Jump to content

Talk:Tort reform in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FRCP11 (talk | contribs) at 03:12, 20 October 2005 (→Noneconomic Damage Caps: factor discussion to fit template, respond). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The previous discussions on this page have been archived by Editor FRCP11. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Add new subjects to the bottom of the talk page.

Previous discussions:

Structure of Article

I think it is unwise to structure the article the way it has been revised. One section should be for the pro arguments made by tort reform advocates, on one for the con arguments made by opponents. It was set up in this manner yesterday, and I thought that was wise. Dividing the article in this way will permit the debate to settle down. It will encourage the respective arguments to be refined. It will make for a more clearly understandable article to the reader. Otherwise, it invites one side to try to frame the arguments of the other side with too many additional clarifications. In a sense, it invites parties to dispute and sabatage the arguments of one another so that arguments become a muddled mess.

--Whitfield Larrabee 14:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Organizationally, it's easier for the reader to follow the issues by an organization of A/~A B/~B C/~C D/~D than one of ABD~B~C~A~D, which was the way it was. I fail to see what's wrong about the likelihood of someone refining the arguments. There were several claims that were made in the anti-reform section that were categorically false, and it's useful to have the other side juxtaposed. For example, you had quoted Graham in the opposition section, when Graham's study is one of the leading arguments against the current product liability system. It doesn't make sense to split Graham's conclusions between pro and con--far better to have all of Graham's conclusions in one place. If someone is misframing (and I see no evidence that anyone is misframing), it can be edited. Please read the FAQ, as you continue to violate Talk page style conventions. -- FRCP11 15:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So-called "scare quotes"

(Original PPE 15 Oct. remark from archive page, inserted here for purposes of RfC): When you put scare quotes around "tort reform," you aren't taking a NPOV. People who advocate tort reforms never use scare quotes; their opponents do that to show their disdain for reform proposals.) -- FRCP11 00:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the quotation marks is that "reform" is a POV word. It strongly connotes a change for the better. My idea of tort reform would be to award a prevailing plaintiff prejudgment interest, establishing fairness with contract cases and removing defendants' current incentive to delay. Of course, I'm a plaintiff's lawyer, and "tort reform" is being pushed by defendants' interests who have no concern for fairness or for improving the efficiency of the system, except under the circumstances that those values happen to coincide with their economic interests. It's POV to say or imply that capping noneconomic damages is a reform but awarding prejudgment interest is not a reform. JamesMLane 06:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That exact lexical issue is addressed in the second paragraph of the current article. We don't put scare quotes around "anti-Semite," despite the paradox that many anti-Semites are technically Semites. The Washington Post or Associated Press doesn't put scare quotes around "tort reform"; the Los Angeles Times, which regularly opposes tort reform, doesn't use scare quotes, so the NPOV thing to do is to follow the mainstream style and (as the article does) note the controversy over the terminology, rather than to adopt the style of the most fervent opponents. -- FRCP11 10:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent possible, we should avoid adopting either side's style. In the later sections of the article, neutral terms like "proponents of change" wouldn't require quotation marks. JamesMLane 10:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Proponents of change" is both clumsy and inaccurate--what are we to do about the states where tort reformers have succeeded in passing non-economic damages caps in the legislature, but tort reform opponents are suing in court to change the law? Oregon, where tort reformers succeeded in passing a statute of repose, but the plaintiffs' bar is lobbying to repeal it? Michigan, where the plaintiffs' bar is trying to change immunity laws? -- FRCP11 10:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That illustrates the problem. The Michigan activists probably consider that their proposal, if adopted, would be a reform of the tort law. Perhaps it would be useful for this article to catalog all such efforts, while noting that the popular usage of the phrase "tort reform" is usually confined to pro-defendant changes. JamesMLane 19:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, James, it doesn't illustrate the problem. The Michigan plaintiffs' bar may view the change as a "reform", but they wouldn't (and don't) call it "tort reform," and you cannot identify a single mainstream media source that would do so. Again, Wikipedia is descriptive, rather than prescriptive. The article describes "tort reform" as it's actually used in the political debate, not how you think it should be used. Again, it's the same issue as "anti-Semitism", which means something other than "against Semites," notwithstanding the individual components of the etymology. -- FRCP11 00:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I engageed in a lengthy dispute over this issue regarding defining tort reform and the structure of the article. I argued that usurping the title "tort reform" is an attempt to frame the debate. After a revert war with FRCP11, I gave up on the issue. He has more time than I do to engage in this battle than I do. The words tort reform should always be placed in quotations to point out this framing of the debate problem. Restoring it to the format it existed in prior to 14:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC), in which there was a pro tort reform section and an anti-tort reform section might help address the issue. My forcast of problems set forth at the beginning of this section has come true in spades. --Whitfield Larrabee 00:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for a single person to dispute the two contentions I've made in this debate: (1) the article's description and usage of "tort reform" is consistent with mainstream-media usage of it; (2) Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Every argument here for scare quotes has been a prescriptive one; not a single person has cited a mainstream media usage in a neutral news story that used scare quotes or used the term "tort reform" to refer to pro-litigation-lobby efforts; not a single person has pointed me to a Wikipedia policy that indicates that the purpose of Wikipedia is prescriptive. The article acknowledges the contention in a prominent place, which is all that NPOV requires. The fact that Whitfield "forcasted" [sic] problems a month ago, and now thinks his prediction has come true because he still has problems a month later seems rather irrelevant. More importantly, I'm offended by Whitfield's personal attack implying that I've done anything other than follow Wikipedia policy. I'll put it up for an RfC. -- FRCP11 00:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Wikipedia should be descriptive. According to Merriam-Webster Online, a reform is an "amendment of what is defective, vicious, corrupt, or depraved" or "a removal or correction of an abuse, a wrong, or errors". Obviously, it wouldn't be descriptive for us to assert as a fact (expressly or by implication) that the current system for compensating victims of corporate misconduct is "corrupt", nor should we assert that limiting victims' rights is the correction of a wrong. That the right wing has displayed its usual expertise in manipulating the media is a fact worth mentioning in the article (though not in those POV terms, of course). We could also report the much less widespread use of the term "tort deform" ([1]). We need not succumb to either of these manipulations ourselves, though. JamesMLane 01:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You admit that Wikipedia should be descriptive, and then you make a prescriptive argument about what tort reform "should" mean if its etymology followed your understanding of the world. And once again you fail to challenge the fundamental principle at issue here: not a single mainstream-media stylebook agrees with your preferred construction. The article already notes this issue. Why isn't Opponents of tort reform sometimes object to the use of the term "reform" to describe the proposed changes to the law as a misnomer, because they believe tort reform proposals would make the civil justice system worse, rather than better. in the second paragraph sufficient? If you want to add a sub-section or a separate article mentioning "tort deform", or if you want to do a see also referencing an article about alleged right-wing manipulation of the terms of the debate, then no one's stopping you, so long as the edit doesn't interfere with the flow of the article. (Of course, I do feel that the current tort system is corrupt, and needs reform, as the silicosis and fen-phen and Vioxx litigation scandals demonstrate, but that's a different issue, and one irrelevant to this particular debate.) -- FRCP11 02:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Junk science

