüsel, C.J., and Race, L. (2004) "A foot deformity from a Romano-British cemetery at Gloucester, England, and the current evidence for Talipes in palaeopathology". International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14(5): 389-403. (ISSN: 1047-482X)
Anderson, T. (2004b) "The treatment of the feet in Anglo-Saxon England". The Foot 14: 38-41.
Anderson T.(2003). "A medieval case of bilateral metatarsus primus varus with analysis of its anatomy and allied deformities". The Foot.13: 156-165.
It is peer reviewed --BrittonLaRoche 17:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the Roberts et al paper on the clubfootted skeleton you've cited above, and Jackson does not appear in the references, acknowledgements, or anywhere at all in the paper. Are you sure her work is reviewed in there? Pete.Hurd 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through both the Anderson papers you mention published in The Foot, and there is no mention at all of Jackson in either of those! Pete.Hurd 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CounterPasses Mutliple WP:BIO Checks...
1.The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
2.Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
3.The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
I think these three should do it, don't you? --BrittonLaRoche 18:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a vote of nothing more than opinion --BrittonLaRoche 18:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really notable enough for her own entry Mammal4 13:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - Since when was then benchmark of notability that work must be published in a peer-reviewed journal? Wikipedia only requires that the source is notable. No these aren't 'scholarly' magazines but the ideas still exist in published form which is enough. Yes the work isn't rigorously scientifically tested but it still exists as an idea, and its not like its published in a magazine that nobody reads either - I really think you guys should give the author a bit of slack on this and give them the benifit of the doubt that they are not trying to disrupt wikipedia, but just trying to contribute, albeit on topics which aren't really notable enough Mammal4 13:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So..em.. your argument is that the articles are not notable but.. wait that's the end of the conversation isn't it? --Charlesknight 13:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No there is no argument - I'm saying delete this because its not notable. I just made the point (concerning people's comments here and on the Celitc toe page) that notability is not dependent on being published in a peer-reviewed journal. Also, if you read my comment on the Celtic toe page you'll see that I suggested merging it with Morton's toe not deleting it (i.e ditch all the pseudo science stuff and just leave a short paragraph mentionning the urban myth part of it) because although its not scientific it does exist in folklore so should be recognised as such Mammal4 14:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brookie, thanks for your help earlier. Could you please post the link WP:NOTEABLE? so I can investigate what standards the article is being judged by? Thanks, --BrittonLaRoche 18:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your vote of someone elses opinion. How odd. --BrittonLaRoche 18:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT. NOTE: I do appreciate your elaboration below. I did not realise you were the same person. Obviously, you do have your own opinion. Point stricken. --BrittonLaRoche 18:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has been backed by numerouse references, all of which are solid. --BrittonLaRoche 17:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Review of Phyllis Jackson's work on foot bones at ancient grave sites, Listed Sources from International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Roberts, C.A., Knüsel, C.J., and Race, L. (2004) "A foot deformity from a Romano-British cemetery at Gloucester, England, and the current evidence for Talipes in palaeopathology". International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14(5): 389-403. (ISSN: 1047-482X)
Anderson, T. (2004b) "The treatment of the feet in Anglo-Saxon England". The Foot 14: 38-41.
Anderson T.(2003). "A medieval case of bilateral metatarsus primus varus with analysis of its anatomy and allied deformities". The Foot.13: 156-165.

In regards to IrishGuy's AfD nomination and BrittonLaRoche's objections to it: IrishGuy's comments may have toed the line (er, no pun intended), but I'm not sure what other conclusion to draw. This is now the second article of very questionable notability (the first being Celtic toe ring) that has been added for the sole purpose, it seems, of adding credibility and notability to the idea of the Celtic toe. The suggestion was made in the Celtic toe AfD debate to merge that article with foot, Morton's toe or digit ratio - a very reasonable and charitable suggestion, in my opinion, given that the validity of the whole concept is in such doubt. Another editor said of the Celtic toe article, "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," which I think is a good synopsis of the issue. Rather than taking those and other comments as constructive criticism and trying to find a more suitable venue for and presentation of the idea of the Celtic toe, BrittonLaRoche seems to be attempting to back up his original article with another non-noteworthy article. IrishGuy and the rest of us should still assume good faith in this matter, but I can understand his frustration. - Tapir Terrific 17:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement draws from conclusions that are not present in this article. This article stands on its own. --BrittonLaRoche 17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I ask that everyone leave aside all personal motivation, for whatever reason, and look at the contents of this article alone. Its purpose is to identify who Phillis Jackson is and what her work is about. Nothing more. --BrittonLaRoche 18:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The celtic toe has been referred to as the cornish toe as well, obviously whatever this thing is should be identified and fact seperated from fiction. That is my sole (pun intended) objecive for the celtic toe. This article is to introduce Phyllis Jackson and her work for what it is. The celtic toe will be re-written so that it fits with what it is, it will be a seperate article and will live and die by it own merrits. --BrittonLaRoche 18:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - when investigating the Celtic toe, I discovered nothing whatsoever to suggest that Phyllis Jackson is notable. BrittonLaRoche has a bad habit of adding 'references' which don't support the claims presented. --Nydas 18:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cited references for Phyllis Jackson

