Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 31/Shapiro

Longer discussion
'''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''':

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:


 * Verifiability
 * Neutral point of view
 * No original research

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. These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles.


 * Let AfD run course. - The article is being redone at User:WAS_4.250/1. If people were really being sincere about their motives, they would not object to a standard AfD approach. I am inclined to agree that Overlawyered is a questionable source, so that should certainly be addressed. But I get the distinct impression that certain people have a strong interest in seeing this article eliminated before the stated concerns can be addressed. Such legalistic railroading strikes me as unwarranted at best. --Bletch 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article was an attack piece. It is not 'legalistic' to delete unsourced (which it was initially) or poorly sourced (which it is now) disparaging statements - and since that is the entire article, there is nothing left to save.jawesq 01:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, please go look at that "rewrite". Here is an example sentence from it:
 * "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." [1]
 * The source is "Overlawyered", which does not say whether this is a lower court, or the state's higest court. In New York, the Supreme Court is the lowest court.  This is predictably misleading.  And what makes this worthy of an article, pray tell?  The sole purpose is to attack this lawyer.  Nothing in the rewrite is well sourced, with any legitimate references and it is still purely an attack.jawesq 02:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very simple solution - eliminate Overlawyered as a source. Doesn't strike me as rocket science. --Bletch 02:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the deleting administrator for weighing in on this. jawesq 02:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been asked if I have anything to add. I don't, really.  I think it's obvious why this article was written.  I think that's an unacceptable abuse of the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Since impugning motives is the order of the day here (WP:AGF notwithstanding), let me throw one out: What are the motives of those so desperate to revive a poorly written article regarding a non-notable lawyer? What purpose does it serve? What are you going to be left with at the end of the day, even if you get David McCollough (one the of the finest historians and authors of history alive today IMO) to rewrite it? It is still going to be an article about a non-notable lawyer. It not worth reviving and fixing. I know some people cannot bear to see their work tampered with, but this is beyond belief or reason. The original article was an attack piece without citation or working references. Speedy deletion was correct on its face according to the policy. 2ndly everyone keeps saying Wikipedia works by consensus, except apprantly when the policy works against them. What is the point of an afd if when the voices are heard and a majority say delete and the losing side says no and they prevail anyway? Is this Florida circa November 2000? Gfwesq 02:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Afterthought there is an appalling lack of understanding of law and legal logic here. Law is not as rigid as some of you imply. Case law changes when necessary as some of the admins point out Wiki policy does (when shown not to be working). The problem that I see is no one has submitted a compelling reason to not to have applied the Wiki policy on speedy deletion here or to revive it once the policy of speedy deletion was implemented viz a viz this bio. . Keep in mind the original article was citation free and the references did not work. If anything Shapiro's lack of notability was a compelling reason to have applied the Wiki policy of speedy deletion instead of trying to fix an ultimately unsalvageable article and is a compelling reason not to reivive an ultimately unsalvageable article.  Gfwesq 02:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the speedy deletion criteria in question are:
 * 6. 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.
 * 7. 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 Deletion of vanity articles for further guidance on this criterion).
 * #6 arguably applied to the original version, but probably not the version after some rudimentary sources have been added. #7 clearly does not apply because the importance and significance while certainly not given, is obviously disputed. --Bletch 02:46, 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)
 * Bletch, Number 6 is the reason. It did apply. The problem you have is that you are trying to go back in time to fix an article where the speedy deletion was correctly applied. If you had been as diligent in finding sources over the course of the last two years as you suddenly are now, after the fact, speedy deletion may not have applied. I realize as the original author, it is your baby and its hard to let go of it, but the fact is Jim Shapiro is not notable. He was newsworthy at one point, just as I have been in the news before, but that doesn't make either of us notable. You are confusing notability with temporary newsworthiness. I don't think Wikipedia is to function as a poor man's lexis nexis. Bottom line is speedy deletion was correctly applied. You are attempting to rewrite an article that no longer exists on a non-notable person. You have presented no arguments that he is notable that haven't already been knocked down. It not personal. Please don't take it as such. Gfwesq 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The only people who appear to be taking this personally are you and jawesq. Bletch certainly isn't, and neither am I.  You seem to have an odd understanding of the speedy deletion process.  Speedy deletion is for unsalvagable content, which this no longer was.  It may yet have merited deletion, but once something no longer satisfies the criteria -- no matter HOW LONG it DID satisfy the criteria -- we can't speedy delete it anymore.  Only the current state of an article is relevant, not its past history.  Powers 11:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel this way, but noone seems to be taking anything personally; project if you must. If you sincerely believe that had anybody been "as diligent in finding sources over the course of the last two years" that speedy deletion might not been applicable, then you are in fact conceding that the concept is not fundamentally unsalvageable, and hence that particular WP:SPEEDY criterion does not apply. --Bletch 12:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay here is the article and the references that now exist
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 James J. Shapiro ) was "famous for his absurd and annoying television commercials" 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'" and "in which he promoted his aggressive courtroom prowess".

