Talk:James A. Shapiro

Unreliable sources
None of the following are reliable sources: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Blogs
 * evolvingthoughts.net
 * evolutionlist.blogspot.com
 * www.uncommondescent.com
 * Wikis
 * Including Wikipedia itself
 * Video download sites
 * vimeo.com
 * Bulletin boards
 * www.rationalskepticism.org

References: Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, ... & Shapiro
What part of "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources" do you fail to understand?

If "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" cannot be found, this article will be subjected to a WP:AFD, and most probably deleted. Adding more citations to Shapiro himself is simply 'rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrafn, have you attempted to locate and add additional, secondary sourcing? Cla68 (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * [Hrafn taps Cla68 on the shoulder, leads them to the talkpage headers and points to the find notice that he put there a day or two back.] What do you think that's there for? I put it there, and checked its results before putting the notability tag on the article. The response? A bunch of patently unreliable sources (see section above) and Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, ... & Shapiro. Hence this section. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And given that (i) the article offers no articulation of why Shapiro would meet WP:PROF (and thus generate coverage for his academic pursuits) & (ii) no indication that his idiosyncratic views have created sufficient stir to make it likely that a reliable commentator on Evo/Creo would give him significant coverage, it seems unlikely that such coverage will be forthcoming. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just checked Infotrac and found a few papers that he had co-authored, but otherwise nothing else about him. If you nominate it for deletion I will probably be one of the ones who votes in favor of it. Cla68 (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I like to leave some time between placing a notability tag & nominating for deletion -- both to see what sort of response it engenders (and to ensure that a large volume of less-easily-accessible material doesn't exist) and so as not to give the appearance of ram-rodding a deletion. Given the less-than-helpful response in terms of references added, I'll probably be keeping this period fairly short. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, did a quick search on the notability - found this: http://www.informit.com/authors/bio.aspx?a=4a188778-e161-443e-b9ed-c1e006ef02bf which states he was the "Darwin Prize Visiting Professor" at U of Edinburgh, as well as being given an honorary OBE for his contributions to higher education. He was also Jane Coffin Childs fellow in the laboratory of Francois Jacob at the Institut Pasteur in Paris. While this may not be enough (especially until I can independently verify)to establish notability (academic), it certainly lends credence that Shapiro's own writings aside, the subject may be justfy an article. Give me a few days to see what I can dig up? EBY  (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are some references from The New York Times and the Chicago Sun-Times. I can provide many more if needed. Drrll (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Note: apparently Hrafn doesn't actually want editors to provide references, as he refactored my starting list of references by stiking them and adding his commentary. And if he would have bothered to dig a little, he would have seen that yes, the last reference heavily focused on Shapiro was from The Chicago Sun-Times, as can be verified here: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1559253.html Drrll (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/17/science/scientists-from-russia-who-are-they.html?pagewanted=all
 * http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/05/science/some-thoughts-on-self-sacrifice.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm
 * http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/14/science/biologists-tally-generosity-s-rewards.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm
 * http://www.newmaterials.com/Customisation/News/Research_&_Development/University/Scientist_uncovers_secret_lives_of_bacteria.asp (Chicago Sun-Times 12/15/2004)
 * References #2 and #3 on that list could certainly go into the article, since they summarise Shapiro's work, and appearance in the NY Times certainly indicates notability. -- 202.124.75.180 (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Quit your considerably-less-thanWP:AGF complaining Drrll -- striking citations that are neither significant coverage nor independent is perfectly acceptable, when the issue is WP:Notability. Neither the URL nor the linked-to text that you yourself cited listed The Chicago Sun-Times as having anything whatsoever to do with that piece. Please don't blame me for your own failure to cite competently. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/17/science/scientists-from-russia-who-are-they.html?pagewanted=all NOT significant coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/05/science/some-thoughts-on-self-sacrifice.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm NOT significant coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/14/science/biologists-tally-generosity-s-rewards.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm NOT significant coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.newmaterials.com/Customisation/News/Research_&_Development/University/Scientist_uncovers_secret_lives_of_bacteria.asp (Chicago Sun-Times 12/15/2004) NOT Chicago Sun-Times, and NOT an independent source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Complete bollocks -- as I stated in my AfD nomination "reliable source coverage appears limited to very brief and highly tangential -- generally being asked to give a brief comment on the topic of some other scientist's research.". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

James Shapiro is well substantiated under the Wikipedia are listed that substantiate him with respect to WP:PROF guidelines. Specifically: James Shapiro has written two articles for Scientific American: "Transposable Genetic Elements" Cohen, S.N. and J.A. Shapiro. 1980. Transposable genetic elements. Sci. American 242 (2), 40-49. http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v242/n2/pdf/scientificamerican0280-40.pdf and Bacteria as Multicellular Organisms http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v258/n6/pdf/scientificamerican0688-82.pdf
 * 1) 7 The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

Here's an article he published for the Boston Review: http://www.bostonreview.net/BR22.1/shapiro.html

With respect to academia, James Shapiro's article :Thinking about bacterial populations as multicellular organisms" has been cited 447 times according to Google Scholar.

Perhaps, most notably, in the very famous Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District), "The first case to test a school district policy requiring the teaching of "intelligent design," (quote from http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover) James Shapiro was cited numerously by the defense (see Day 10, Day 11, and Day 21 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day10pm2.html ; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day10am.html ; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11am.html ; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day21am2.html) for examples.

Also I don't understand where [User:Hrafn|Hrafn] gets the idea that James Shapiro doesn't fulfill WP:PROF specifically, Criteria #2 "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." As the article itself says, he was named in 2002 an honorary Officer of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth! How is that not a highly prestigious honor at the national level?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.82.188 (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the general consensus is that OBE is not quite enough. But AAAS Fellow is, an in any case the AfD is over and decided and not even close. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)