First, even in the AfD, the tally was 13 to 2 to delete, with several weighing in to 'speedy delete' as an attack piece. And, Powers, your statement above is not true with a living person bio:
This page in a nutshell: Articles about living persons require a degree of sensitivity and must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. |
Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies:
We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. [1] These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles.
Thanks to the deleting administrator for weighing in on this. jawesq 02:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This also meets speedy deletion as a WP:BIO---- Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. jawesq 03:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I will state categorically that NONE of the references were here when I asked for an RfD and speedy delete. Even with these references, this article cannot be salvaged, as anything but an attack article on a non-notable lawyer. THe article has been overhauled, but it is still poorly sourced as I will explain below:
Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro (personal-injury lawyer [2] [3] James J. Shapiro [4]) was "famous for his absurd and annoying television commercials" [5] which were "flamboyant television commercials in which he promises to deliver big cash to accident victims [and] gleefully refers to himself as 'the meanest, nastiest S.O.B. in town'" [3] and "in which he promoted his aggressive courtroom prowess" [6]. Shapiro "was admitted to the practice of law by [the New York] Court on February 15, 1983, and, prior to December 2003, maintained an office for the practice of law in Rochester". [4] "Shapiro has never tried a case in court. He said he has lived in Florida since 1995 and, before his suspension, had limited contact with the Rochester office of Shapiro & Shapiro." [6] "A state Supreme Court jury nailed [Shapiro] with a $1.9 million judgment Tuesday in a legal-malpractice case [due to mishandling] the case of client Christopher Wagner, who was critically injured in a two-car crash in Livingston County. They also found that Shapiro's advertising, which led Wagner to him, was false and misleading." [3]
[[Category:American lawyers]] [[Category:Rochester, New York]]
1. Findlaw - excellent source, but all this is is a directory: James J. Shapiro, P.A., Inc. Address: 16th Floor 1600 Chase Tower Rochester, NY 14604-1908 Phone: (716) 546-7777 Fax: (716) 262-6361
2. Overlawyered - already discussed.
3. Daily Orange -- "famous for his absurd and annoying television commercials". This is a local newspaper, and it may well be that Shapiro is 'famous' in the local community.
4. New York Court Decisions (and Florida, since he had a license there also)- obviously a decent source, but this is a list of decisions about 8 attorneys who were suspended or sanctioned. WHy not have an article on each and every attorney sanctioned in New York?
5. Rochester Democrat and Chronicle - Also a local paper.
As an external source, this the website provided was entitled:
Jamming a Pair of Scissors Repeatedly Into Your Crotch So, after eliminating "Overlawyered" as a source, as the author suggested, you have:
That's it. Here is a quote from the Reliable References section:
Unverified material that could be construed as critical, negative or harmful in articles about living persons should be removed immediately, and should not be moved to the talk page. The same applies to sections dealing with living persons in other articles. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.
Undeleting Jim Shapiro is condoning tabloid journalism. The article as it was deleted was unsourced. Now the author has created references - when he had not for two years - because he is determined to broadcast this lawyer's misdeeds to the world. One could not find anything about him in any national news source, for a reason - this was a local incident and was only reported in a local paper.
If this article is undeleted, it will be deleted through an RfD. And I will personally ask for protection from recreation WP:SALT. jawesq 04:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
So what we have here is a desperate attempt by the author to provide sources to a previously completely unsourced article, whose sole purpose is to disparage this attorney. The article is not about the off-color commercials this lawyer made. It is not about how infamous he was nationally or internationally. It is solely an attack entry, as follows:
Okay now. This is what the entire article is about. It is self evident that this is nothing but an attack on a non-notable person. jawesq 03:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The original article as speedy deleted was entirely unreferenced.
According to Power's quote of the Speedy Deletion:
1. Attack pages. Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Citizen is a moron"). This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to.
2. Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. (See Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles for further guidance on this criterion).'