It would be nice to actually get a look at the three references BrittonLaRoche has given us for Phyllis Jackson's notability, as the link provided only goes to a list of article titles. I realise that it is sometimes hard to get hold of accessable links for peer-reviewed journals because they generally require a subscription, but as the list stands it doesn't prove anything as it is only a list of article titles. I may be able to help as it appears that I might be able to at least view the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology article through my job, which seems to have access (I can't tell for definite now, as I am at home, but will know more tomorrow). If I can get hold of the paper, then I would be happy to email it to any intersted party and they can make up their own minds. If the paper doesn't prove her notability then I still vote delete. I hope this helps Mammal4 18:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! I could not ask for more. --BrittonLaRoche 18:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you go for this one if you are on a limited budget.
Roberts, C.A., Knüsel, C.J., and Race, L. (2004) "A foot deformity from a Romano-British cemetery at Gloucester, England, and the current evidence for Talipes in palaeopathology". International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14(5): 389-403. (ISSN: 1047-482X)
Phyllis Jackson was digging on the site in 2002 as noted here
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
Thank you, thank you, thank you. For the first time I feel like we are making progress. Prior to today I felt like I have been arguing that the world is round. And that references such as Newton, Gallileo, Einstein were not sufficient. --BrittonLaRoche 19:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK I've downloaded "Roberts, C.A., Knüsel, C.J., and Race, L. (2004) "A foot deformity from a Romano-British cemetery at Gloucester, England, and the current evidence for Talipes in palaeopathology". International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 14(5): 389-403. (ISSN: 1047-482X)" - what is it I'm looking for? because as first glance I don't see anything? --Charlesknight 19:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to see a copy and search for the following "Gambier Parry Gardens, London Road, St Oswald's Priory, Blackfriars and Southgate Street" as well as morton's toe and metatarsal, the reference is supposedly through the dig and the work of genetic traits in deformities, From what I gather Phillis worked on the same dig, and he does make refrence to her work --BrittonLaRoche 20:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Further comment - A search PDF does not reveal the presence of the word "jackson" anywhere in it.... I'm open to suggestions? --Charlesknight 19:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes automated search in a PDF does not always pick up the word (depending on the quality of the print and the font used) - you might have to bite the bullet and actually read the thing Mammal4 19:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More Comment I have searched for twenty different words that are in the text, it finds them all, I have checked the references (because surely it it cites the work of jackson she is going to appear there - nil,zip,zilch. Anyone got a particular bit for me to read? --Charlesknight 19:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
please see http://www.cgknight.f2s.com/jackson1.jpg and http://www.cgknight.f2s.com/jackson2.jpg --Charlesknight 19:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
?? Is it just a jpeg of the first page? I can't read past the abstract - am I doing something wrong? Mammal4 19:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to get it off the publisher page? I have it via my academic insituation subs --Charlesknight 19:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked on your two links which brings up a jpeg of the first page which looks like adobe acrobat reader, but you can't actually do anything with it. To be honest I might just wait until tomorrow and use my work academic subscription. Offer still open for an emailed copy of the PDF to anyone else who wants a look at it Mammal4 19:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to see a copy and search for the following "Gambier Parry Gardens, London Road, St Oswald's Priory, Blackfriars and Southgate Street" as well as morton's toe and metatarsal, the reference is supposedly through the dig and the work of genetic traits in deformities, From what I gather Phillis worked on the same dig, and he does make refrence to her work --BrittonLaRoche 20:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single reference to anyone called Jackson - either in the text or importantly the references. Yes Metatarsal is in there but that's it. --Charlesknight 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
that's because it is a jpeg of the first page - it's purely to show 1) I have the article and 2) I attempted a search. I editor under my real name, I cannot breach the terms of the academic licence that we have by handing out copyrighted material to people who have not paid for it. If you can get hold of a copy tomorrow - we can crosscheck with each other. --Charlesknight 19:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed reference - OK I have read the Roberts et al article and I am happy that it does not contain reference to Jackson. I have therefore removed that reference from the article in line with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability . I am now hoing to print off and re-read the article to doublecheck I have not missed something. If that is the case, I will put the reference back in. --Charlesknight 19:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you search the footnotes? Can you cut and paste the footnotes and references in the article? That does not violate copyright. --BrittonLaRoche 20:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no footnotes - As for cuting and pasting the references -

