Talk:James J. Shapiro

Article

A deleted article James Shapiro is currently going through DRV. It was deleted as CSD A6 attack page.

This current article cannot be deleted as CSD A6 attack page, as the criterion is for an article which is "negative in tone and unsourced". This article is clearly now sourced.

This current article cannot now be deleted under CSD G4 Recreation of deleted material, because 1) that doesn't apply to previous speedy deletions and 2)it would anyway have to be "A substantially identical copy" and it is not.

For the latter reason the current DRV cannot be seen as applying to it either.

What I propose is the following. If the DRV overturns the speedy of James Shapiro (unlikely) this text is moved there.

If the DRV keeps the deletion of James Shapiro, that decision cannot be seen as applying to this new article, as it is a substantial re-write and not the same material.

Therefore if anyone objects to this article, they should open an AfD on it forthwith.

Tyrenius 03:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The above may be technically correct, but as a largely disinterested party in the effort, I'm still troubled by the appearance of circumventing an AfD (however controversially closed) with a new article that, although apparently much better sourced, still doesn't resemble a proper biography of a living person. The two most important issues I see are these:

1. It makes no attempt to be a biography about Shapiro, focusing instead solely on his commercial activities and his reputation. While it is likely this is what makes him notable, it cannot be interpreted as a "neutral, encyclopedic tone". (Note that Adolf Hitler, a subject far more notable, in a very negative way, than Shapiro, has plenty of proper bio material. If we don't have even a shred of bio info on Shapiro, one must question his notability.) And as WP:BLP states, eventualism is not appropriate for these kinds of articles when the material is so lopsided. We editors have a responsibility to carefully craft a proper article, not just post what we can find that supports our interests. (I made my case for this at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 31#Jim Shapiro, but this article's editors seem to have cherry-picked the parts they decided to execute.)
2. The current article doesn't even disguise its attempt to use Shapiro as a poster boy for sleazy legal practices. It starts out with a justification for itself. This is just wrong.

I suppose that I will nominate this for AfD if I have to, but now that the article exists, I'd rather see the folks who are so anxious to have it exist flesh it out in a responsble manner. If this person is sufficiently notable, I'm sure it's going to be for the controversies, but that doesn't relieve us of the need to work toward a full representation of the subject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember, you are always welcome to edit the article yourself. Although I don't agree with WAS 4.250's decision to revive the article this early, I don't really see anything meriting a deletion in the CSD. I'd suggest AfD or addition of additional info to help remove POV. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I second both the above. A good job has been done on showing that Shapiro has more than a local reputation (although I realise this could still be disputed). However, once an individual merits an article, it is by definition a biography which should show a full picutre of that person's life, which means including other information which is not specifically to do with their notability. See FA Douglas Adams. Adams is know for his writing, but other aspects and incidents which are not specifically to do with his writing are also included, because they are to do with his life. Alternatively, this article needs to be moved to Advertisement of legal services in the US or some such, and expanded to encompass the whole subject with Shapiro cited as an example. At the moment the article falls between two stools. In particular this article needs to expand his philanthropic work and give this more weight, as it is a significant insight into him. Tyrenius 04:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know I can edit it myself. Unfortunately, this Shapiro incident (including the AfD, the deletion review, and the article recreation) has already taken up about 300% of the time I have at the moment to devote to WP overall. I'm regretting I ever got involved in the first place. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration/concern. if you would like, I can take it to AfD, but I won't put any arguments in the nomination, and I will vote keep (I have a script to automate AfD, so it might be easier). alphaChimp ^laudare 05:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Shall we see if the involved editors can improve it first in line with the suggestions? You might like to have a go yourself. Tyrenius 06:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help but I don't even know where to start...I think there probably is an article in this guy, but this definitely is not it. Most of it isn't a bio of Shapiro and I find it hard to follow why parts are even in the article. It should not be up in the mainspace. Can WAS tag it under G7 and let us move it back into userspace? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the solution is normal wikipedia editing. I've spent too much time on this already and I know the article can be improved by others. Everyone who wants to improve the article, please feel free to do so. Censoring the facts is not helpful. Adding sourced relevant facts is helpful. Not every bio article is fully fleshed out. Where bio facts are missing from sources, we don't make then up or use unreliable sources (such as a convicted liar's own claims of how great they are). None the less in the end the substance of the article might best end up under one or more other article titles. However, consider that there is a pending law in New York state and a court hearing dealing with him such that both will probably shed light on the person over the next two months. Trying to rush to judgement on the contents is a mistake. Let's take our time and do it right. The only thing that needs to be rushed is the deletion of unsourced negative information on living persons and this article has no unsourced data at all. WAS 4.250 16:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WAS 4.250 is correct in several points, including the existence of incomplete bios, the need to avoid unsubstantiated statements, and need to take time to "do it right". However, s/he is ignoring the special situation, spelled out in WP:BLP, that the usual eventualism of developing articles is currently considered bad form at Wikipedia after a series of scandals involving lopsided and even blatantly inaccurate articles about living persons. (I am not saying this article is inaccurate, only that it is inadequate for a proper bio and should be treated carefully, as WP:BLP advises.) Furthermore, the existence of bad articles does not justify the creation of more bad articles. The "rush to judgement" is in creating a main-namespace article that is self-consciously using a person to make a case about something else, not presenting a proper biography of its subject. If we can expect more bio info to be available, we should wait for it be made available before re-establishing this article. In its current state, this article does not belong in Wikipedia. If I had time to correct this, I would (assuming I could find the necessary bio info). As it is, the most I can commit to is to AfD it as soon as I get a chance to make the case properly, unless the suggested fixes are made muy pronto. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Ewart has offered to have a go, as above, and I'll give her some suggestions, which I think will move it in the right direction. I think it would be best to fix whatever can be fixed, say in the next day or so, so that if there's an AfD, it's a clean one, without multiple article changes during its course. Another route is to move it to user space temporarily and leave a stub till the rest is sorted out? Tyrenius 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly wait a few days for Sarah's efforts before taking more dramatic action. A user-page move would make sense if this fails, but only if the article proponents agree to it. (I'd rather do a standard AfD than defend an uncommon move operation taken without consensus of the participating editors.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't spell it out, but I meant with approval of participating editors. Sorry if it read like a suggestion for unilateral action. OK, see what happens in the immediate future. Tyrenius 20:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources for this article