The reason for the deletion as WP:SALT was because it was so obvious that this was an attack entry, and that the subject is non-notable (with no assertion made for notability), that it needed to be protected from recreation. I'd say that is a strong statement. This admin who deleted it was not the only one to bring this up - another editor who said 'speedy delete' added the WP:SALT. And then the admin agreed so that was the way the article was deleted. For good reason. jawesq 03:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Please note: this is a sample of the material available
Old files of Shapiro’s web site [1]
Here’s a sample page: [2]
Promotional site making claims for Shapiro + phone him + charity work [3]
Legal Ethics Resources on the Web, prepared by Brad Wendel, Associate Professor of Law, Cornell University School of Law – includes Shapiro [4]
Litigation online – Canadian Medical Association [5]
Shapiro in Motor magazine, 2002 [6]
From Buffalo News NY 2006 – restrictions on advertising, mentions Shapiro [7]
Brand Week 1999 – “a one-second TV spot that gained him national media attention” [8]
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle – good stories, but you have to pay
(NB search archives 1999-current. Several stories, including charity work)
[9]
The Daily Orange – S.O.B. Lawyer validates his title (+ Robert Williams quote) [10]
Overlawyered [11] [12] [13] [14]
Lawyer Ads get loud on prairielaw.com [15]
“Sue the Bastards” – book by Shapiro [16]
Chapter 1 of “Million Dollar Lungs” book by Shapiro [17]
(Blogs show people still talk about him)
Song about Shapiro! [18]
Poem mentions Shapiro [19]
A poet mentions Shapiro [20]
Syracuse uni student – people who have influenced me – Shapiro [21]
A blog: “(The mind reels that Wikipedia has an entry on Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro. Wikipedia knows all.)” [22]
Blog on Shapiro [23]
Shapiro mentioned on Rochester designer web site [24]
Someone fakes Shapiro on friendster – Rochester City News [25]
Jim the Hammer Shapiro (fake page shut down as can be seen in Friends section) on MySpace.com – again showing his continuing appeal [26]
“Who I’d like to meet section” for Kirsten on MySpace – Jim the Hammer Shapiro (only in cached version) [27]
Below from www.nylawyer.com story credited to The Associated Press (renowned international news agency). NB you can get the story by registering free on this site and searching for the title)
NY Lawyer Known for Ads Suspended
New York Lawyer May 3, 2004
By The Associated Press
ROCHESTER, N.Y. -- Attorney James "Jim the Hammer" Shapiro, known for his television advertising, has been suspended from practicing law in New York state for a year. The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court said Shapiro's commercials were misleading and he impermissibly tried to solicit business from a comatose accident victim. The suspension resulted from a petition by the Grievance Committee of the 7th Judicial District. Shapiro said from his Florida home that the ruling is "unfair and unconstitutional" but has little effect. He sold his Rochester-based law firm six months ago, he said. The court faulted Shapiro's ads that said he will take certain actions on behalf of clients "when, in fact, respondent has not practiced law in a number of years and intended to take no action on behalf of any client." Shapiro said clients who responded to his ads were told up front that he wouldn't be representing them personally. He said the letter to the comatose woman told her to call for information only when she was better.
I hope these will prove helpful. It's not exhaustive by any means. Tyrenius 06:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
JUDGE WON'T PULL THE PLUG ON SHAPIRO & SHAPIRO ADS
87 words
24 July 2003
The Post Standard/Herald-Journal
Flamboyant personal-injury lawyer dealt a setback
417 words
14 June 2002
01:20
Associated Press Newswires
ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) - Personal-injury lawyer James "The Hammer" Shapiro got whacked with a $1.5 million judgment in a legal-malpractice lawsuit.
This article confirms:
JURY WHACKS TV AD LAWYER ; JIM "THE HAMMER" SHAPIRO HIT WITH $1.5M MALPRACTICE, FALSE- ADVERTISING JUDGMENT.
Jim O'Hara Staff writer
778 words
13 June 2002
The Post-Standard Syracuse, NY
One-Second Ads Appearing On TV
Paul Tharp
73 words
21 July 1998
New York Post
Of the main claims in the article, the only things I can't find supporting articles for on Factiva are ambulance chasing and the claim about the Japanese government. These articles, and a few more, available to anyone who wants them. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 06:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: Jim Shapiro
It appears that admins construe the WIki speedy delete rules differently than the plain meaning of the rules would require. That said, I think every attorney on Wikipedia should be incensed at the way this is being handled by admins. I do not know the subject of this article (Jim Shapiro). However, one would have to be blind to see this as anything but gratuitous and unsourced lawyer bashing. There is one sentence in the entire article that is not disparaging. Jim Shapiro is a personal injury lawyer in Rochester, New York.jawesq 04:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion. That appears not to be enforced. In fact, just the opposite seems to be the rule. jawesq 04:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this page was indefensible and had to be deleted. I've deleted it as an attack page. -- Tony Sidaway 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The article that was proposed as a CSD attack page read in total:
I don't see that as an attack.
