Talk:Rosario Isasi

Untitled
The Rosario Isasi article was unfairly deleted. Beyond the fact that her bio speaks for itself in regards to how "important" she is, Isasi is mentioned in the Bioconservatism and Transhumanism article. I have therefore recreated the article. --Loremaster 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It was deleted as a copyright violation. Whether or not the subject deserves a page, a copyright violation is still not wanted. - Andre Engels 17:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the first time around, this article was speed deleted because someone thought Isasi did not deserve an article. The issue of copyright violation, which was exagerated, was only brought up when I recreated the article. --Loremaster 20:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

importance tag
Just delete me from Wikipedia (By the way I never asked to be posted here and I do not consider my self to be prominent :))and stop wasting time discussing about whether to keep me or not! and FYI I have written more than one peer-reviewed article cheers :):):) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.109.227 (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Does she have more publications than this? If not, how can she be "prominent"? Any newspaper article or something? Tony Bruguier 15:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the quota of publications to be considered prominent? Does prominence automatically imply that someone has published something? --Loremaster 16:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Prominence means that we need some evidence that she is widely considered prominent - that is, a source other than her own (auto?)biography. Just zis Guy you know? 16:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Notability_(academics) Tony Bruguier 16:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) No source provided
 * 2) She's not a tenured professor
 * 3) Too few articles. There's no wikipedia threshold that I know of, but would she be considered for tenure track with that article count?
 * 4) No such article
 * 5) None mentioned in wikipedia article
 * 6) No event mentioned
 * 7) Apparently not anyone's advisor
 * 8) None mentioned

From the website linked to in the article: "Rosario Isasi is an attorney specializing in health and human rights, particularly with regard to the new human genetic technologies. She is currently a Postdoctoral Fellow for the Centre de Recherche en Droit Public (CRDP), Université de Montréal. Her research interests focuses on the ethical, social and legal implications of reproductive and genetic technologies and public health. She has a particular interest in genetics and developing countries. Rosario Isasi is a member of the Advisory Board of Global Lawyers and Physicians, a transnational professional association of lawyers and physicians working together to promote human rights and health. Ms. Isasi had participated in NGO briefings to the UN Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention Against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings, and has been an invited speaker and writer throughout North and South America, notably on global policies on the new human genetic technologies. She holds her J.D. from the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru ('92), where she served as a health law counselor. She received her Master of Public Health from Boston University, USA(‘02)."

Perhaps she shouldn't be judged by a criteria other than academic notability. --Loremaster 22:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The website is not actually helping. Wikipedia does not list every post-doc that is a member of a certain group (like IEEE) and gave a few talks at conferences. Let's take this (randomly chosen) post-doc; would you write an article on this person? As per Loremaster, we are using academics notability. I nominated for deletion because I thought this person wasn't important but I will abide by the vote and accept that she is notable. Prove it now, what is so special about her? Pick one item of the criterium list and give a proof. Tony Bruguier 00:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What I meant to say is that perhaps we should not use academic criteria in order to determine her notability. I think she is notable living person simply because she is a professional whose work is (relatively) widely recognized. However, this issue has been settled. Tony's question about Isasi's prominence was not about her notability as an academic but about whether or not she is a prominent bioconservative in light of the fact that she is listed as one in the Bioconservatism article. In other words, if this article was about Christianity, is Isasi a notable Christian. I would argue 'Yes'. --Loremaster 03:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, just because you also added an unsourced mention of her in Bioconservative doesn't make her prominent, it means we have two articles we need to fix per No Original Research. It is also not prominent to be called in as an expert to advise a panel as this is what academics do, especially since we have no record of what her influence was in the process. — GT 05:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Bioconservatism article is not original research. However, thank you for reminding me that this page needs one more source. As for your second comment, like I said above, her prominence is not related to her expertise or influence in any process but her ideological views. --Loremaster 13:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But the problem remains. Why is she notable? If we are not using academic criteria (weird for a post-doc), what are we using then? General person? Then we need some newspaper article. She is worthy of an wikipedian entry because she is in a wikipedia entry. This way, any person in the world is worth an entry by the Six degrees of separation. Bill Gates was friend with John Q Doe, so John Q Doe is worthy of entry. John Q Doe is married to Jane Q Nobody, so she is worthy of entry, etc... We all agree this doesn't work. Why is she notable??? Tony Bruguier 15:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * She is notable because she is living person who happens to be a professional, whose work is (relatively) widely recognized, who holds bioconservative views and is critical of Transhumanism. --Loremaster 19:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is probably the tenth time you've called her a widely recognized bioconservative without citing any sort of source that shows her alleged wide recognition. The absence of any kind of evidence is highly conspicuous at this point. — GT 03:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand. I'm tracking down those sources. I will post them as soon as possible (probably at the end of next week). --Loremaster 14:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If I can add a lighter note for a moment, the irony here is that some of the people who are defending this article are people who would probably be Isasi's ideological opponents. That may say something good about Wikipedia, dunno. Metamagician3000 06:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it is quite ironic. :) Anyway, we need to find a link to the leading paper she co-authored. --Loremaster 13:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no need for a link. All that's required is a citation in a scholarly journal - a paper source is as much a source as something on the internet. The citation is, Annas, G.J., Andrews, L.B. and Isasi, R.M., "Protecting the Endangered Human: Toward an International Treaty Prohibiting Cloning and Inheritable Alterations" American Journal of Law and Medicine 2002; 28: 151-78. As one indication of its importance, chapter 4 of Annas's important book American Bioethics: Crossing Human Rights and Health Law Boundaries is based on this article, as acknowledged on page 215. The citation for that book, in turn, is George J. Annas (title as above), Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. This book and the original article are key documents in the campaign that Annas leads for a UN convention to prohibit human cloning and germ-cell genetic manipulation. Isasi is obviously a minor player compared to George Annas and Lori Andrews, but it still seems clear enough that she is a significant player in the campaign, and that is the basis for her notability, not her academic seniority or a large number of articles. Metamagician3000 08:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

