Talk:Tort reform in the United States/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and DATE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Tort reform/Archive04. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.--HelloDali 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is no longer about tort reform, and

1. has been rewritten to be almost entirely about arguments against tort reform;
2. unfairly characterizes pro-reform arguments, including a number false statements claiming there is no evidence when the reform proposals are in fact well supported by empirical evidence while subjecting none of the anti-reform assertions to the same scrutiny (Example: The article states conclusively that studies do not support the contention that caps will reduce the number of medical malpractice suits -- but the CBO study cited in the previous sentence for an ostensibly anti-reform point says precisely that!);
3. oversells anti-reform arguments while failing to note the rebuttals by the supporters of reform (e.g., Gary Schwartz and Ford Pinto);
4. misrepresents other studies (such as using a study saying contingent fee reform doesn't work to rebut a contention about damages caps);
5. makes a number of false statements about the law (e.g., the claim that it is impossible to bring a lawsuit for hypothetical damages: see Michael Greve's lengthy monograph on the subject proving otherwise);
6. the balanced presentation demonstrating that the plaintiffs' bar does just as much lobbying as the pro-reformers has been completely deleted;
7. there has been addition of insulting (and false) POV statements such as saying that objections to comparative negligence and joint and several liability reflect "an ignorance of civil procedure";
8. there is a POV definition of "frivolous lawsuit" replacing the article's acknowledgement that different groups use the term in different ways; and
9. the article itself is incoherent.

I don't know about Greve. It appears he wrote a vanity published poorly argued 42 page (approximately) tract that appears to not understand tolling of statue of limitations and how it might apply to the longterm health affects of smoking, as well as a lack of understanding of fraud and misrepresentation and damages. As for Schwartz, I confess not to have read his Rutgers article, but if the synopsis is correct he appears to be deliberately obtuse about what Ford was up to when they wrote the memo and the uses it was put to. Further an independent body- jurors- made a finding of fact regarding the memo. Again, I haven't read Shwartz's article but it strikes me as historical revisionism. Good thing he isn't in Florida! Gfwesq 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back to most of the previous article. It shows (see below) how POV the article was and still is. This article needs to be scrapped, and cooler heads need to prevail. I cannot believe that such an article exists in WIkipedia.MollyBloom 20:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit history demonstrates that a number of arguments in support of reform have been deleted without explanation, and that just about every edit by Jgwlaw from June 11-12 has been made to add anti-reform arguments or water-down pro-reform arguments. This article is a dreadful violation of WP:NPOV and demonstrates the inherent unreliability of Wikipedia on political subjects. -- TedFrank 12:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This entire artilce is a dreadful violation of WP:NPOV and I agree that it demonstrates the inherent unreliability of Wikipedia on political subjects. -- MollyBloom 20:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back, so edits can be made piecemeal. I left the corrections to only a very few of the many extremely biased entries.MollyBloom 14:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was never about tort reform. It was extremely POV before. Even the intro was POV. It may have gone a bit far, and I will work on that. And the word 'frivolous lawsuit' is exactly as defined. It can't be anything else. Everything was included here.MollyBloom 14:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

However, I tried to edit too much too fast. Therefore, I reverted back to what was there originally, less a few changes. Hopefully this takes care of the "POV" tag.MollyBloom 14:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This was the 'talk' before, by another editor:

The phrase 'tort reform' itself reflects a point of view. But what is troubling about this article is it is presented as a value-laden argument, not an exposition of a concept. Raising arguments from critics of tort reform only to rebut them with long quotations from conservative commentators does nothing to further knowledge. It is an argument better suited to a talk radio programme. This is a deeply flawed article, and its excessive length is a very clear indication that its impartiality must be questioned -- to explain would not take as many words as to raise issues for the purpose of knocking them down.

It is very clear that the principal authors favor "tort reform" and that should not be.

The sentence as now in the article encompasses everything of the previous author's acknowledgement that different groups use the term in different ways without going on for a paragraph and being extremely POV. This is a clear, dry recitation of the only thing a frivolous lawsuit can possibly be.

A frivolous lawsuit is one that cannot reasonably be supported under existing legal precedent, facts of the case, or under a good-faith argument for a change in the law.