However, going back into the history, this is presumably
the version you object to. The things in this article are stated as factual events and indicative of the career and activities of this individual. If that is so, then it is an accurate article. If these things are made up, then obviously that is a serious matter. If these things are distorted, or exaggerated in the career of an otherwise reputable lawyer, then that also needs to be addressed. It may be a question of putting them into proper perspective. However, you seem outraged simply because anything negative is associated with a lawyer. Wikipedia is here to present the truth, not to do a whitewash. You do not at any time say that these things are untrue, or unrepresentative of this individual. What you do say, quite correctly, is that they are not referenced, and you have removed them, as you are entitled to do. However, if they are properly referenced, then there is no reason why they cannot be reinstated, unless you provide a good reason otherwise. An attack page is when unfair or untrue negative statements are made against an individual. It is not an attack page to show that an individual has done unsavoury things, if that is what an individual has done. I am not making a pronouncement on this particular individual, because I have no knowledge of him. I am just drawing the distinction in principle.
Tyrenius
05:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
He immediately restored the tag, writing and signing a sentence against the decision within the article.
We got a lot of talk page comments and a post of village pump (this, it's been moved here). Tyrenius then removed the tag and migrated the village pump discussion here. ...And that's where we are now. alphaChimp laudare 05:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This website has links to Shapiro's TV ads. Here is Mr Shapiro's message:
More leads
here.
Tyrenius
05:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify both my status and my role here. I am not an attorney because I am not admitted to any state bar at the moment. I do have a JD. I added the speedy delete template because I thought A6 applied and know that editors are encouraged to be bold. When the template was removed by the first admin, I understood the opinion offered and was more than happy to have AfD run its course. I have not been involved in any subsequent activities involving this page on Wikipedia. Erechtheus 08:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
First, I have left the article with the tag removed.
Second. I will repeat the rule.
Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion.
1. This is an (alleged) biography
2. All the statements are unsourced.
3. All the unsourced statements but one (the single sentence stated above) are "negative in tone."
4. There is no way to make this NPOV. IF there is, please show me one.
4. Given (1), (2) , (3) and (4), administrators should delete the article.
Based on this direct application of the 'rule', how exactly can you say that this is merely my desire to 'whitewash' the article? IF the rule is not what is stated, then it should be changed. It appears that admins are reading into what the plain meaning is, to find a way to keep an article, then accusing me of wanting to 'whitewash' the article, and claiming that I want nothing negative said about attorneys.
That is not only untrue, but it is outrageous.
What I do see in Wikipedia is a lot of gratuitous lawyer bashing that seems to be condoned. jawesq 05:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
"The legalistic approach is probably not the best way to resolve a dispute on Wikipedia."
Clearly it isn't. And clearly the guidelines don't mean much, when it comes to articles like this. And yes, it most certainly is lawyer bashing. I daresay nothing like this would stand with any other professional. jawesq 06:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I only did a quick glance over, but sometimes things can be muddled:
Any one of those and you can delete the article. -- mboverload @ 07:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
First, I want to apologize if I came off strong here. The reason I have is because I see a disturbing pattern in Wikipedia. I don't appreciate seeing Wikipedia turn into a venue for politics and attack - "Overlawyered", for example, is a partisan organization whose sole purpose it is to disparage the legal profession. But Wikipedia is quickly turning into the same thing. If Wikipedia condones attack articles on attorneys only known to their local community (not even nationally, let alone internationally), then I don't believe I want to be a part of it. These kind of articles are not encyclopedic, but are intended only to ridicule or disparage. I have seen this frequently on Wikipedia and find it highly objectionable - especially since Wikipedia is portrayed as an encyclopedia and not a gossip rag. jawesq 19:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I have also been accused of being a WP:SOCK with Gfwesq. I would like to point out that Gfwesq and I are husband and wife. The last time I checked, husband and wife are not the same person. It has been suggested to me that we should not be allowed to cast independent votes, or be included in a consensus as 2 people. With this line of reasoning, one could exclude sisters and brothers, mother and daughter, and on down the line. In this particular article, there were a total of 13 'deletes' including Gfwesq and me. If you remove both of us, there are still 11. And there were 2 independent tags for 'speedy delete' - not including Gfwesq or me. I don't really know what to do about this. jawesq 19:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The article as it stands now is ready for speedy. There is no content and no claim to be notable.