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". "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." "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."

Now a Discussion of the sources that are now in the overhauled article
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:


 * Court list of disciplinary actions -- attorney discipline is always decided in a court.
 * Two local newspapers that ran the news at the time.

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.

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)

What the Jim Shapiro article actually says
''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:


 * 1. He makes bad 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'"[2] and "in which he promoted his aggressive courtroom prowess"


 * 2. Shapiro has never tried a case in court.


 * 3. He lived in Florida.  "He said he has lived in Florida since 1995 and, before his suspension, had limited contact with the Rochester office of Shapiro & Shapiro."


 * 4. He was sanctioned as a lawyer.  "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."

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.
 * Look at the above. Please explain how this is in any way other than disparagement.  What possible other purpose can this article have, when the entire article is a hit piece.

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).'
 * Unremarkable? Can't think of any lawyer more unremarkable.  If you google this person, you will find absoltutely nothing in the national news about him, let alone international news.  In fact, no assertion was made that this man was notable - just that it was interesting because of the 'advertising'. jawesq 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Associated Press doesn't count? It even specifically says "known for his television advertising" in the very first sentence.  That shows that an international news agency thought he was notable enough for his ads to mention it immediately following his name.  Powers 11:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Reason for WP:SALT
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)

Jim “the hammer” Shapiro: more sources for verification
Please note: this is a sample of the material available

Main Sources
Old files of Shapiro’s web site

Here’s a sample page:

Promotional site making claims for Shapiro + phone him + charity work

Legal Ethics Resources on the Web, prepared by Brad Wendel, Associate Professor of Law, Cornell University School of Law – includes Shapiro

Litigation online – Canadian Medical Association 

Shapiro in Motor magazine, 2002

From Buffalo News NY 2006 – restrictions on advertising, mentions Shapiro 

Brand Week 1999 – “a one-second TV spot that gained him national media attention” 

Rochester Democrat and Chronicle – good stories, but you have to pay (NB search archives 1999-current. Several stories, including charity work) 

The Daily Orange – S.O.B. Lawyer validates his title (+ Robert Williams quote) 

Overlawyered   

Lawyer Ads get loud on prairielaw.com

Shapiro’s books
“Sue the Bastards” – book by Shapiro 

Chapter 1 of “Million Dollar Lungs” book by Shapiro 

Shapiro in web culture
(Blogs show people still talk about him)

Song about Shapiro! 

Poem mentions Shapiro

A poet mentions Shapiro

Syracuse uni student – people who have influenced me – Shapiro 

A blog: “(The mind reels that Wikipedia has an entry on Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro. Wikipedia knows all.)”