Any other description is a POV. What else CAN a frivolous lawsuit be? Was it necessary to go on an on for a paragraph? Really? That was very biased. This is short, and there can be nothing else to add to the definition of a 'frivolous' lawsuit, except a POV rant. The previous comment is a political diatribe. I left the definition of frivolous lawsuit, but for peace's sake, I left the comment about what 'tort reform' advocates believe it to be.MollyBloom 14:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is extremely long, and full of citations to lobbying groups for 'tort reform'. This is extraordinary POV, intending to legitimate groups like ATRA. Perhaps we need to discuss what ATRA is, and who funds it.MollyBloom 15:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

ATRA's members are largely Fortune 500 companies with a direct financial stake in restricting lawsuits. Members have included representatives of the tobacco, insurance, chemical, auto and pharmaceutical industries. Corporate giants like Philip Morris, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Electric, Aetna, Geico and Nationwide have all supported ATRA. Gannon, Tort Deform - Lethal Bedfellows, Essential Information, 1995, pp. 23-25. Legal Times also reported that, "most of [ATRA's] funding comes from large corporate donors. Insurance firms … are each good for $50,000 or $75,000, one unnamed lobbyist familiar with the Association told the publication." "Proponents of Reform," Legal Times, April 17, 1995, cited in Silverstein, Smoke & Mirrors, Public Citizen Congress Watch, 1996, p. 11.

The tobacco industry has supported ATRA, directly through Philip Morris, and indirectly through Covington & Burling, the law firm for the now-defunct Tobacco Institute and other major tobacco companies. Newly released documents from the Tobacco Archives show that in 1995, the tobacco industry allocated nearly $5.5 million for ATRA, more than half of ATRA's $10.2 million budget according to the Associated Press. The documents also show that Covington & Burling acted as a funnel for much of this tobacco industry money, which was then paid out to other organizations. "Report Says Tobacco Industry Quietly Backed Tort Reform," Associated Press, February 21, 1999; Tort Reform Project Budget, Covington & Burling, October 3, 1995, Document #2041201160 et seq. The budget indicates that by October 3, the project had already given about $3 million to ATRA.

Although sponsored by major industries, ATRA has worked hard to present a dramatically different public image of itself. While John Gannon reported in 1995 that not one of ATRA's 300 organizational members included an organization devoted to representing workers, homeowners or average citizens, ATRA calls its members "the average citizen looking for an end to the threat of being sued." ATRA wrote in an early fundraising letter, "ATRA is not a wealthy special-interest group backed by vast cash resources." Its literature mentions its "large and very diverse membership, consisting of … non-profits, public agencies, professional societies, trade associations, large corporations and small businesses." (For a copy of their 1989 membership list and steering committee, the latest year available, contact CJ&D).

The entire article on "Tort Reform"was a POV piece.MollyBloom 15:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A fair reader of this article can tell it was written by tort reform 'advocates'. It is still incredibly POV, with long discussion of 'reasons for' and little on reasons against.

JUST FOR EXAMPLE: Nothing in this paragraph even mentions the argument opposing the tort reform 'complaints'

Another common complaint of tort reform supporters is that the number of lawyers has increased at a rate which far exceeds population growth[7], with personal liability specialty practices accounting for about 25% of the legal workload in many states[8]. They believe this massive increase of personal liability practitioners has led to a system of cyclical abuse, in which litigators aggressively recruit clients in mass tort cases using extreme and coercive methods, then reinvest a portion of their profits into political candidates and organizations that further expand liability law. They believe the expansionist nature of personal liability causes many targeted industries to settle potentially frivolous or fraudulent lawsuits out of court at substantial cost to their employees, investors and society at large.[citations needed]

Of particular concern to many tort reform advocates is the present tort system's effect on the healthcare industry. ETC.

THIS is biased! How can anyone not read this and realize it was written by someone sympathetic to the lobbyists for tort reform?MollyBloom 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the balance here, or even the counterpoint?

Of particular concern to many tort reform advocates is the present tort system's effect on the healthcare industry. Linking the rising costs of premiums for physicians' medical malpractice insurance[9] to the rising cost of personal and group policy health insurance coverage, many tort reformists advocate imposing caps on non-ecomonic losses and punitive damages, as well as on "contingent fees", or fees set by the plaintiff's attorney as a percentage of damages awarded to the plaintiff. Tort reform advocates argue that such caps would benefit those plaintiffs with legitimate lawsuits by reducing the number of "nuisance" suits and thereby improving the overall efficiency of the system. This area of tort reform reflects a broader ideological theme of the tort reform movement; that unrestricted litigation - particularly in the realms of personal liability and class-action suits - has a widespread and damaging effect on important social institutions and services beyond the scope of individual claims.