I'm NOT making a comment on this particular person (every claim is unsourced), but there are tens of millions of sleazy people and we don't have an article on every one of them. There is a lot of disdain for lawyers, but taking it out on this guy is no reason to keep an article about him. I would defend lawyers, but we're not here to discuss lawyer ethics. Delete it. Get it over with. -- mboverload @ 07:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Jim Shapiro was deleted while I was rewriting it. See User:WAS 4.250/1. WAS 4.250 18:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware of any admins who have displayed "fury" over this matter, and it's certainly not something I feel. The only fury I have seen is your own statement "Every Attorney Should be Incensed". Nor, for that matter, am I aware of any admins who have "defended" it (though it is perfectly permissable for anyone to do so if they wish); I have made my own position clear on the AfD that I was not taking sides. However, you have made an obvious reference to me and stated that I "quoted all the lines from the lawyer's TV ad to show (how) unsavoury the lawyer is". I did quote the lines under the heading "A flavour of Jim Shapiro", but it is up to you if you wish to find the flavour "unsavoury", as it's not a word I used. As this individual was the centre of the debate, it did not seem unwarranted to let him speak for himself. I'm not going to let my actions be caricatured, nor those of other admins and editors. I have seen nothing but good intent and civility from them. I recommend that you assume good faith, not only towards specific individuals, but to the ability of the community as a whole to reach an outcome. Tyrenius 20:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict} I'd be grateful if you could read my preceding post. I've stated my position and I'm happy to let the record speak for itself, as well as where the fury lies. As far as the "unbelievably tabloid and unreliable source", which caused such an unfavourable reaction from another editor, the text is as follows:
The article can't be "totally unsourced" as you state above, since you are talking about the "state Supreme Court" as one below. I don't work on legal articles, so I can't comment on "lawyer-bashing", but if you feel there is a systemic bias, this is not the right place to address it. If you want to talk about actions, there is a debate on AN/I. I think I've said quite enough, and I'm sure everyone understands your grievances also. Tyrenius 22:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have run into about a dozen articles in Wikipedia that were overt lawyer-bashing, though none as ripe for speedy deletion as this one. This one took my breath away. jawesq 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is another example of a misleading statement that was on the 'article': "A state Supreme Court jury nailed [Shapiro] with a $1.9 million judgment Tuesday in a legal-malpractice case [due to mishandling] the case of client Christopher Wagner, who was critically injured in a two-car crash in Livingston County. They also found that Shapiro's advertising, which led Wagner to him, was false and misleading."
The 'source' finally provided was "Overlawyered". Overlawyered does not even say what "state Supreme Court" sanctioned him. In fact, it would not suprise me if the state supreme court is the the lowest court or the first appellate court - In New York, for examle, the state supreme court is the lowest court. It is predictably misleading that Overlawyering does not mention this, but rather insinuates that it is the highest court in the state.jawesq 20:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
But, lets say for argument purposes that it is the highest state supreme court. What is the point of this statement? jawesq 21:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the 'flavour' of Jim Shapiro has been noted by an insightful Admin, why don't we just create a category of sleazy attorneys? Then you can add every attorney you think is sleazy, cite his/her webpage and make unsourced disparaging remarks about them. That is no different than what the admin here proposes. He found a website that is not even cited in the article, as 'proof' that this attorney is sleazy - the "flavour of Jim Shapiro". The only reason to have an article on this individual is to show he is sleazy, and that is my point.
Shoot, we could have an article on every doctor who was sued for malpractice.
Every admin that abused their powers. Is this really any different? jawesq 05:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It is abundantly clear that the article Jim Shapiro meets Wikipedia guidelines for speedy deletion. It is equally clear that some admins chose to ignore those guidelines, to the point of emphasizing with an unreliable source that the attorney is 'unsavoury' as charged. Therefore, it is pointless to continue this 'discussion', since lawyer bashing (including an article on an attorney for the sole pupose of disparaging him/her) is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia. No, it is more than acceptable - it is defended with great rigor. This is not what an encyclopedia should do, and is not even appropriate, based on Wikipedia's own guidelines. But it is what it is, and so now I know. Thank you all for sharing and enlightening me on the attitude of admins here. jawesq 07:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
James J. Shapiro is now ready for other people to edit. I hope I'm done here and can move on to other stuff. Cheers. WAS 4.250 21:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
First, even in the AfD, the tally was 13 to 2 to delete, with several weighing in to 'speedy delete' as an attack piece. And, Powers, your statement above is not true with a living person bio:
This page in a nutshell: Articles about living persons require a degree of sensitivity and must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. |
Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies:
We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. [1] These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles.