Blog on Shapiro

Shapiro mentioned on Rochester designer web site

Someone fakes Shapiro on friendster – Rochester City News 

Jim the Hammer Shapiro (fake page shut down as can be seen in Friends section) on MySpace.com – again showing his continuing appeal 

“Who I’d like to meet section” for Kirsten on MySpace – Jim the Hammer Shapiro (only in cached version)

Associated Press story
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)

Additional articles sourced from Factiva
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:
 * Shapiro said in a videotape deposition that he has never tried a case in court, leaves the legal work to subordinates and lives in Florida.
 * Shapiro calls himself "the meanest, nastiest S.O.B. in town"
 * that a jury found his advertising was false and misleading, that his law firm mishandled a case involving Christopher Wagner.
 * the court awarded Wagner $1.5 million

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


 * This article also confirms the above
 * states that Shapiro has lived in FLorida since 1990
 * includes a statement from attorney for Wagner that the verdict was one of the first in New York state to hit a lawyer for false advertising under the General Business Law.
 * states Shapiro advertises: "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight" and "They start it, I'll finish it"

One-Second Ads Appearing On TV Paul Tharp 73 words 21 July 1998 New York Post


 * This article states that Shapiro launched one-second television commercials and got around subliminal advertising rules by creating the ads with extra frames.

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)

Every Attorney Should be Incensed
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)
 * This is what Wiki rule says:

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'm not sure you really understand the meaning of CSD A6. It's not here to rid Wikipedia of every article with a POV. It's here to take out articles that at best could only be vandalism. We can't cite any examples because...well...they're all deleted. An article that could be deleted by A6 would be something like "Joe is a moron because he is stupid and fat." Even with a stub, there would be no good way to save that article, and it would be deleted. You have to understand that speedy delete is a pretty drastic move. Nobody likes to have their work suddenly removed. Just let the WP:AFD run its course. alpha Chimp  laudare 04:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can read. It is very clear what the rule says.  If you would please address each point below, as I have done, it would be helpful - rather than simply saying I do not understand the rule.jawesq 05:41, 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)


 * Thanks. The only 'sources' added after the many complaints were a court case, a local newspaper and "Overlawyered".  A court case would be reliable, if the subject were at all notable.  However, here, the sole purpose of the article was to disparge someone who was not infamous (and maybe not even in his own community).  I hope it stays 'deleted' since Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for anti-lawyer articles - it is not "OVerlawyered", and I hope never will be.jawesq 18:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro
The article that was proposed as a CSD attack page read in total:
 * Jim Shapiro is a personal injury lawyer in Rochester, New York.

I don't see that as an attack.
 * Of course it isn't. This is the only sentence that wasn't.jawesq 05:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then it shouldn't have been tagged as CSD attack page. Tyrenius 07:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, if you go back to look at the timing, and when the tags were added, you will see that adding the tag most certainly was appropriate. But we can argue this until dawn, and it won't make any difference.  You have made your position abundantly clear, and anyone who reads the history can see for themselves where you stand and what was going on. We will obviously wait for the Rfd to expire, and see what happens, since the tags placed by 4 different users were deleted .  jawesq 08:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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)
 * I guess I'll step in to give admins a background on this dispute. In 2004, Jim Shapiro was created. It was recently brought up for AFD. Several lawyers (I know because of their usernames and userboxes) stepped in and decided it could be deleted as CSD A6. Yanksox stepped in and declined the CSD, saying it should remain in AfD. The db-attack tag was restored by Jgwlaw, reportedly "asking for another opinion." I removed the tag, saying that it had already been removed by an admin, and he should use AfD instead.

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. alpha Chimp laudare 05:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is untrue. My spouse, also an attorney, restored the tag.jawesq 05:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I changed the page backGfwesq 06:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No administrator can yet tell me how the rule does not apply here. I can read.  The meaning of the rule is very clear.jawesq 05:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Statement of decline. Yank  sox  05:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This website has links to Shapiro's TV ads. Here is Mr Shapiro's message:
 * A flavour of Jim Shapiro
 * I cannot rip out the hearts of those who hurt you. I cannot hand you their severed heads, but I can hunt them down and settle the score. I'll squeeze them for every dime I can, every single dime. I'm Jim "the hammer" Shapiro."