I have deleted the following POV statement, placed in the middle of the politics section: State and federal courts have strict rules for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence and these rules empower judges to exclude such evidence as is unreliable or based on "junk science." First, the fact that the Supreme Court narrowed the federal evidentiary rules in the mid-1990s is irrelevant to the debate over whether John Edwards used junk science in the 1980s. Second, there is already a discussion about expert witnesses earlier in the article in the discussion of proposed procedural reforms. Third, the claim is POV, because the tort reformer position is that existing expert evidence requirements are insufficiently strict, especially in state courts. E.g., [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. FRCP11 00:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SKEWING OF ARTICLE PROBLEM. Deleting of the fact that State and federal courts have strict rules for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence and these rules empower judges to exclude such evidence as is unreliable or based on "junk science." will skew the article. The fact that the tort reform position would like to restrict expert evidence even further does not mean that existing court rules permit junk science. Every state follows either the Daubert rule or similar rules promulgated at the state level. Not state court permits "junk science." If I asked a judge to admit in evidence a "junk science" study, I can assure you it would be excluded. Use of terms like "junk science" in the article without quotes makes the article a forum for the talking points of the extreme right wing editors of the web sites that you cite. The deletion of this quote is part of a pattern of nearly full time effort to skew the article to recite the view points of Walter Olsen, Ted Banks and the Manhattan Institute.

--Whitfield Larrabee 00:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whitfield, you're factually incorrect about the Daubert rule. Look it up; many states have rejected it. And look up the silicosis scandal, where junk science was most definitely used in many cases for years before one brave judge stood up to it.
The term "junk science" appears only in the sentence "reformers criticized the suits as relying on junk science, while Edwards denied the allegation." Since the suits occurred before the Daubert case, your point about whether junk science is currently permitted by courts is irrelevant to this particular article. -- FRCP11 02:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Liberal supporters of tort reform"

I've been following (and been on both sides of) the debate since law school, and I've never seen anyone use the term "tort reform" to describe "laws and policies that increase business and governmental accountability to consumers, patients, taxpayers and the general public." While some certainly object to the use of the term "reform" (and I've added a paragraph accordingly that does not disrupt the flow of the article, as the original addition did), I've never seen opponents try to co-opt the term for their own agenda. Even the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, which opposed such basic reforms as the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, uses the term "tort reform" as something that it stands in opposition to. For better or worse, it's the term that's in use.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, many liberals supported tort reform in the every-day sense of the word. George McGovern, the most liberal Democratic presidential nominee ever, and 2000 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, Joe Lieberman, are tort reform supporters, as is Bill Clinton's solicitor general, Walter Dellinger. Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by Clinton, has written articles that are certainly sympathetic to tort reform, and he and John Paul Stevens, part of the court's liberal wing, provided the fifth vote to hold that the Constitution places limits on punitive damages.[8] (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas dissented.) And prominent trial lawyer Mark Lanier, who won the Ernst v. Merck Vioxx case, is a Christian conservative who plans to seek the Republican nomination for Senate. This isn't an issue that cleaves cleanly across liberal and conservative lines. FRCP11 03:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editor FRCP11 repeatedly deletes references which introduce the idea that there are differing meanins and understandings of what tort reform should be. By excluding any discussion that intellectual disputes exist or that this term is not the property of conservative right wing groups, FRCP11 seeks to dictate a particular point of view in this article. Yet another example is FRCP11's deletion of the following:
"The use of the term "reform" is controversial, because individuals with opposing viewpoints with respect to changes in the civil justice system each could call themselves advocates of reform. Conservative advocates of "tort reform" are generally in favor of "free markets," privatization of government functions, restricting litigants' rights and weakening regulatory constraints on business. Liberal advocates of "tort reform" favor laws and policies that increase business and governmental accountability to consumers, patients, taxpayers and the general public.
An analysis of the primary advocates of right wing "tort reform" shows that this movement is primarily driven by an interlocking network of industry funded foundations and self described conservatives and Republicans.
Ascribing the term "reform" to only on point of view is inherently advocating for that point of view.--Whitfield Larrabee 14:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whitfield Larrabee's response fails to address anything in my critique. This is poor Wikiquette; if I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong. WL still hasn't given an example of anyone using "tort reform" to describe "laws and policies that increase business and governmental accountability." As such, his proposed edit is purely fictional. The current article discusses the controversy over the use of the term "reform", "Opponents of tort reform sometimes object to the use of the term "reform" to describe the proposed changes to the law, because they believe it would make the civil justice system worse, rather than better," but once again WL has failed to read what is in the article before complaining about it. This is an encyclopedia, and not the place for WL to make an argument about what tort reform "should be." A wikipedia article is descriptive, rather than normative, and, in 2005, "tort reform" refers to reforms of the civil justice system to reduce its costs. FRCP11 14:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The compromise "For example, statutes strengthening victim's rights to sue for corporate fraud and abuse, environmental destruction, or violation of important rights can equally lay claim to the term "tort reform."" suffers from the same problem as the original: nobody has ever called Sarbanes-Oxley or the Clean Water Act tort reform. As such, it's not descriptive, and certainly doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. FRCP11 15:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user, who has spelling habits suspiciously like other writers here, wished to insert the clause Some opponents also contend that the term can also describe changes to the tort system that would increase corporate, individual and governmental accountability by enhancing the ability of individuals to bring suits and seek redress in court when they have been or believe they have been harmed. Once again, however, there is no cite for this claim, which, until someone demonstrates a single example outside of this talk page where this is so, will continue to be deleted as presumptively untrue. Cite your sources and read the FAQ, please. -- FRCP11 04:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate lawsuit abuse