Thanks to the deleting administrator for weighing in on this. jawesq 02:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This also meets speedy deletion as a WP:BIO---- Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. jawesq 03:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I will state categorically that NONE of the references were here when I asked for an RfD and speedy delete. Even with these references, this article cannot be salvaged, as anything but an attack article on a non-notable lawyer. THe article has been overhauled, but it is still poorly sourced as I will explain below:
Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro (personal-injury lawyer [2] [3] James J. Shapiro [4]) was "famous for his absurd and annoying television commercials" [5] which were "flamboyant television commercials in which he promises to deliver big cash to accident victims [and] gleefully refers to himself as 'the meanest, nastiest S.O.B. in town'" [3] and "in which he promoted his aggressive courtroom prowess" [6]. Shapiro "was admitted to the practice of law by [the New York] Court on February 15, 1983, and, prior to December 2003, maintained an office for the practice of law in Rochester". [4] "Shapiro has never tried a case in court. He said he has lived in Florida since 1995 and, before his suspension, had limited contact with the Rochester office of Shapiro & Shapiro." [6] "A state Supreme Court jury nailed [Shapiro] with a $1.9 million judgment Tuesday in a legal-malpractice case [due to mishandling] the case of client Christopher Wagner, who was critically injured in a two-car crash in Livingston County. They also found that Shapiro's advertising, which led Wagner to him, was false and misleading." [3]
[[Category:American lawyers]] [[Category:Rochester, New York]]
1. Findlaw - excellent source, but all this is is a directory: James J. Shapiro, P.A., Inc. Address: 16th Floor 1600 Chase Tower Rochester, NY 14604-1908 Phone: (716) 546-7777 Fax: (716) 262-6361
2. Overlawyered - already discussed.
3. Daily Orange -- "famous for his absurd and annoying television commercials". This is a local newspaper, and it may well be that Shapiro is 'famous' in the local community.
4. New York Court Decisions (and Florida, since he had a license there also)- obviously a decent source, but this is a list of decisions about 8 attorneys who were suspended or sanctioned. WHy not have an article on each and every attorney sanctioned in New York?
5. Rochester Democrat and Chronicle - Also a local paper.
As an external source, this the website provided was entitled:
Jamming a Pair of Scissors Repeatedly Into Your Crotch So, after eliminating "Overlawyered" as a source, as the author suggested, you have:
That's it. Here is a quote from the Reliable References section:
Unverified material that could be construed as critical, negative or harmful in articles about living persons should be removed immediately, and should not be moved to the talk page. The same applies to sections dealing with living persons in other articles. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.
Undeleting Jim Shapiro is condoning tabloid journalism. The article as it was deleted was unsourced. Now the author has created references - when he had not for two years - because he is determined to broadcast this lawyer's misdeeds to the world. One could not find anything about him in any national news source, for a reason - this was a local incident and was only reported in a local paper.
If this article is undeleted, it will be deleted through an RfD. And I will personally ask for protection from recreation WP:SALT. jawesq 04:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
So what we have here is a desperate attempt by the author to provide sources to a previously completely unsourced article, whose sole purpose is to disparage this attorney. The article is not about the off-color commercials this lawyer made. It is not about how infamous he was nationally or internationally. It is solely an attack entry, as follows:
Okay now. This is what the entire article is about. It is self evident that this is nothing but an attack on a non-notable person. jawesq 03:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The original article as speedy deleted was entirely unreferenced.
According to Power's quote of the Speedy Deletion:
1. Attack pages. Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Citizen is a moron"). This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to.
2. Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. (See Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles for further guidance on this criterion).'