Anyone wanting to edit it can find more sources here. Tyrenius 06:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Poor article?

Could someone who knows rather more about the subject than me (I practise in the United Kingdom) and therefore have no idea, at the very least edit the start of this article so that it defines what the article is about. At the moment it begins "James J. Shapiro is important as an example of..." which is the sort of thing I would mark my students down for writing without telling me who the hell he is. Could some editor who knows more about he subject (there must be some given the material here) start the thing off by telling me some history about the man, so I can put the rest in context - at the moment the article is almost meaningless to an outsider. Francis Davey 11:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree; in theory this is supposed to be a biographical article but it isn't structured as such right now. IMHO a decent start would be to just start with the following:

James J. Shapiro (also known as Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro) is a personal injury lawyer known for his Crazy Eddie style television commercials. He is important as an example of the effects of changes in United States law regarding the advertisement of legal services, resulting in both false and misleading by Shapiro that have been used to illustrate issues of legal ethics and the need for the reform of those laws.

Also:

1. This article should be at Jim Shapiro, as per Wikipedia:Use common names.
2. We need some more basic info (like his birthday etc)

--Bletch 23:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Sarah Ewart is working on it. You might like to contact her. However, I don't think "He is important as an example..." will wash. It can be moved, once the DRV is finished. His birth year is known. Tyrenius 02:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be at Jim Shapiro. I personally think the article needs to be stripped back to "James "Jim the Hammer" Shapiro is an American attorney" and rebuilt from there. The legal implications should be in a different, linked to article, IMO. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Advertisement of legal services in the US

I'm still skeptical that Shapiro warrants his own biography, but I'm much less skeptical of the need for an article on Advertisement of legal services in the US. I think there is a place on Wikipedia for some of this information. Erechtheus 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're prepared to extend the few days of grace suggested by Jeff Q above, I think we're probably going to end up with two articles, and, once they've reached the best shape they can, anyone who wants can do an AfD and get things seen through to a proper conclusion. Tyrenius 02:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan to me. This article features a lot of less than glowing data about Shapiro, but it's not the out and out attack piece concern that the first one was. Erechtheus 03:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, how is the article now?

I improved the article. How is it now? WAS 4.250 20:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead section is too long. It should be a summary of the main article. Tyrenius 06:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Shapiro referencing

Can you please provide tighter referencing (i.e. put the reference directly after the word illegal - I realise this is not MOS), or else give the exact reference(s) on article talk page, as this is a sensitive issue? At the moment with 5 refs all in a row, it's not possible to tell which one refers to which point, unless the whole of that section is referenced by all of those equally. Thanks. Tyrenius 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• "violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility"
• Definition of illegal: "Prohibited by law or official rules"
• Who says it was illegal? Supreme Court of Florida and THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
• Penalty for illegal ads? Lost his job. Lost his ability to practice law in Florida and New York. WAS 4.250 08:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "illegal", in a legal context, is usually understood to mean "criminal", not merely a violation of professional code. The definition you give appears to be a general one, not one from a legal context. This kind of misleading emphasis does not add to the value of the article, but rather makes it sound like an attempt to "nail" the subject. Shapiro's reprehensible actions should be allowed to speak for themselves without making Wikipedia look judgmental, especially in light of WP:BLP. Please take a look at Sarah Ewart's draft, which doesn't yet have as much substance as your version, but has a more appropriate tone for a biography of a living person. I'm hoping that, between the two versions, we can come up with an article that is substantial, well-sourced, and neutrally toned. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeff is correct. The term 'illegal' as used in the article is factually incorrect. And I removed the paragraph by WAS 4.250 that was inflammatory and untrue, per WIki guidelines on real persons. Also, some of the poor sources and their material should be removed. In fact, the entire article should be deleted. An article on Professional advertising (not just lawyers) might be a reasonable alternative. jawesq 15:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I just took a look at Sarah Ewart's draft. It wasn't what I had expected. It was far far better than I had expected. Keep it up, Sarah; when you are done, I'll bet we all agree to replace my version with yours. WAS 4.250 21:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of discussion that is untrue and inflammatory