I'm fairly familiar with the loser-pays debate, and have never seen anyone argue that the reason there shouldn't be loser-pays is because the prevailing-plaintiff rule in private-attorney-general suits is better. Judging by the history of the edit, where the editor originally confused "loser pays" with "prevailing plaintiff," and then invented a new argument when it was pointed out the first one was factually incorrect, I strongly suspect that the editor made up the argument himself, which would make the sentence original research, and thus inappropriate for Wikipedia. But I won't delete it if there's a source for the claim that tort reform opponents other than the editor are making this argument. -- FRCP11 04:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer and Oklahoma attorney general W. A. Drew Edmondson submitted a letter to Congress expressing their opposition to the enactment of CAFA. The attorneys general from California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont, and West Virginia joined in the letter, noting, “[I]n these times of state fiscal constraints, class actions provide an important ‘private attorney general’ supplement to our efforts to obtain redress for violations of state consumer protection, civil rights, labor, public health and environmental laws."

http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/washington_lawyer/september_2005/classact.cfm

See also, http://www.mythago.com/comments.php?id=A115_0_1_0_C, opposing revisions to consumer protection laws by "tort reformers" due to elimination of private attorney general feature.

--Whitfield Larrabee 23:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, WL fails to observe protocol for use of the talk section. Please indent appropriately.
This is regarding the quote "Opponents of tort reform contend that the public is better served by statutes that contain private attorney general provisions than they would be by a "loser pays" system. They contend that that these laws encourage private citizen's to enforce consumer protection, civil rights, anti-pollution and many other laws that vindicate important public policies." As to the substance, neither of these cites has anything to do with the first sentence, which remains unsupported. The second sentence is trivially true, but irrelevant to the "corporate lawsuit abuse" section. If you wish to create a new NPOV section discussing the pros and cons of private attorney general actions, and the successful tort reform effort in California to rein in Section 17200, then feel free to do so. But this has nothing to do with the question of abusive corporate plaintiffs, and thus doesn't belong in the abusive corporate plaintiffs section. The article has an organizational structure for a reason; please stop vandalizing it by putting random arguments in random places. -- FRCP11 01:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I met FRCP11's first objection and provided the source material to the assertion regarding the private attorney general point. He then nonetheless deleted the point, claiming it was a matter of form. The private attorney general point clearly responded to the loser pays position asserted by FRCP11 in the corporate abuse section. Quite clearly, a loser pays rule would void the traditional "private attorney general" rule of many statutes.

At one point the organization of the article was one section with the pro-tort reform, one section with the against tort reform section. This was imprudently modified so that the first section sets forth the pro-tort reform, while the second section is dedicated to the "debate." This organization subverts the article by making the form of article POV, slanted toward the tort reform view.

--Whitfield Larrabee 01:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, WL fails to observe protocol for use of the talk section. Please indent appropriately.
The claim "loser pays would be an invitation to corporate lawsuit abuse, some opponents contend" is both false and unsupported. This is your third variation of the argument, each of which is inconsistent with the previous versions, and each of which is false. No one claims this, not least because it's a non sequitur: how does "loser pays" encourage corporate plaintiffs to abuse the litigation system? Wikipedia is not a place for you to make up arguments. If you don't want to be accused of vandalizing the article, stop vandalizing the article. I'm reverting because you refuse to fix the problems raised in the talk pages. Again, this section is about the allegation by tort reform opponents that corporations are abusive plaintiffs. If you want a section with both sides of the private attorney general question, you're free to write it. Note the both sides point. I'm going to simply revert if you continue to add NPOV original research that disrupts the organizational structure. -- FRCP11 03:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tort reform and product safety section

This section covers to arguments in against lawsuits improving product safety in depth but provides no counter-arguments. Surely their must be studies or in depth arguments in support. As it stands now it simply describes the basic argument by tort-reform opponents then proceeds to knock it down with one study by a proponent of tort reform. As such it is not very NPOV. --Cab88 11:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The study was added by User:Whitfield Larrabee, who opposes tort reform. He didn't read the study, however, so when I added the rest of the paragraph to the sentence he took out of context, it has the current result. But it is NPOV. Opponents of tort reform believe that the status quo improves product safety and reform would hurt it; supporters believe the opposite. Both sides' arguments are presented. The empirical data just doesn't support the opponents. -- FRCP11 13:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have with the safety section is that both sides' arguments are not equally presented. While evidence, (the study by the Harvard professor), that opponents of the safety argument claim support their position, is presented, no counter studies or criticisms of the professor conclusions by tort reform opponents is offered. That is why I feel the section is currently not NPOV. It is what isn't included not what is. --Cab88 10:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What isn't included? The anti-tort-reformers don't have a study supporting their position -- they just cite to the Graham study, and quote it out of context. (See Whitfield Larrabee's original edit.) The quote used in anti-tort reform publications from the Graham study is included in this article. No one has deleted anything from the argument that tort reform decreases product safety. The article includes the full statement of the anti-tort reform position, two cites to anti-tort reform advocacy websites, and the full quote from the study that anti-tort reformers cite. I can rewrite the section so that the anti-tort reformers have the last word, but it doesn't change the substance. I haven't seen anyone try to refute Graham. There are lots of pro-tort reform studies (such as the Rubin & Shepherd study showing that tort reform has saved 14,000 lives) that aren't in the article. Empirically, it's one of those "sky is blue" vs. "sky is green" kind of things, but both arguments are stated in the article, so I don't see how someone can complain of POV. -- FRCP11 04:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to ATLA's page on the subject. -- FRCP11 06:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sub article status for non-economic damages cap