Capping fees or awards is a solution in search of a problem. Not everything needs to be counterpointed, especially when there is not much of a counterpoint. If one takes the time to truly investigate the facts of any so called nuisance suit, one usually finds it apochryphal or in fact a meritorius suit. The fact is frivoulous (outside of the actual legal definition) usually depends on whose ox got gored.Gfwesq 22:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, what is truly notable is commentary by those who won't sign off on their commentsGfwesq 22:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is one sentence here that runs counter to the argument, and that finishes up by a tort reform claim. Tort reform supporters argue that these numbers are misleading. Supporters note that most liability costs come from pre-trial settlements caused by the threat of trial, so the number of trials is irrelevant. Supporters further note that the number of "filings" is a misleading statistic, because modern filings are much more likely to be class actions with many more joined claims than the cases of decades ago. They also note that the choice of the 1992 start date is misleading, because the largest increase in the number of tort cases occurred between 1970 and 1992. They also argue that the use of the median, rather than the mean, is a misleading statistic for measuring the magnitude of the litigation problem. Supporters point to a study by Tillinghast/Towers Perrin, a major consultant to the insurance industry, that claims the cost of liability litigation is outpacing the rate of inflation consistently over the last half century, representing 2.2% of GDP in 2004 vs. just 0.6% in 1950 and 1.3% in 1970.[13] Tort reform opponents dispute these numbers, which have been controversial; tort reform supporters note that the Towers Perrin numbers are underestimates in many ways.[14], [15] [edit]

Tillinghast/Towers Perrin, a major consultant to the insurance industry NOW THERES a point of view that wasn't bought and paid for! Oh Anonynous, thou art naiveGfwesq 22:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know if there is any way to make this neutral, it was so badly POV. I welcome attempts to do so. MollyBloom 20:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I found a way. The article was actually in fine, trim NPOV-shape several months before MollyBloom(A.K.A Jgwlaw) got her meathooks into it. My goldfish Ted and I shrewdly judged that it was far too Herculean a task to pick through her hundreds(!) of back-to-back-to-back edits to find each weasel word, blog pasting and missing source. So we just restored it to the last set of edits before she began savaging the piece for whatever reason. I then gave Ted a fish treat.

I think the best way to rescue this article is to slim it down and let it be about "tort reform" - that is, to allow the reader come away with a better understanding of how the term functions in civic debate. Although it might be bad form to suggest, I'd recommend every contributor to this article sneak a peek at MollyBloom 's profile. Given the details this person reveals about herself, it is really credible that she could be capable of NPOV in her noble quest to redefine "tort reform" to mean "electrocuting small dogs"? That's a bit like having Kim Jong Il pen an article on Orwell.

So I recommend we all take a breather and re-read both articles before we start some silly clicking war, and ask oursleves which is really more reflective of the term's usage in the current national debate. After all, whether one buys into them or not - some the numbers and studies originally cited then removed are the actual numbers and studies that tort reform advocates discuss and quote from inside their shadowy lair at the center of the moon. In fact - when they aren't busy making kitten milkshakes or planning to punch a nun in the face - reform advocates often can be found quoting heavily from the CBO health insurance study and the Tillinghast report, which somehow evaded Jgwlaw's mighty edit axe, if not her obligatory gotcha-last editorializing wherever they are mentioned. Maybe she simply hasn't gotten around to reading them yet...

That said, one thing that this article always could have used more of is history/etymology of the term itself, and how the movement evolved into its current form. Anyone up for the challenge? --65.145.40.70 20:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno... anyone who talks to a goldfish probably should seek professional help. Especially when the fish talks back. In any event, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a liberal, notwithstanding yours and Ted's (wink wink) juvenile attempt to demonize. Can't speak for Molly, but I edited this article because it was total propaganda BS. NPOV- NOT! I suspect Molly felt the same way. It still needs editing to be an accurate discussion. One problem is the lack of accurate facts or unbiased studies by the so called tort reformers. They usually rely on apochryphal tall tales. I am just not impressed with insurance paid for studies. Somehow the findings are predictible. Nor am I impressed with juvenile debating tactics and macho talk of punching nuns in the face. Yeah I know, I just don't have a sense of humor... or maybe it just wasn't funny. I'll take you seriously when you can put forth a rational argument with brevity and without the juvenile sarcasm. Otherwise, you will find, I can give better than I get.Gfwesq 23:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I understand your dilemna (well this one, anyway). You, like a hugely frightening majority of people on this island Earth have fallen under the spell that makes people believe anything they see that they don't immediately agree with IS ACTIVELY TRYING TO DESTROY THEM AND THEIR CHILDREN'S THEM.