See the link I gave at the beginning of this thread. This is not enough for the large quantity (number 3) criterium. There are many people who publish a few articles but do not deserve an article in Wikipedia. And anyway, Loremaster suggested that we do not use the academics criteria. Tony Bruguier 12:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, would you please carefully read what I wrote above your edit. I did not suggest we use any Wikipedia academic criteria, such as how senior she is. No one is saying that she's a full professor, for example, and we're not counting articles. I've given you detail as to why this particular article was and is important to an international controversy about bioethical policy. The compelling point isn't so much the publication of an article as the way the article has been cited and used by Annas, and deployed by Annas and others, including Isasi, in a high-profile campaign within the international bioethical community. Of course many academics may have dozens of articles that go nowhere and accomplish nothing. That is not the case here. Some individual academic articles change history, as with the one published in Nature in which the cloning of Dolly was announced. No one is saying that Isasi's work is of that order of importance, but it just hows quantity of publications is not matters when people are publishing this sort of stuff. I don't see how anyone can deny that Isasi is of some importance, given the information I've provided.


 * Also, please remember that any specific criteria that are sometimes used here are inclusionary, not exclusionary. If someone has taken a significant role in an important international policy debate, I count them as notable whether they have met one of a list of inclusionary criteria or not. Metamagician3000 12:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I can't help but smile at the irony that I am here defending Isasi's importance. I have no sympathy whatsoever with her views. I simply know enough the relevant debate to know that she is someone of some importance in the camp of people whose views are opposed to mine. Metamagician3000 12:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't help but cringe that after repeated urgings you're still expecting us to take your word for it that she is influential, or that some book is important. Even more unnerving is that as a graduate student who undoubtedly works among dozens of people who have been published in scholarly journals many times and as a newly-ordained Wikipedia administrator who is supposed to be familiar with Wikipedia policies, you believe that a single publication makes you encyclopedia-worthy (or that a consequential mention in a book written by one of the article's co-authors seals the deal). What I personally have been waiting for weeks for is a mention in a non-academic, reputable source which documents her influence in the bioethics debate. — GT 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please avoid personal attacks. Metamagician3000 01:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * *sigh* I am get quite tired of this "fight" in light of fact that, as Metamagician explained, I don't agree with nor care about Rosario Isasi. If you want to delete this article, go ahead. I won't oppose the deletion nor will I recreate the article. I've already removed any mention of her in other Wikipedia articles. --Loremaster 21:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No need to delete all mention of her. If some mention needs to be made of her work, it should stay, even if the article gets deleted. It's just a matter of not linking to her name. Meanwhile, I'll await the inevitable fourth (is it?) AfD. It's of no consequence to me whether the article is deleted or not. In my honest opinion, she probably gets over the borderline of notability, but I've never felt that strongly about it or wanted to promote her views, which I consider misguided. I've adduced what I consider cogent evidence about her degree of notability - for example, Annas's book is available in any decent academic library, and people can easily borrow and read it - but I don't have hours to spend on something like this, which is very much a side issue. Metamagician3000 03:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So, can I take it that this article is no longer disputed? Metamagician3000 00:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)