I object to moving the issue of non-economic damages caps to a separate article. The length of the article does not require this. --Whitfield Larrabee 00:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not true--every time I edited the article, I got a note from Wikipedia that the article was too long:
This page is 31 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.
I'm planning on moving most of the debates on individual tort reforms to sub-articles, and adding more sub-sections referring to sub-articles. -- FRCP11 02:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the links in the external links section; two of them were general-interest leftist sites that had no tort reform articles on their front page. I deleted both of those, and replaced them with two blogs: CorpReform.com, which somebody had already cited; and Legal Underground, which was mentioned in the New York Times this weekend. CorpReform appears to be written by a college student with no special expertise in the area, so if someone has a better idea for a site, they should feel free to put it up there. I don't particularly think it belongs as an external link or reference, but don't want to be accused of bias for deleting it unless there's a consensus that it's not appropriate. -- FRCP11 23:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I asked somebody to justify this link and noone did. So, a week later, I deleted it, and received an unmerited personal attack. Can a third person look at this site, and decide whether it's an appropriate Wikipedia link? -- FRCP11 03:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right Wing Skewing Problems With The Article and Proposed Permanant Point of View Tag

Many edits in this article generally focus to a great extent on viewpoints that can be found on websites hosted by the the Manhattan Institute, Ted Frank, Walter Olson, the American Enterprise Institute and other well funded enterprises funded through right foundations such as the Scaife Family Foundations, the Olin Family Foundations, the Coors Foundations, etc. Citing these web sites as authoratative sources is questionable. Much of the article is really a post from these web sites. These extreme right wing institutions create studies in which their authority is based on citing each other as authorities. You could call much of what the put out to be propaganda. Walter Olsen has written a book, the "Litigation Explosion." Clear statistical evidence shows that lawsuit filings have declined dramatically in recent years as have the amounts that juries have been awarding. To claim that there is a litigation explosion is plain and simple propaganda. This term is recited in the article. This term is a talking point often used by "Tort Reformers." Viewpoints critical of tort reform are prioritized at a lower level. For example, in the external links and the references section, pro tort reform viewpoints are given top billing while anti-tort reform view points are given lower billing. attempts to correct this are reverted. Strong arguments against economic damage caps are shunted of to sub articles. Lengthy quotes from pro tort reformers are given prominent display. There is only so much time in the day to resist this. It would be a full time job to undo all of these edits and skewing. I think it is best to just put a permanent point of view tag on the article. As another editor has noted, the article is probably hopeless at this point. --Whitfield Larrabee 00:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article has cites and quotes from well-funded opponents of tort reform: ATLA, Center for Justice and Democracy, EPI, Public Citizen, Commonweal Institute, and even a college student's website, "CorpReform.com". The sites of tort reform supporters are cited solely for the NPOV proposition that tort reform supporters take certain positions. It's also utterly and demonstrably false that reformers are given top billing: in every single sub-section, the tort reform opponents' arguments are first, and in some they're both first and last; in the references section, the top reference is to a neutral CBO study; the only change I made to the order was to group like articles together--thus Walter Olson's expose' of the litigation lobby's influence is beneath the attack on the funding of CALA. "Litigation explosion" is mentioned solely in terms of the debate over whether it exists; the statistics you assert are irrelevant to Olson's point or simply phony, but that's beside the point, because the debate is in the article, including the statistics you think should be included. There's nothing wrong with moving the pro-and-con non-economic damages caps to a sub-article; in my mind, the pro argument is so far ahead, that it's hardly the case that omitting the details here creates problems. You haven't identified a single specific violation of NPOV. Your complaint is that the article is neutral, when you would prefer it to be skewed. Read the FAQ, because it's clear you still don't understand what NPOV means. -- FRCP11 02:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who advocates tort reform and Expenditures By Tort Reform Organizations

These two sections need to be cleaned up (far too many misspellings and POV characterizations, and excessive use of scare quotes and capitalization), need to cite its sources, needs to indicate when its sources are allegations and then should be moved into the politics section, with which it is largely redundant. As an organizational matter, they certainly don't belong before a discussion of what tort reform is. There needs to be further NPOV by indicating the power of plaintiffs' lobby[9], [10]; ATLA may only have "three lobbyists", but the president of ATLA has bragged that he has the Senate under his thumb. The fact that corporation X, (who gives $10,000 to Y, which researches tort reform and fifty other issues) also funded Z forty years ago has no business in the article. I'll undertake these changes if no one fixes the article, but I shouldn't be the only here trying to make this article NPOV. -- FRCP11 03:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some accurate and relevant factual information was deleted in the edit this section that ought to be restored.--Whitfield Larrabee 16:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whitfield: much of the information you've added is not cited and, to my knowledge, factually incorrect. Your list of the biggest funders omits two of the biggest funders today, while including a foundation that no longer exists. It's also factually untrue that there are more "pro-tort reform" front groups than "anti-tort reform" front groups. Please cite your sources or delete the unfounded assertion. -- FRCP11 18:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

think tank funding

Two editors wish to include the following text:

Pro "tort reform" groups are for the most part strongly affilliated with the "Republican Party" and tort reform has been an important part of the Republican Party's agenda, although the issues do not divide perfectly upon party lines. The conservative "think tanks" that advocate for tort reform are largely funded by five foundations: the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Koch Family foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Scaife Family Foundations. The Bradley Foundation's money comes from Lynde Bradley, a member of the John Birch Society. The Coors Foundation previously financed the John Birch Society. The Koch Foundations were founded by Charles and David Koch, sons of Fred Koch, founder of the John Birch Society. David Koch, the 1980 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate, funds many libertarian organizations, and is co-founder of the libertarian Cato Institute. William Simon of the Olin Foundation was a member of the secretive Christian-Right Council for National Policy, and chairman of an organization set up by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.