http://www.cgknight.f2s.com/jacksonref.txt

  • Comment I have concerns with the sketch used to illustrate the article. The subjects are near-unidentifiable. Deeper searching finds the original photo. If you can, I'd suggest getting permission to use the photo. Beyond that, I abstain. --DarkAudit 19:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The subjects are near-unidentifiable..." yes because I stink as an artist. People are the hardest to draw. This is a sketch I made of that photo. That makes it my work, in turn I give it freely to the world. I prefer your opinion and your justification rather than to abstain. I am learning the process the hard way. I do not know of any other way to learn in this environment. I've read all the policies and procedures I could in two weeks. Here are some more examples of what I have done for wikipedia. I do this because it takes an extreem amount of effort to request permission to use a photo and then prove that permission was granted. Further the author has to grant the rights in away that makes it usable by anyone who wishes to reference wiki pedia. I found it next to impossible. Its far easier to sketch and prove I did it. "The Lost Colony's Creation of Sir Francis Drake" --BrittonLaRoche 19:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peer Review articles are now suspect
If I have misled anyone on the peer review artciles I appologize. I believe I may have been baited. I do not have access to those articles but was given these are verified peer review links. That really stinks. I think I've been suckered in and made a really big stink, to make my self look silly. I'm writing back to the source for further verification. This was given to me by a supposed geneaological site as evidence which makes me shift gears and question the celtic toe... Take it for fact though, the refernces I posted do list Phyllis Jackson and her work. If she is not peer reviewable then I'd like to debunk a myth that suckered me in. Charlesknight would you be so kind as to post the other refernce links if you get them? If I'm a sucker then, the BBC, Current Archeology, Discover and the others are even bigger suckers.
happy to send you the PDF tomorrow if you leave an email address. I must say, it is a bit strange that you would argue so verermently on the back of some articles that you haven't even read ..... Mammal4 20:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot read them, and the source that gave me the links to things I could verify also gave me those. What can I say? I belived the source with out being able to see them. The rest I have been able to verify. Neither can I verify any of the remarks made by these sites, thats goes beyond Phyllis Jackson. I think we have something here, and its well worth listing, otherwise you will probably see the "cornish toe" and other variations.--BrittonLaRoche 20:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm not really inclined to - I've just spend what amounts to a two hours on what appears to be snipe hunt. Wikipedia is clear, if you wish your edits to remain YOU need to suppose them. I don't understand why we should "take it for fact" about the other references when you were quite clearly 100% wrong in one case. Sure it is now the case that you need to take positive action to back your claims. Are you able to supply any evidence that Jackson is mentioned in either of the Foot articles? --Charlesknight 20:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Peer Review articles will be removed, as they are identified as snipe. The rest of the links have been Identified and verified.


I must be a bloody sucker for punishment - "::Anderson, T. (2004b) "The treatment of the feet in Anglo-Saxon England". The Foot 14: 38-41" - right I have this article (again I'll jpg a page if people want proof) - I find no evidence of anyone called Jackson mentioned in it. I'm happy to be corrected. --Charlesknight 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Anderson T.(2003). "A medieval case of bilateral metatarsus primus varus with analysis of its anatomy and allied deformities". The Foot.13: 156-165. - Again I have downloaded this article and am happy to provide jpeg proof of such - again I find no evidence of anyone called Jackson mention in it. Again I am happy to be corrected. --Charlesknight 20:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain that none of those articles list her. I was given bad information, your two hours is nothing compared to the amount of time it took me to track down a couple of supposed archeologists working with Phyllis, and I doubt anyone looks a s foolish as I do, regarding these peer reviews. I contacted other sources and demanded their references only to find in the end that not only was I fooled, but wasted a ton of time on the matter.--BrittonLaRoche 21:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To conclude my interaction with this AFD before I starting eating my feet

This is the situation as I find it - All of the support Peer Review material was wrong - I have determined this via my own searches of the academic literature. I can also find no evidence of anyone using Jackson as a citation - therefore in academic terms she does not exist.