The reason for the deletion as WP:SALT was because it was so obvious that this was an attack entry, and that the subject is non-notable (with no assertion made for notability), that it needed to be protected from recreation. I'd say that is a strong statement. This admin who deleted it was not the only one to bring this up - another editor who said 'speedy delete' added the WP:SALT. And then the admin agreed so that was the way the article was deleted. For good reason. jawesq 03:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Please note: this is a sample of the material available
Old files of Shapiro’s web site [1]
Here’s a sample page: [2]
Promotional site making claims for Shapiro + phone him + charity work [3]
Legal Ethics Resources on the Web, prepared by Brad Wendel, Associate Professor of Law, Cornell University School of Law – includes Shapiro [4]
Litigation online – Canadian Medical Association [5]
Shapiro in Motor magazine, 2002 [6]
From Buffalo News NY 2006 – restrictions on advertising, mentions Shapiro [7]
Brand Week 1999 – “a one-second TV spot that gained him national media attention” [8]
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle – good stories, but you have to pay
(NB search archives 1999-current. Several stories, including charity work)
[9]
The Daily Orange – S.O.B. Lawyer validates his title (+ Robert Williams quote) [10]
Overlawyered [11] [12] [13] [14]
Lawyer Ads get loud on prairielaw.com [15]
“Sue the Bastards” – book by Shapiro [16]
Chapter 1 of “Million Dollar Lungs” book by Shapiro [17]
(Blogs show people still talk about him)
Song about Shapiro! [18]
Poem mentions Shapiro [19]
A poet mentions Shapiro [20]
Syracuse uni student – people who have influenced me – Shapiro [21]
A blog: “(The mind reels that Wikipedia has an entry on Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro. Wikipedia knows all.)” [22]
Blog on Shapiro [23]
Shapiro mentioned on Rochester designer web site [24]
Someone fakes Shapiro on friendster – Rochester City News [25]
Jim the Hammer Shapiro (fake page shut down as can be seen in Friends section) on MySpace.com – again showing his continuing appeal [26]
“Who I’d like to meet section” for Kirsten on MySpace – Jim the Hammer Shapiro (only in cached version) [27]
Below from www.nylawyer.com story credited to The Associated Press (renowned international news agency). NB you can get the story by registering free on this site and searching for the title)
NY Lawyer Known for Ads Suspended
New York Lawyer May 3, 2004
By The Associated Press
ROCHESTER, N.Y. -- Attorney James "Jim the Hammer" Shapiro, known for his television advertising, has been suspended from practicing law in New York state for a year. The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court said Shapiro's commercials were misleading and he impermissibly tried to solicit business from a comatose accident victim. The suspension resulted from a petition by the Grievance Committee of the 7th Judicial District. Shapiro said from his Florida home that the ruling is "unfair and unconstitutional" but has little effect. He sold his Rochester-based law firm six months ago, he said. The court faulted Shapiro's ads that said he will take certain actions on behalf of clients "when, in fact, respondent has not practiced law in a number of years and intended to take no action on behalf of any client." Shapiro said clients who responded to his ads were told up front that he wouldn't be representing them personally. He said the letter to the comatose woman told her to call for information only when she was better.
I hope these will prove helpful. It's not exhaustive by any means. Tyrenius 06:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
JUDGE WON'T PULL THE PLUG ON SHAPIRO & SHAPIRO ADS
87 words
24 July 2003
The Post Standard/Herald-Journal
Flamboyant personal-injury lawyer dealt a setback
417 words
14 June 2002
01:20
Associated Press Newswires
ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) - Personal-injury lawyer James "The Hammer" Shapiro got whacked with a $1.5 million judgment in a legal-malpractice lawsuit.
This article confirms:
JURY WHACKS TV AD LAWYER ; JIM "THE HAMMER" SHAPIRO HIT WITH $1.5M MALPRACTICE, FALSE- ADVERTISING JUDGMENT.
Jim O'Hara Staff writer
778 words
13 June 2002
The Post-Standard Syracuse, NY
One-Second Ads Appearing On TV
Paul Tharp
73 words
21 July 1998
New York Post
Of the main claims in the article, the only things I can't find supporting articles for on Factiva are ambulance chasing and the claim about the Japanese government. These articles, and a few more, available to anyone who wants them. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 06:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: Jim Shapiro
It appears that admins construe the WIki speedy delete rules differently than the plain meaning of the rules would require. That said, I think every attorney on Wikipedia should be incensed at the way this is being handled by admins. I do not know the subject of this article (Jim Shapiro). However, one would have to be blind to see this as anything but gratuitous and unsourced lawyer bashing. There is one sentence in the entire article that is not disparaging. Jim Shapiro is a personal injury lawyer in Rochester, New York.jawesq 04:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion. That appears not to be enforced. In fact, just the opposite seems to be the rule. jawesq 04:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this page was indefensible and had to be deleted. I've deleted it as an attack page. -- Tony Sidaway 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The article that was proposed as a CSD attack page read in total:
I don't see that as an attack.