One editor justifies as follows:

Some accurate and relevant factual information was deleted in the edit this section that ought to be restored.--Whitfield Larrabee 16:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

There are several problems with the proposed text beyond the inappropriate scare quotes and the violation of NPOV and WP:CITE.

First, the "largely funded by" is factually inaccurate; only one third of AEI's funding comes from foundations, and that includes substantial funding from several foundations not mentioned here. (In fact, the John M. Olin Foundation has shut its doors.)

More importantly, extensive discussion of funding of think tanks doesn't belong in this article, and the friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend conspiracy theories probably don't belong on Wikipedia at all. Manhattan Institute has thirty-plus fellows, two of whom work full-time and one part-time on tort reform; AEI has seventy-plus fellows, one full-time and three part-time on liability reform. A similar ratio applies to Cato, which is hardly doctrinaire on tort reform--they just published an article opposing the Class Action Fairness Act. (For that matter, AEI just published a piece arguing against regulating contingent fees.) To boot, think tanks are a fraction of the tort reform movement: the fact that a small fraction of the funding of a think tank, a fraction of which (if that) goes to tort reform, is from a foundation that once employed somebody who once worked for somebody else that was funded by a third source is so attenuated that it barely belongs in an article in a think tank, much less an article about an issue that the think tank in question spends 2% of its time on. The current article reads "A number of industry- and conservative-foundation-funded think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Manhattan Institute have pursued tort reform campaigns"; any more detail than that belongs in the articles of the individual think tanks. I'll raise on RfC, since there's been a revert. -- FRCP11 20:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the referenced information comes from a web site of the Commonweal Institute and is contained in an article describing the attack on trial lawyers. This group found the information relevant. The relationship of tort reform to wealthy foundations advocating a pro business and in some instances racist agenda, as with the John Birch Society, is important information for the reader to be aware. This information was deleted by FRCP11, an apparent pseudonym for Ted Banks, a paid advocate for the pro tort reform Manhattan Institute. If FRCP11 is Ted Banks, he then appears to be citing himself and his collegues as authoritative sources, without disclosing this conflict of interest. This would be an unethical and unsavory practice. The web site cited below, as well as an e-mail I received today, suggests that this is occurring.--68.239.30.138 23:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If A was a member of B (and I don't think he was; Commonweal gets this wrong, too), and A wills his business to C when he dies in 1942, and in 1985, C sells the business for $290 million and creates a new foundation D, and in 2000, D provides a fraction of E's funding, and and a fraction of E's funding is used to support F, which receives much more support from sources G through Z, how is it that B is "related to" F? 68.239.30.138 is a sock puppet for User:Whitfield Larrabee. His improper personal attack is incorrect on multiple levels (this is a hobby, I don't work for MI, I'm not Ted Banks (whoever he is)), but even if it were true, it doesn't explain how B is related to F (much less C, D, or E), and why any mention of the John Birch Society belongs here. By Whitfield/68.239's argument, one could argue that Ed Fagan opposes tort reform, and Ed Fagan is accused by Austrian authorities of illegally paying to procure sex with an underage Lithuanian[11], and that therefore tort reform opposition is "related to" pedophilia. The allegation would be ridiculous and irrelevant, but no more so than what Whitfield/68.239 is trying to add. The fact that the Commonweal Institute is making this argument reflects more on the Commonweal Institute than on the argument. -- FRCP11 07:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The John Birch Society was founded in 1958.[12] Lynde Bradley died in 1942. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation was started in 1985. The Commonweal Institute alleges that Lynde Bradley was a member of the JBS, and that this has something to do with the Bradley Foundation's support of tort reform in 2005. So just in the one sentence I fact-checked, there are at least three falsehoods: the Bradley Foundation didn't get its money from Lynde Bradley, Lynde Bradley wasn't a member of JBS, and, as discussed above, think tanks only get a fraction of their money from the Bradley Foundation. If this wasn't enough to end CI's credibility on any issue, a search on news.google.com reveals that not a single media entity--mainstream or otherwise--has cited the Commonweal Institute between 15 September and 15 October 2005; they're not even significant enough that someone bothered to create a WIkipedia entry on them as of 17 Oct 2005. This isn't high-school debate: the fact that a source says something demonstrably untrue doesn't mean you get to use it to drown out the real discussion of the issues. Put it in a new article, and link to it from here, if you really want to waste time on something easily refuted, but the allegation doesn't belong in the main article unless you're trying to completely destroy the credibility of tort reform opposition. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight -- FRCP11 12:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prescriptive or Descriptive

The RfC asks the question, "Is Wikipedia Prescriptive or Descriptive?" The answer is "both." You can realize this goal when someone who knows nothing about Tort Reform reads the preamble of this article and gets a good basic understanding of the subject. I knew nothing about Tort Reform when I read the introduction and I still know nothing about Tort Reform after reading it. Therefore, you have failed to achieve the most basic function of an encyclopedic article, to covey information.