More leads here. Tyrenius 05:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your point? That this attorney is indeed unethical?   I don't doubt this attorney is sleazy.  And that appears to be the whole point of the article.  Again, if you read the rule, below, it is very clear.  Your discussion of the 'flavour' of Jim Shapiro is irrelevant.jawesq 05:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And which of the unsourced alleged facts does that website prove? I'll help you out. Zilch. Go back, read the version with the unsourced facts. Where does that website you point to show he lives in Florida, not NY? Where does that website show he was punished by the NY Supreme Court as the bio stated (which seems unlikely since wierdly enough the supreme court of NY is not the highest court in that state) and on and on and on. Bottom line. The article is negative in tone and unsourced. There is a wiki rule. Apply the rule to the facts, reach the proper result - speedy deletion Gfwesq 05:55, 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)
 * Yes, I surely understand that, Erechtheus. I was so appalled at the response, that I pursued it, as have two other editors.  The tags placed by four different editors have been deleted.  Your initial assessment was, in my opinion (and others who later added the tag), accurate.  However, at this point, we will wait for the end of the Rfd, and see what happens.jawesq 08:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Facts -- Please show how this is not true
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)
 * Oh dear. Wikipedia policy is not law.  Don't treat them the same way.  Policy is just a set of guidelines that have been worked out over the last five years, because they seem to make Wikipedia work better.  If they stop working, or if they don't work in a particular case, we change them or ignore them.
 * In this particular case, it's appropriate for the article go through AfD. Speedy deletion is designed for cases that are clear-cut and need no discussion.  If you're having to argue that something should be a CSD candidate, your position is lost by definition. Isomorphic 06:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. So it's okay for admins to ignore the guidelines, and make up their own.  Amazing.  Now it really does look like lawyer bashing.  Glad you straightened that out for me.  Now I know the guidelines don't apply when it comes to article on lawyers. jawesq 06:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not lawyer bashing. Even still, you really out to read this. The legalistic approach is probably not the best way to resolve a dispute on Wikipedia. alpha Chimp  laudare 06:49, 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)
 * Wikipedia works by consensus, and the consensus here indicates that it was better to leave the AfD to run its course properly. One reason for this is that after an AfD it cannot be recreated with the same or similar text, and, if it is, it can then immediately be deleted as a CSD. It is not "lawyer bashing" because it is not talking about, or making any implication about, lawyers in general, in the same way that Harold Shipman is not "doctor bashing" - it is an article about one particular individual. The very reason for him standing out is that he is not typical of all doctors. Without that premise the article would lose its validity. (I should stress I am not saying Shapiro is like Shipman, merely using this to illustrate a principle.) Tyrenius 07:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an enormous difference between Shipman and this article. Enormous.  If you don't see that, then I give up trying. Besides, you are deleting every 'speedy delete' that anyone adds, so it isn't worth it to argue.  jawesq 08:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as consensus, 4 different editors placed a 'speedy delete' tag. But it is true that the admins have the power to decide whether it will be deleted, regardless of whether or not it meets the guidelines.jawesq 08:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick note
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)
 * If it's a crappy unsourced biography delete it
 * It it's a biography of a person that's not notable, delete it
 * If it's a biography that's full of unsourced attacks, delete it or the edits that added those unsourced attacks
 * I'm not sure I completely agree with you here. If an article can be reverted to a state that doesn't meet the WP:CSD criteria then it should be reverted, and then dealt with from there. Otherwise I could remove the assertion of notability from any bio, and tag it CSD A7 to get rid of it. In this case such a reversion also leads to an unsatisfactory article that deserves deletion, but also deserves discussion to achieve consensus. Kevin 08:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then add the content back in with sources? --mboverload @ 08:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a case where the rules don't always work. If a page has an assertion of notability but no sources, or some other problem, then it's a case for AFD if someone wants it deleted. Removing the assertion of notability and tagging CSD A7 doesn;t seem like a good idea. But then neither does replacing an assertion of notability that is unsourced. Kevin 09:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I originally added the AfD, not knowing there was a criteria for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion would have been the preferred route, and the more accurate one.  The rules would have (and should have) worked very well on this.  Not only is the subject not notable, but the article is a pure attack page.  And, it met all the guidelines for speedy deletion.  And, four different editors thought so, as well.  I will note now that ALL the votes are 'delete', with the last one calling it an attack page (which is correctly how it would be defined) and requesting WP:SALT. Presumably then, there are actually 5 editors who deem it an attack page.  That seems like a consensus to me. jawesq 09:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is no longer unsourced. Can we please stop arguing about speedily deleting it now?  Powers 15:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The only sources are local newspapers and "Overlawyered" which is notorious for searching out lawyers to bash. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for bashing lawyers, which is exactly what this article is.  Wikipedia is not "OVerlawyered" and I hope will never be.jawesq 18:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Another quick note on this general issue
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)