I did not overwrite. I removed discussion, per Wikipedia guidelines on living people that was untrue and inflammatory. SHapiro's actions were not criminal. The WP guidelines allow for removal of all such discussio on the article and the talk pages.jawesq 15:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be of great assistance if you would use edit summaries to explain why you are removing other people's posts instead of just overwriting with no comment at all. Thanks, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Poor articles

This article sounds like a vendetta. In fact, this attorney was not disbarred, but suspended. And, it was not criminal. Before you start creating articles to blast someone - anyone, I don't care how reprehensible you think he is- you should consider what the ramifications might be. I don't care about this article anymore, but it is abundantly clear that some not only care, but are willing to write articles for the sole purpose of bashing - not for any real content or information purposes. That was clear when this article was recreated even before the deletion review was completed. As to Sarah's draft, where is the link that states that the NY Bar revised its ethics rules as a result of Shapiro? jawesq 06:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's on my drafts page because it isn't finished yet! I had trouble getting access to some articles that gave details re Shapiro's philanthropy. Someone else very kindly sourced them for me and I've been doing some writing off-WIki. I wanted to write a BALANCED article about the man so it is remaining in my userspace until I've finished. I have no interest in writing a hatchet-job and it will be completely referenced when its finished. Thanks for your concern, though, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Shapiro is no more notable than medical doctors who have had their licenses suspended, or revoked. I can think of one doctor (a former doctor of mine) who had his license revoked for killing a woman with the improper use of anesthesia, insurance fraud, falsely advertising he was board certified when he was never eligible to be board certified, and by the time the state attorney got involved (which is what it took to get this doctor's license revoked in ONE state), three criminal counts of sexual assault. It took 9 years for this doctor to lose his license. It was in the local newspapers. Evidently, this all wasn't enough for national news. And there is no political group called "Overdoctored". Would any of you think this doctor warrants a WIkipedia entry? Sadly, there was no news about state medical boards revising their ethics rules. This man is now in New York, and of course, not practicing medicine - it took awhile for the three other states in which he was licensed to catch up with him. Yet this man is not infamous. Why not? If a lawyer can be castigated in WIkipedia for misleading advertising, why don't we just begin a whole slew of articles about other sleazy lawyers, and doctors, and accountants, and.... Is Wikipedia now a forum for broadcasting one's own dislike of a particular profession? jawesq 07:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sham lawsuits?

"Shapiro is example number one illustrating a legal sham: "Are asbestos-related lawsuits a symptom of greedy lawyers and our society's jackpot mentality, or a just cause for innocent victims?" The author of this seems to think asbestos lawsuits are shams. I would like to ask this person who wrote this if he hs seen anyone die from mesothelioma - asbestos cancer -

after exposure to asbestos? If you have, I doubt you would call it a legal sham. What was my father's death worth? What was his life worth? What about the grief that broke his wife, devastated his young adult children and robbed him from ever knowing his grandchildren? Ever fulfilling the dreams he had with my mother, as they looked forward to retirement. He never got to see any of this. Instead, he suffered horribly from a fatal disease that he had NO part in causing, that only happened because manufacturers deliberatelly hid the dangers of asbestos (as evidenced in the many many documents found in discovery). The manufacturers of those asbestos products lied to the public for years, to keep workers on unti they were no longer able to work from the illness. Work them to death, and don't tell them that what they are doing will kill them --cheaper for the companies to work the men to death before they were replaced. THIS was the sham about the asbestos lawsuits. HOw many families were destroyed, as a result of an executive decision to downplay the dangers to keep productivity up. How anyone has the audacity to call asbestos-related lawsuits a sham, or a symptom of greedy lawyers and our jackpot mentality.....it takes my breath away. It shows an utter lack of understanding, a breathtaking ignorance, or... or a purely callous and evil excuse for a human being that I would never hope to find in my community.Jawesq 08:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

To re-emphasize, this entire paragraph was extremely judgemental. Even if you think all lawsuits should be barred, and victims (many who died as a result of asbestos) should be labeled 'shams', this is not appropriate for any encyclopedia.jawesq 15:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies

Reaction to Shapiro's misleading ads does not equate to changes in the law. These are changes in professional ethics rule. The Supreme Court limited the extent to which professional organizations can restrict advertising and the like. I changed the paragraph to reflect this. The problem with this article (other than it is not an article on a notable lawyer and shouldn't even be here) is that it is judgmental in tone, and inaccurate as to what is the law. Highlighting this problem is the overruse of political editorials or blogs as references. These are not appropriate references for an encyclopedia article. jawesq 15:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)