As for the other references - "Pollard J. (2003) The Seven Ages of Brittian, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd. ISBN 0340830409" - I have not read and therefore cannot comment on it, the other stuff is all light fluffy material all a period of ten years where Jackson either gets to say "I think" or just notes that she was somewhere when something happened. I therefore conclude that she is not notable. and change my vote to STRONG DELETE. I bid you good morning, goodafternoon and good evening. I am done. --Charlesknight 21:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom, and per the excellent research work performed above. _Please_ don't let this one go out "No consensus"... Tevildo 21:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You see. This is the point entirely. I learn from my mistakes, and by what you tell me. What is this "No Consensus" you speak of? Thats the whole point of why these discussions are here. --BrittonLaRoche 21:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh Thank you. WP:Consensus So noted. --BrittonLaRoche 21:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I've been looking (through ISI database etc) and cannot find a single peer reviewed publication for this Phyllis Jackson. If she's a notable anthropologist, then she ought to be rated on a scale similar to the professor test. She falls far, far below that level. Pete.Hurd 22:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm satisfied with the research above and it'd be a shame to let this close as anything but the trainwreck that it is. Opabinia regalis 23:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, fails all criteria of notability. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 07:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you are right. We have already lost the "Celtic Toe Ring" as non-noteable, 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, Thats a great score for people who are searching for information on the topic. Do you really think the 9 thousand some odd sites feel that the celtic toe ring is non-noteable, and that no one is interested? --BrittonLaRoche 16:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Mammal4 research conclusions

I've checked out the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology reference cited above. It doesn't mention Phyllis Jackson anywhere, or Celtic toe, or Morton's toe for that matter. I've read it in moderate detail, and it is a quite interesting article, but not really relevent to any discussion here or on the Celtic toe page. This agrees with and confirms Pete.Hurd's and Charlesknight's reading of the article. I can't get hold of the two articles in "the Foot" journal so I can't comment on these. As far as notability, Phyllis Jackson actually scores less unique hits that I do if I search for my professional name! I don't think that I require an article about myself so to confirm what I said originally, she simple isn't notable enough to be included. Strong Delete. If anybody else wants a copy of the paper give me your email address and I will send you a copy. Unlike Charlesknight I don't write under my own name, so am not worried about passing on subscription material (although I sympaphise with his concerns). Besides, i don't feel that it is any worse than passing on a copy of an article to a colleague, which I do regularly as part of my job when discussing ideas. All the best Mammal4 10:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whistles in awe at the discussion, genuflects to the masters, and bows on the way out the door. Tychocat 13:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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"
Please don't vote more than once. IrishGuy talk 19:17, 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 17:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why the strike through in the text above? Was someone in the org noteable? --BrittonLaRoche 17:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I tell you what - once you've read it and you know who and why - let us know. I would not want to cut across your research too much. --Charlesknight 17:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Searching on the "Osteoarchaeological Research Group" turned up Charlotte Russell a University Professor and her article: "The Anglo-Saxon Influence on Romano-Britain: Research past and present Charlotte Russell", I believe, my lesson as far as research goes is "Nothing to it, but to do it --- yourself" --205.158.160.209 17:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have learned from my mistakes, and I have thick skin now. I will no longer submit any article I have not reviewed with my own two eyes, you can count on it.--BrittonLaRoche 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also this is an example of where the peer review process does help shape the article, don't let your own comments and contributions go to waste. I have removed all the snipe articles and I will not post the new articles until I verify they do indeed site Phyllis Jackson and her work. --BrittonLaRoche 16:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further Research Continues

If there is academic any peer review of Phillis Jackson's work, I hope to find it. I won't post any more peer review articles until I can review it or find someone who can send me a copy. If I cannot find a copy then I will note that in the article also. If no one in academic circles referes to her work then there must be a reason. She has been around with her theroies since 1992 and keeps popping up, obviously if they don't refer to her, there is a reason. --BrittonLaRoche 18:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Key Words
Anthropology,
Bioarchaeology,
Paleopathology,
Osteoarchaeology,
Osteoarchaeological,
Osteoarchaeological Research Group
Google Searches
"Phyllis Jackson" Osteoarchaeology
"Phyllis Jackson" Paleopathology (nothing)
"Phyllis Jackson" Osteoarchaeological
"Osteoarchaeological Research Group"
Osteoarchaeological Research Group Members -- Some appear to be at least some what note-able
University of Durham - Charlotte Russell [5]
Human Tissue Authority [6]