However, going back into the history, this is presumably
the version you object to. The things in this article are stated as factual events and indicative of the career and activities of this individual. If that is so, then it is an accurate article. If these things are made up, then obviously that is a serious matter. If these things are distorted, or exaggerated in the career of an otherwise reputable lawyer, then that also needs to be addressed. It may be a question of putting them into proper perspective. However, you seem outraged simply because anything negative is associated with a lawyer. Wikipedia is here to present the truth, not to do a whitewash. You do not at any time say that these things are untrue, or unrepresentative of this individual. What you do say, quite correctly, is that they are not referenced, and you have removed them, as you are entitled to do. However, if they are properly referenced, then there is no reason why they cannot be reinstated, unless you provide a good reason otherwise. An attack page is when unfair or untrue negative statements are made against an individual. It is not an attack page to show that an individual has done unsavoury things, if that is what an individual has done. I am not making a pronouncement on this particular individual, because I have no knowledge of him. I am just drawing the distinction in principle.
Tyrenius
05:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
He immediately restored the tag, writing and signing a sentence against the decision within the article.
We got a lot of talk page comments and a post of village pump (this, it's been moved here). Tyrenius then removed the tag and migrated the village pump discussion here. ...And that's where we are now. alphaChimp laudare 05:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This website has links to Shapiro's TV ads. Here is Mr Shapiro's message:
More leads
here.
Tyrenius
05:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify both my status and my role here. I am not an attorney because I am not admitted to any state bar at the moment. I do have a JD. I added the speedy delete template because I thought A6 applied and know that editors are encouraged to be bold. When the template was removed by the first admin, I understood the opinion offered and was more than happy to have AfD run its course. I have not been involved in any subsequent activities involving this page on Wikipedia. Erechtheus 08:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
First, I have left the article with the tag removed.
Second. I will repeat the rule.
Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion.
1. This is an (alleged) biography
2. All the statements are unsourced.
3. All the unsourced statements but one (the single sentence stated above) are "negative in tone."
4. There is no way to make this NPOV. IF there is, please show me one.
4. Given (1), (2) , (3) and (4), administrators should delete the article.
Based on this direct application of the 'rule', how exactly can you say that this is merely my desire to 'whitewash' the article? IF the rule is not what is stated, then it should be changed. It appears that admins are reading into what the plain meaning is, to find a way to keep an article, then accusing me of wanting to 'whitewash' the article, and claiming that I want nothing negative said about attorneys.
That is not only untrue, but it is outrageous.
What I do see in Wikipedia is a lot of gratuitous lawyer bashing that seems to be condoned. jawesq 05:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
"The legalistic approach is probably not the best way to resolve a dispute on Wikipedia."
Clearly it isn't. And clearly the guidelines don't mean much, when it comes to articles like this. And yes, it most certainly is lawyer bashing. I daresay nothing like this would stand with any other professional. jawesq 06:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I only did a quick glance over, but sometimes things can be muddled:
Any one of those and you can delete the article. -- mboverload @ 07:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
First, I want to apologize if I came off strong here. The reason I have is because I see a disturbing pattern in Wikipedia. I don't appreciate seeing Wikipedia turn into a venue for politics and attack - "Overlawyered", for example, is a partisan organization whose sole purpose it is to disparage the legal profession. But Wikipedia is quickly turning into the same thing. If Wikipedia condones attack articles on attorneys only known to their local community (not even nationally, let alone internationally), then I don't believe I want to be a part of it. These kind of articles are not encyclopedic, but are intended only to ridicule or disparage. I have seen this frequently on Wikipedia and find it highly objectionable - especially since Wikipedia is portrayed as an encyclopedia and not a gossip rag. jawesq 19:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I have also been accused of being a WP:SOCK with Gfwesq. I would like to point out that Gfwesq and I are husband and wife. The last time I checked, husband and wife are not the same person. It has been suggested to me that we should not be allowed to cast independent votes, or be included in a consensus as 2 people. With this line of reasoning, one could exclude sisters and brothers, mother and daughter, and on down the line. In this particular article, there were a total of 13 'deletes' including Gfwesq and me. If you remove both of us, there are still 11. And there were 2 independent tags for 'speedy delete' - not including Gfwesq or me. I don't really know what to do about this. jawesq 19:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The article as it stands now is ready for speedy. There is no content and no claim to be notable.