Outside view by mboverload
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)
 * Tyrenius deleted your tag, calling it inflammatory. So I guess we will just wait for more 'deletes' (since so far they all are delete), and see if admins actually delete the article, or keep it. jawesq 08:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't we just let the AFD finish on this? It is so far 100% delete so all you gotta do is give it a little time. Argueing about this here is a waste of brain matter. :) ---J.S (t|c) 09:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There were a couple keeps, but 13 'deletes'. It was an attack page.  The sole purpose of the article was to disparage this attorney, who is not known outside his community.  If this is the standard for WIkipedia, then what I have feared is true - it is 'anything goes'.jawesq 19:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro
Jim Shapiro was deleted while I was rewriting it. See User:WAS 4.250/1. WAS 4.250 18:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the notability of "The Hammer" is very debatable, simply writing it off as an attack article suitable for speedy deletion seems to be excessive.  Can you place your rewrite in your namespace?  I'd be curious to see it. I'm an idiot that needs to pay attention more. --Bletch 18:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh... scroll up, folks. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It was deleted for what it was -- an attack page. Whether it be AfD or speedy delete - it should be deleted.  The lawyer in question was not notable (positively or negatively) outside his local community.  It was picked up by "Overlawyered" which is an organization that is notorious for leaving out important information and not having a neutral point of view.  If you all want Wikipedia to become another "Overlawyered", then I sure don't want any part of it.  Most attorneys I know would not have anything to do with it.jawesq 19:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The only sources that were finally added after all of this discussion were (1) a disciplinary case; (2) local newspaper and (3) Overlawyered. Before that, there were no sources.jawesq 19:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Some of the sources used were questionable, notably Overlawyered.com. A quick example. Overlawyered promotes a study design to show that the tort system is bad for the economy, the infamous Tillinghast Towers Perrin study. They don't tell you TTP is a conglomerate which business is insurance in one form (reinsurance) or another (consulting to insurance companies). It is an interested party. The last time I checked, Overlawyerd.com left this little detail out. Another fact left out, is TTP will not disclose its sources and methods behind the study's conclusion making it impossible to verify. Not exactly reputable science. Again: the propieter is from the Manhattan Institute. The Manhattan Institute is a conservative think tank (nothing wrong with that) that accepts money from large corporations and coincidentally publishes viewpoint articles consistent with the agenda of those corporations. Their practice is legal, but is it ethical and does it make the reader more or less likely to believe it is neutral? Most people, if they answer that honestly would say no. Overlawyered is not an NPOV site nor is it without an agenda (meant in every pejorative sense). As for the video's no-one can say they were not altered or tampered with by the site that puported to archive them as that site is apparantly a Canadian site run by a British company and there is no other info. Even if the recordings were accurate untampered reproductions, I have seen too many similar in different markets by other attorneys to say these were notable.Gfwesq 19:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro and admins and the community
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)