Comment::: All your links appear to be circluar and all seem to revolve around the same 1 or 2 non-notable bits of right from @1996. As this stage of the game, I think we need at least ONE source of SOMEONE notable even making mention of her theory - even if it's to say "no it's a load of bollock!" --Charlesknight 18:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of contacting a number of professors related to the "Osteoarchaeological Research Group" with similiar articles to ask their direct opinion of her work. --BrittonLaRoche 22:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Charlesknight. Alun 18:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alun, since you have no opinion of your own, you should probably wait until Charles Knight and I have heard from an academic expert in the same circle of organizations that Phillis Jackson is involved with. --BrittonLaRoche 22:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Need I remind you of WP:CIV? Alun didn't say he had no opinion of his own, merely that he agreed with someone else. It isn't very civil to tell someone what he/she should probably do. IrishGuy talk 00:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I should say since his is "did not express his own opinion." but I'm surprised you are responding for him. Seems to further my point that he is not actively involved. Or perhaps he is just a sock puppet, and someone forgot to log in as him when he posted the above repsonse. --BrittonLaRoche 17:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A sock puppet? Have you considered CLICKING on his username and actually taking a 5 second glance at his user contributions and userpage? Does that look like a sockpuppet to you? Please try to do at least a gram of research before you accuse people of being sockpuppets. --Charlesknight 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Britton, this is now the second time in this AfD debate alone that you have accused someone of using inappropriate means of expressing an opinion. Above, you accused IrishGuy and me of maliciously working against you, and couldn't even issue a pseudo-apology without taking a moment to further your conspiracy theory ("What about Instant Message or Email?").[7] Now you accuse Alun of sockpuppetry, while as Charlesknight pointed out above, a momentary glance at his userpage or contributions list would settle that question. Making accusations like that is unacceptable. — Tapir Terrific 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My actions are unacceptable. I am not accusing allun of sock pupetry. I am accusing IrishGuy. I suggest the rest of you duck low. Irish guy since you are nothing more than a tiny mined wiper of other peoples bottoms, I fart in your genral direction and taunt you a second time. I suggest you go away and vent your frustrations else where. Obviously you have no power and are of no consequence what so ever. How's that? I've been picking a fight, wanting to take this to arbitration. I hope the rest of you can see this and stay away. Oh, I'd like to add more. I think he is a vandal and a leader of a malicious pack to run off new contributers. Bring it on you wimp. I'm calling you out IrishGuy its high noon and I'm counting to three.... one ... two... --BrittonLaRoche 17:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all the stuff you have pulled and how many people you have annoyed/angered so far...I really don't think it is in your best interest to take this to arbitration. You have broken far too many rules already. IrishGuy talk 17:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to take that course - you need to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes --Charlesknight 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Charles, no need for that just yet though. I'm drawing the arbitration line in the sand, placing aribtration chip on my shoulder, and daring... no I double dare IrishGuy to knock it off by filing it himself. I'll sweeten the pot. Should you decide to file for arbitration then I ask you agree to this term: the loser of the arbitration will pack his bags and leave wiki-pedia forever. I think it fair to warn you, IrishGuy, I've brought my bag of garlic, a wooden crucifix, holy water and a silver bullets melted down from saint medalions and a small silver crucfix (worn about the neck) I may be mixing myths but hey, vampire orwarewolf whatever type of newbie biter you are, you are going down. If you are the chicken warewolf I think you are ( who else would bite defenseless newbies? ) you won't do it. If you don't do it please take your "chicken warewolf" label, place it on your forehead and go vent somewhere else. Wiki-pedia is better off with out the newbie biters. All one has to do is vanquish the head warewolf, vampire or whatever and nomral people (especially newbies) become civil and will be the happy place its meant to be. Naturally I'm suffering from the bite of the warewolf, I'm foaming at the mouth and biting everyone... but I'm going after the one that bit me. --BrittonLaRoche 19:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want arbitration so badly, then do it. If not, stop ranting. Either way, you are in no position to tell people that they should leave, nor are you in a position to so flagrantly violate WP:ATTACK. Keep in mind, should you persue this, everything that you have done so far in these AfDs will not shine well on you. IrishGuy talk 19:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]



When does the decision period on this expire? Is it next Monday? Mammal4 17:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever it is, it won't be soon enough. This malarky has gone on long enough. --Nydas 20:37, 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/Phyllis_Jackson&oldid=1069013668"