I'm NOT making a comment on this particular person (every claim is unsourced), but there are tens of millions of sleazy people and we don't have an article on every one of them. There is a lot of disdain for lawyers, but taking it out on this guy is no reason to keep an article about him. I would defend lawyers, but we're not here to discuss lawyer ethics. Delete it. Get it over with. -- mboverload @ 07:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Jim Shapiro was deleted while I was rewriting it. See User:WAS 4.250/1. WAS 4.250 18:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware of any admins who have displayed "fury" over this matter, and it's certainly not something I feel. The only fury I have seen is your own statement "Every Attorney Should be Incensed". Nor, for that matter, am I aware of any admins who have "defended" it (though it is perfectly permissable for anyone to do so if they wish); I have made my own position clear on the AfD that I was not taking sides. However, you have made an obvious reference to me and stated that I "quoted all the lines from the lawyer's TV ad to show (how) unsavoury the lawyer is". I did quote the lines under the heading "A flavour of Jim Shapiro", but it is up to you if you wish to find the flavour "unsavoury", as it's not a word I used. As this individual was the centre of the debate, it did not seem unwarranted to let him speak for himself. I'm not going to let my actions be caricatured, nor those of other admins and editors. I have seen nothing but good intent and civility from them. I recommend that you assume good faith, not only towards specific individuals, but to the ability of the community as a whole to reach an outcome. Tyrenius 20:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict} I'd be grateful if you could read my preceding post. I've stated my position and I'm happy to let the record speak for itself, as well as where the fury lies. As far as the "unbelievably tabloid and unreliable source", which caused such an unfavourable reaction from another editor, the text is as follows:
The article can't be "totally unsourced" as you state above, since you are talking about the "state Supreme Court" as one below. I don't work on legal articles, so I can't comment on "lawyer-bashing", but if you feel there is a systemic bias, this is not the right place to address it. If you want to talk about actions, there is a debate on AN/I. I think I've said quite enough, and I'm sure everyone understands your grievances also. Tyrenius 22:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have run into about a dozen articles in Wikipedia that were overt lawyer-bashing, though none as ripe for speedy deletion as this one. This one took my breath away. jawesq 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is another example of a misleading statement that was on the 'article': "A state Supreme Court jury nailed [Shapiro] with a $1.9 million judgment Tuesday in a legal-malpractice case [due to mishandling] the case of client Christopher Wagner, who was critically injured in a two-car crash in Livingston County. They also found that Shapiro's advertising, which led Wagner to him, was false and misleading."
The 'source' finally provided was "Overlawyered". Overlawyered does not even say what "state Supreme Court" sanctioned him. In fact, it would not suprise me if the state supreme court is the the lowest court or the first appellate court - In New York, for examle, the state supreme court is the lowest court. It is predictably misleading that Overlawyering does not mention this, but rather insinuates that it is the highest court in the state.jawesq 20:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
But, lets say for argument purposes that it is the highest state supreme court. What is the point of this statement? jawesq 21:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Since the 'flavour' of Jim Shapiro has been noted by an insightful Admin, why don't we just create a category of sleazy attorneys? Then you can add every attorney you think is sleazy, cite his/her webpage and make unsourced disparaging remarks about them. That is no different than what the admin here proposes. He found a website that is not even cited in the article, as 'proof' that this attorney is sleazy - the "flavour of Jim Shapiro". The only reason to have an article on this individual is to show he is sleazy, and that is my point.
Shoot, we could have an article on every doctor who was sued for malpractice.
Every admin that abused their powers. Is this really any different? jawesq 05:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It is abundantly clear that the article Jim Shapiro meets Wikipedia guidelines for speedy deletion. It is equally clear that some admins chose to ignore those guidelines, to the point of emphasizing with an unreliable source that the attorney is 'unsavoury' as charged. Therefore, it is pointless to continue this 'discussion', since lawyer bashing (including an article on an attorney for the sole pupose of disparaging him/her) is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia. No, it is more than acceptable - it is defended with great rigor. This is not what an encyclopedia should do, and is not even appropriate, based on Wikipedia's own guidelines. But it is what it is, and so now I know. Thank you all for sharing and enlightening me on the attitude of admins here. jawesq 07:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
James J. Shapiro is now ready for other people to edit. I hope I'm done here and can move on to other stuff. Cheers. WAS 4.250 21:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)