 * You most certainly did, Tyrenius. I do believe every lawyer should be incensed that this kind of article would even be defended by any admin.  I am sorry you didn't care for it.   But when attack pages are allowed to stay, which clearly violate WP:BIO, it does seem to be understandable that others might be incensed.  As to your own fury...you went on and on about this, even including a 'source' to prove that indeed Shapiro was an unsavoury lawyer.  The source you provided was unbelievably tabloid and unreliable - so much so that another editor even mentioned it and expressed surprise that an admin and experienced Wikipedian would do that.   Oh, and I might add that of course it is permissible to defend an article in Wikipedia.  I was shocked that an admin would defend this type of an article though - this article was a totally unsourced hit piece, that clearly met 'speedy delete' criteria.  That is why I pursued it. I also pursued it because I have seen a pattern of lawyer-bashing on WIkipedia that is disconcerting, to say the least.  It was my understanding that Wikipiedia is portrayed as an encyclopedia and not a gossip rag.  Am I mistaken in this?  Also, and finally, I also have the right to object to what seems unfair and incorrect actions.  That seems to be one thing this board is intended to address.  jawesq 21:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To add one more comment. When individual lawyers who are not known outside their own community are highlighted in a  purely derogatory way, it is an insult to all lawyers.  Would we negatively highlight a local doctor who was sanctioned in his own community, but had no other fame or infamy outside his community?  Of course not;  it would be ludicrous and speedily deleted.  Why is it that lawyers are somehow different?  jawesq 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to understand you - you seem to have a big persecution complex about Jim Shapiro being a lawyer. If you were not paying attention, the reason that the article was created was due to his over the top promotional antics. Whether you believe it or not, he would have gotten the same treatment had he been a doctor, exterminator or hot dog vendor that promoted himself similarly. Of course, I can only speak for myself. But then again, I was the one that originally created the article. Just out of curiousity, have you even watched the commercials? --Bletch 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I do not have a 'big persecution complex' for heaven's sake. I understand the reason you created it, but that is not worthy of an encyclopedia - that is my point.  And, it read like an attack.  I would object if this were done to anyone in any profession.  Yes, I did watch the commercials from the link and they were pretty bad.  However, as someone else pointed out, similar commercials are done by similar lawyers in almost any major metro areas.  Hopefully state bars continue to deal with those.  That doesn't make him noteworthy, and it doesn't warrant unsourced or poorly sourced statements that are purely disparaging.  jawesq 22:35, 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:
 * I see that Tyrenius has now added a link to a Harvard blog titled "f/k/a [formerly known as]". (That's the one that just labelled "here" above, a suprisingly opaque link label coming from an experienced Wikipedian.) In it, there is a glimmer of a proper source, namely "(AP/New York Lawyer, Lawyer Known for Ads Suspended, 05-03-04)". (That link requires registration at NYLawyer.com, so I'll leave it to those who actually want this article to do the homework of providing proper citation and quotes, instead of getting them third-hand from a blog.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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)
 * And I am happy to let the record speak for me, as well. Thanks.  If anyone checks the source you cited above, you can see how tabloid it is.  And, it turns out that the 'glimmer of a source' turns out not to be a reliable source, as Jeff stated in the WIkiquote Rfd on Jim Shapiro, when he recommended "Speedy Delete".