Arguments over the validity or controversial nature of the subject belong in the body of the article, not in the preamble. When writing the introduction, your only concern is in giving an ignorant reader a quick icon of the concept. Extrapolations of that concept, including whether or not it makes sense or how some people use the term for more political reasons, does nothing to help the reader efficiently link the general concept to the term, and does not belong in the introduction. --Zephram Stark 14:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant context for this comment: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark and Talk:terrorism.
I wasn't going to get into the possible reasons why the introduction to Tort Reform conveys no useful information, but FRCP11 gave us the perfect example above in his unsigned personal attack. Apparently, FRCP11 is saying that whether or not I can gather any information from this article is contingent upon who I am. If that is the case, maybe we should put an I.Q. disclaimer on the top of the article: "Warning, please do not attempt to understand this article unless you have an I.Q. of at least 180." Even that number might be too low for someone who wants to spend no more than 30 seconds getting a basic understanding of Tort Reform. Nevertheless, the important question here is, why would FRCP11 try to confuse the messenger with the issue? Does he not want people to understand the basic concept of Tort Reform? Could there be people who benefit from an ignorant public in this matter? Are there editors at Wikipedia who try to confuse political definitions instead of clarify them? Should we allow editors who exhibit these attributes to hold positions of power?
Sometimes it appears that people are being idiots when really all they want is the opposite of their stated agendas. In such cases, I think the important thing is to remain calm and let them expose themselves. In a transparent system of equals, goodness, truth, and the beauty of consensus always wins. --Zephram Stark 15:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use of This Article By Advocacy Organization

I interpret the posts at the following link, http://www.legalunderground.com/2005/10/silica_by_popul.html#comments to suggest that Ted Frank of the Manhattan Institute and the www.pointoflaw.com web site, associate of Walter Olsen, associated with various right wing think tanks, is using this wiki under the pseudonym FRCP11 to advance the point of view and agenda of his employers, professional "tort reform" organizations. If the posts at this web site are accurate and my interpretation of them is accurate, right winger Ted Frank is paid to advocate for the tort reform in the wiki pedia, complete with revert wars, repetitive deletions of opposing accurate descriptions of the activities of Banks, Olsen and and the like. --Whitfield Larrabee 22:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I do think that an NPOV presentation that fairly presents both sides advances the cause of tort reform, because I believe the cause of tort reform has the better of the argument. This article didn't fairly present one side of the debate before I started editing it. -- FRCP11 12:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for you, actions speak louder than words. Assumptions become meaningless in the face of evidence by your own hand. Linking to gossip when facts about that gossip are available makes an assumption of good faith impossible. Apparently, no depths of depravity are too low when you want to bad-mouth the messenger to hide the content of the message. --Zephram Stark 16:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to start this article with a clean slate? Start fresh from zero? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. I don't know anything about Tort Reform, so what would you say in the first paragraph that would give me the best summary of it? --Zephram Stark 17:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know or care. I was asked by FRCP11, who I had a disagreement that we resolved amicably on another page to try to intercede here. I noticed everyone involved acting badly. I suggest that someone who wants to make a change to the article propose that change in talk, we'll talk about it, and improve the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, I do not mean to imply that I support the article as stands, or that it should be scrapped. I merely think that starting anew without all the old personal attack baggage would help everyone out. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

$40 billion

I've deleted the original research attempt by Whitfield Larrabee to refute the statistic. Aside from the violation of Wikipedia policy, it's factually incorrect: one cannot determine total income by multiplying the number of attorneys by a median; it's the mean that is the relevant number. I don't work for the Manhattan Institute, as a check of their website can confirm, and didn't work on the Trial Lawyers Inc. report, but, even if I had, an ad hominem attack on it doesn't belong in the article. It's already made clear that MI supports tort reform in both the sentence and the external links. FRCP11 05:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Structure - going forward

Before making substantial changes to the article, no matter how good, obvious and whatever your changes are, please discuss them here, in the following format. I will side with anyone who reverts any change to the article (aside from vandalism removal and simple copyedits, unless the change is discussed for a period of at least 24 hours in the following format, or something similar, regardless of my personal opinions.


Introduction

Old Passage:

The term tort reform is used by supporters of the controversial contention that reform of the American civil justice system to reduce litigation's adverse effect on the economy is desirable to describe those proposed and enacted changes.

New Passage:

  1. Tort reform is a movement or proposal to reduce the amount of tort litigation or damages awarded by the American civil justice system.
  2. A tort reform is generally a proposal or a law to reduce the amount of tort litigation or damages in the American civil justice system.
  3. Tort reform is a term used in United States politics by supporters of measures to . . . ."

Comments:

Doesn't Tort Reform has something to do with Torts? The definition of a Tort is pretty good. Why should the introduction not link to what a tort actually is? --Zephram Stark 18:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a link to "tort" is unarguable for the intro. I think the old sentance is way, way too long for once sentance. I think that unlike "pro-choice" and "pro-life," which one could argue are used by the faction (as opposed to "pro-abortion, anti-choice"), the term is used by all (what do anti-reformers call tort reform?). I do however think that the allegations by the pro-reformers might merit inclusion in the intro, perhaps along the lines of "Supporters of tort reform often cite..." and then tell me what they cite when they argue for it, perhaps? Follow with a similar one sentance rebuttal by anti-reformers, or whatever they call themselves? I don't know the arguments aside from the basics, so I'm flying blind. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think arguments for and against should not be in the intro. The first thing someone wants to know is what the term means. I was suggesting just the replacement of the first sentence, not the whole intro. I'm flying blind too, so I hope the proposal accurately reflects Tort reform. My proposal is only used to show how the first sentence should get directly to the heart of the matter. If someone who knew nothing about torts or tort reform asked for a one sentence overview, that should be the first sentence of the article. --Zephram Stark 19:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike the old first paragraph, which is unwieldly and needs to be improved. The revision is certainly shorter. But it's also less accurate by itself.
1. As discussed in the current second paragraph, tort reform isn't just about torts, it's about the litigation system. See, e.g., the American Tort Reform Association's support of arbitration agreement enforcement.[13]
2. While most tort reforms will reduce litigation, others merely reduce the costs of litigation; seek to improve the accuracy or fairness of litigation; end forum-shopping; or regulate attorney-client relationships.
Maybe:
New Passage Alternative:
A tort reform is generally a proposal to reduce the amount of tort litigation or damages in the American civil justice system.
That should read a "proposal or a law", since a successfully-proposed tort reform is still a tort reform. -- FRCP11 03:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The term "tort reform" reflects one POV (a right-wing POV). A left-wing equivalent is "chickenhawk". Our article doesn't say, "A chickenhawk is a pro-war politician who didn't serve in the military." Instead, it correctly describes "chickenhawk" as "an epithet used in United States politics to criticize a politician . . . ." By the same token, this article should preserve the current text's recognition that the appropriateness of the term, like the appropriateness of "chickenhawk", is not undisputed. As I write this, the current text is, "The term tort reform is used by supporters of the controversial contention that . . . ." That exact wording isn't the only way to do it, and making it more parallel to "chickenhawk" might be an improvement: "Tort reform is a term used in United States politics by supporters of measures to . . . ." and then whatever terse summary seems best (taking account of the problem that most of what's called "tort reform" does actually deal with tort law, but some of the proposals would have effects in other areas). As to the general structure, I'm inclined to think that the first paragraph should, as Zephram Stark emphasizes, tell the reader what proposals (at least in a general way) are being referred to. Ideally, however, the second paragraph would summarize the pro and con arguments. One function of the lead section is to provide a "mini-article" for readers who want to know as much about the topic as they can digest in a very short time. Crafting very succinct summaries of each side's position is valuable for that purpose but may pose more of an obstacle to consensus. JamesMLane 21:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First, there's nothing inherently "right-wing" about tort reform. Tony Blair criticizes the "compensation culture" in Great Britain; George McGovern is on the board of Common Good; Barack Obama voted for the Class Action Fairness Act; the 2000 Democratic nominee for vice president was a long-time supporter of tort reform; Howard Dean wrote a letter to the New York Times demanding tort reform; in polls, eighty percent of Americans agree with the fundamental premises behind tort reform; the support is overwhelming enough that John Kerry felt he had to stand up at the town-hall debate and say (if somewhat disingenuously) "John Edwards and I support tort reform" and call for limits on punitive damages.[14]
The difference between tort reform and "chickenhawk" is that the mainstream media uses tort reform neutrally to describe a legislative program, while does not use "chickenhawk" except as an epithet. The term tort reform is no more POV than "Bolshevik" or "German Democratic Republic" or "Palestinian Liberation Organization" or "Conservative Judaism" or "anti-Semitism" or "African-American." You can prescriptively argue that the etymology of the name makes it an inappropriate label for what it names, but, descriptively, the term means what it means, and it would be POV for a Wikipedia article to decide that the rest of the world is making a mistake.
The current article bends over backwards too much to acknowledge the objections of fervent opponents. To the extent Wikipedia is descriptive, rather than prescriptive, it's inaccurate to qualify the definition with "used by supporters" in the first paragraph, because both opponents and the mainstream media use the term also. (See the scarequote discussion above for cites.) -- FRCP11 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If "Tort Reform" is the right-wing version, what is the left-wing version? ("Pro-Life" is to "Anti-Choice" as "Tort Reform" is to ""). I honestly have no clue. Please cite sources. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Playing devil's advocate, the analogy would be tort reform:"tort reform". Even more rarely tort deform. But the use of scare quotes is only done by a fraction of the left, and even then not consistently. Unlike "pro-life", where there's a neutral "anti-abortion rights" phrasing, the mainstream media accepts the term tort reform as neutral. -- FRCP11 23:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask that we focus only on the first sentence in this discussion? We can do the next paragraph in a section section below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I've split it up below. -- FRCP11 04:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph

Old Passage: While the term "tort reform" would seem to imply any change in the tort law or procedure, the commonly understood usage of the term in the political and academic arena is to describe a movement that would reduce the amount of tort litigation or damages. It thus does not include measures that expand liability, such as laws that create new causes of action. Tort reform isn't even limited to changes in tort law (the law of civil wrongs) as some proposed tort reforms involve expanding the freedom of contract to permit waivers currently barred as against public policy or unconscionable. Opponents of tort reform sometimes object to the use of the term "reform" to describe the proposed changes to the law as a misnomer, because they believe tort reform proposals would make the civil justice system worse, rather than better.

New Passage:

  1. However, tort reforms include many other measures that seek to reduce the costs or improve the accuracy of the American civil justice system. While the two words making up the term "tort reform" would seem to imply that tort reform is any change in tort law (the law of civil wrongs) or procedure, the commonly understood usage of the term in the political and academic arena does not include measures that expand liability, such as laws that create new causes of action. Supporters argue that tort reform is needed to fix a broken, inefficient, and expensive litigation system. Opponents contend that tort reform denies plaintiffs the recovery they deserve for their injuries, and argue that the term is a misnomer because they feel the proposed reforms would make the system worse, rather than better. (and move discussion of expansion of freedom of contract into "agenda" section)

Comments: I think arguments for and against should not be in the intro. The first thing someone wants to know is what the term means. I was suggesting just the replacement of the first sentence, not the whole intro. I'm flying blind too, so I hope the proposal accurately reflects Tort reform. My proposal is only used to show how the first sentence should get directly to the heart of the matter. If someone who knew nothing about torts or tort reform asked for a one sentence overview, that should be the first sentence of the article. --Zephram Stark 19:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that there's a single sentence that either side would view as fairly epitomizing their support for or opposition to tort reform.
I don't have any objection to moving the disclaimers in the second paragraph elsewhere in the article. The current version of the second paragraph reflects a compromise to end a revert war with editors who complained that the first paragraph did not reflect what they thought how the term "tort reform" should be used (rather than how it is used). -- FRCP11 20:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, however, the second paragraph would summarize the pro and con arguments. One function of the lead section is to provide a "mini-article" for readers who want to know as much about the topic as they can digest in a very short time. Crafting very succinct summaries of each side's position is valuable for that purpose but may pose more of an obstacle to consensus. JamesMLane 21:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References

Old Passage:

New Passage: delete

Comments: Corpreform: CorpReform appears to be written by a college student with no special expertise in the area, so if someone has a better idea for a site, they should feel free to put it up there. I don't particularly think it belongs as an external link or reference, but don't want to be accused of bias for deleting it unless there's a consensus that it's not appropriate. -- FRCP11 23:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 Oct, I asked somebody to justify this link and noone did. So, nine days later, I deleted it, and received an unmerited personal attack accusing me of bad faith. Can a third person look at this site, and decide whether it's an appropriate Wikipedia link? And can a third party explain basic Wikiquette, please? An editor with a grudge is trying to shout me off the page, when I haven't made a single unjustifiable edit. -- FRCP11 03:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commonweal: The article is about foundation funding of think-tanks, which has nothing to do with tort reform. And even if it did, the article is just demonstrably false. The John Birch Society was founded in 1958.[15] Lynde Bradley died in 1942. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation was started in 1985. The Commonweal Institute alleges that Lynde Bradley was a member of the JBS, and that this has something to do with the Bradley Foundation's support of tort reform in 2005. So just in the one sentence I fact-checked, there are at least three falsehoods: the Bradley Foundation didn't get its money from Lynde Bradley, Lynde Bradley wasn't a member of JBS, and, as discussed above, think tanks only get a fraction of their money from the Bradley Foundation. If this wasn't enough to end CI's credibility on any issue, a search on news.google.com reveals that not a single media entity--mainstream or otherwise--has cited the Commonweal Institute between 15 September and 15 October 2005; they're not even significant enough that someone bothered to create a WIkipedia entry on them as of 17 Oct 2005. It's defended as "well footnoted", but then let's cite to the original sources to the extent they have any relevance to the topic. The inclusion of this link-smear only serves to bury the useful material in a morass of irrelevant noise. If Commonweal really has discovered a gigantic right-wing racist conspiracy, then surely someone credible has reported the same thing, and then that can be cited instead. In any event, I don't see any evidence that the mainstream media views Commonweal as credible, and don't see why Wikipedia should, either. -- FRCP11 03:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR If the report is not accurate, please find a notable source that says so, and link them. The "Commonweal Institute" is notable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's original research? This is all source-based.
The problem is that the Commonweal Institute is so non-notable and their smear is so plainly false that no one bothers to cite them, much less refute them. Honest question: What's the standard for "notable" that you think it's so self-evident that the assertion is sufficient refutation for the arguments I presented why they're not notable? -- FRCP11 00:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The commonweal report is well documented carefully footed piece of research. There is no consensus on deleting this reference. The point of linking to the Commonweal report is to give the reader an alternative source of information from links to Ted Frank, Olsen and friends at the American Enterprise Institute and the Manhattan Institute. Everything in the report, the attack on trial lawyers, is not wrong. Just like all the information put out by the AEI and the Manhattan Institute is not all right. These right wing groups referenced in the article are an incestuous cabal of corporate lap dogs. It is not only the Commonweal Institute that has documented this. Can we please permit the reader to find other sources of information. We might as well just designate this site as a special location for airing the points of view of Ted Frank, his friend Walter Olsen, the American Enterprise Institute and the Manhattan Institute, and for that matter the pointoflaw.com web site. --Whitfield Larrabee 00:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Commonweal Institute describes itself as the "Heritage Foundation of the left." http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/2002_11_01_seetheforest_archive.html#85666346. If links to right wing think tank references are ok, why not to a left wing groups that has an article on the attack on trial lawyers that describes the strategies, tactics, funding sources and deceptions of pro tort reform organizations.

Noneconomic Damage Caps

Old Passage:

Main article: Non-economic damages caps

Proposals to cap non-economic damages are one of the most frequently proposed tort reforms, and have generated controversy over their fairness, efficacy, and constitutionality.

New Passage:

  1. merge sub-article into main article

Comments:

I objected to moving this section to a sub article at the time. I would propose moving this section back to the main article. Economic Damage caps are perhaps the most significant and most sought after reform of the "tort reform" movement. This should not have been moved without consensus. The article is not so long that all of the arguments cannot be featured on an equal footing basis. Moving this to a sub article makes it less likely to be read. It minimizes the importance of the subject. By giving more prominent positioning to pro tort reform sections, the article tends to be skewed. --Whitfield Larrabee 02:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is so long that all of the arguments cannot be featured--see Wikipedia:article length. Non-economics damages caps is a significant enough debate on its own that it deserves expanded treatment. The sub-article now has lots of articles that link to it. Thus, moving the text to the main article will create the problem of parallel articles addressing the same topic, with the potential problem of diverging inconsistency.
You repeat the claim that the article gives "more prominent positioning to pro tort reform sections", but the claim is clearly false: every single section mentions the anti-tort-reform argument first, and sometimes first and last. To the extent it's skewed, it's skewed anti-reform--the false-on-their-face wild-eyed anti-reform conspiracy theories involving time travel are included, while the harsher critiques of the trial bar are not.
If you have a proposal for a better NPOV summary of the sub-article, feel free to make it, but it's not going to fly to include 2000 words on the subject when tort reform is much more than non-economic damages caps. -- FRCP11 03:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Old Passage:

New Passage:

Comments:

Deletion of References and NPOV Violations

Several important references were unilaterally deleted, see two listed below. These had been in the article for some time. The reference section and the article in general is already skewed with references to articles by Ted Frank, Walter Olsen, the American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute. As I have noted above, the article has been hijacked by advocates for the AEI and the Manhattan Institute. The Pro Tort Reform references are featured first and editor FRCP11 has gradually deleted most of the links to information that would challenge tort reform. Deletion of these sources and the skewing of the article in this manner is most inappropriate. The article, the Attack on Trial Lawyers, is well footnoted and contains a wealth of information to contradict articles such as Triallawyers, Inc. that were linked to by certain authors. The constant deleting of any views that disagree with the pro tort reform view is tiresome. If these links are deleted again, I am definitely going to put a NPOV tag on the page. I might put one there anyway.

The constant deleting of information that would contradict the pro tort reform gloss put on this article by one editor who has the time to dominate the debate here is unfortunate.

--Whitfield Larrabee 03:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tort_reform_in_the_United_States&oldid=25975338"