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)

Disparaging and Misleading
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)
 * It's deleted now and will never be created again. Can we just leave it alone? --mboverload @  21:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I surely hope so, MBoverload! Sadly, the debate continues, despite the fact that it was deleted, for good reason. jawesq 21:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just coming in here as an outside observer, you say that "Sadly, the debate continues, despite the fact that it was deleted." You seem to be the one provoking and continuing this debate.  I don't see why this debate needs to continue, it was deleted, everyone has accepted that.  If there was any question of its deletion, we'd see it on deletion review right now.  I think it's time to stop beating a dead horse.  Metros232 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay! I did not know there was a WP:DRV.  The only site I saw on the site was "Administrators may view the page history and content at Special:Undelete/Jim_Shapiro", and I perhaps wrongly assumed it was continuing.  Thank you for the input.jawesq 00:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The special:undelete part allows administrators to view (and restore if needed) content of articles that have been deleted. Deletion review, on the other hand, is a discussion to review the process in which an article was deleted if someone feels it was deleted out of process.  This does not restore the article, it is discussed and then a consensus is reached as to whether to bring the article back or keep it deleted.  Metros232 00:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see - thank you for explaining that to me. I am sorry I belabored this, then!~ jawesq 00:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, Power has challenged the deletion and is solicited the deleting administrtaor to change his 'vote'.jawesq 01:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I most certainly "is" not! I notified Tony Sidaway of the DRV discussion.  I did not "solicit" him to change his vote!  Powers 15:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia article -- Category: Sleazy Attorneys
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)


 * Your initial objection on my talk page was "Does Wikipedia Condone Gratuitous Lawyer Bashing?" You are now calling him a "sleazy attorney" and are yourself making an attack (in a way which the original article did not and which definitely would not be allowed to stand). You obviously accept that the article was not "gratuitous" after all. You say that I am proposing "a category of sleazy attorneys", which I have not done. I am merely pointing out material to address your original allegation. Now you have shifted your ground to address the notability or otherwise of the individual, which is an entirely different matter. One of the reasons for allowing articles to run their course in AfD is that often more material arises, which was not previously present, as has happened in this case. Admins have to make the best decision they can in the circumstances and should be given some leeway. Yanksox saw that an AfD was in progress and decided not to usurp it. I don't see this as anything to create such a storm about. Tyrenius 06:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This IS gratuitous lawyer bashing. This is totally DIFFERENT than whether or not Shapiro himself is sleazy.  (And I am not making these allegations, and certainly not in the article which is very different than the talk page).  You still don't understand the point, evidently.  The point is that the entire article was written to point out how this is an unethical/sleazy/bad attorney.  That is gratuitous - irrespective of whether it is true or not.  And according to WIkipedia guidelines - which you choose to ignore -- this article should be speedy deleted.  What upsets me, and Gfwesq (from what he has told me and has written) is that this entire process was handled badly.  Instead of addressing the guidelines, which I repeatedly asked you and others to do, you went on to try to 'prove' how this attorney is indeed 'unsavoury', even adding links that the article didn't include, and adding it to the main article.  Of course, the source you cited would never meet Wiki's "RR" on reliable reference.  Furthermore, whether or not it is true that the attorney is sleazy is totally irrelevant as to whether or not the Wiki guidelines were followed.  IN fact, they were not. SOmeone else said that they can be ignored.  Fine.  Then don't bother even trying to justify your actions.  It's just an admin's perogative - and evidently, when it comes to attorneys, anything goes.  jawesq 06:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The State of Affairs on this whole issue
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)
 * I'm sorry this has happened Jgwlaw, I have no idea why we are fighting over this. As a 2 year vetran of the site I have added the speedy tag.  Lets get rid of this stupid article and debate. --mboverload @  07:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Me too. I don't know why, either.  It's a shame, and doesn't speak well for Wikipedia, imo .  Let's just hope that eventually the article will be deleted, by a fair admin.jawesq 08:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy or slow, this article will be gone in 5 days at the most. The argument about the speedy tag is so irrelevant and this entire debate is so full of strawman arguments i'm thinking about becoming a cow. ---J.S (t|c) 09:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you are right. I fear that an admin may overrule the consensus and keep it anyway.  I hope nobody would do that, but I really don't know.  jawesq 09:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

James J. Shapiro
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)