Making up a point of view and attributing it to your opponet is a strawman argument. Its neither logical nor a fair debating tactic. Gfwesq 02:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that this article is inherently political and should be scrapped - as other articles like 'medical malpractice' and the others the Manhattan Institute fans are distorting.MollyBloom

The fact is, this used to be a pretty good article because it was informative. Not great (again, neeeded way more etymeology and less raw numbers), but it did the trick of explaining to a few people what it meant when they saw this term being slung around on TV or (gasp) newspapers. It's an important (and divisive) enough topic to warrant a fair, straightforward reckoning of what it proposes. Perhaps it would be better to compose an "anti-tort reform" article to compartmentalize some of this clap-trap - but the moment that happens, wiki fails.

It was informative the same way propaganda is informative, which is to say extremely slanted. Gfwesq 02:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

An explanation of a set of views doesn't make something bias. I don't troll around on the Communism page, dropping in stuff like "Critics in Democratic societies say..." and posting pictures of the Berlin wall falling. The worst part is, I think that, deep down, part of you knows that 97% your edits were a deliberate defacement. And to that part of you I say "Pbbbbbbtt!" Love, Jarod-- 65.142.146.174 01:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I added specific examples with citations and pointed out what the actual definition of frivolous lawsuit was (again with an actual citation). For some reason, you didn't like that and thought it was defacement. I can't help it, if there isn't much underlying the "tort reform" argument. There are still members of the flat earth society who think the earth is flat. I am not going to take their views seriously and I don't think we need to give much space to their specious arguments. There are some fools who still think Saddam had WMD, and I am not going to take them seriously either and nor do I think we need to give much space to their specious arguments. Gfwesq 02:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any way I can make it any clearer than this title. First of all, many of the changes that anon above made are not my changes. Secondly, where claims are made that are NOT substantiated, they are 'alleged'. You cannot make wild claims without backing them up.

I reverted back to the legitimate edits that I and several others had made. I am not going to resort to the vulgarities of anon above, but suffice to say that anon has shown himself for who he really is.

Wikipedia is not a political forum. THe article as it was written made it just that. If it continues, I will recommend deletion.MollyBloom 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ted and I just had a sober, rational talk about this posting. After a long debate - and several more fishie treats - we decided that despite MollyBloom's threats to utterly destroy everyone and everything who stand in her way , we will continue to defend and restore the May 25th piece as long as there is blood in us. It was a stronger,. slimmer piece and one that many smart people contibuted to, debated about and agonized over before she decided to lard the lead paragraph with the following beaut:

"Critics argue that what is needed is 'corporate reform', and not 'tort reform'."

Get it (wink-nudge)!

We also decided that there's nothing vulgar about punching a nun in the face (unless of course the nun is a Democrat and a dastardly Republican is doing the punching) but that our theory about the tort reform movement's space bunker on the moon was way out of line. Everyone one know that tort reformers can only be found on the 4th circle of Hell, where the avaricious are doomed to roll weights back and forth against one another for all eternity. For this, I am sorry (and also perhaps for not properly citing Dante), but I stand by my wild claims.--63.235.84.85 22:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(AKA JarodKitchen)

I will allow the words above to speak for themselves. My edits are legitimate and with citations. If you have a problem with them, then you need to discuss them here.MollyBloom 22:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No facts, but a lot of pounding the table and a lot of screaming. What's a matter boys, not used to having your political world view challenged by facts? This is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda organ like the Hudson Institute. This means you are supposed to back up your claims with real (read non- bought and paid for studies) facts. Now I know facts have a known liberal bias, but you will just have to deal with it.Gfwesq 23:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that really blew my monacle off!

OK, so you've obviously exposed my fiendish plot to re-write the encyclopedia so that Ronald Reagan was the first astronaut to conquer Mars (I also planned to replace all photographs of Democrats and women with small, eyeless lizards, so double-drat!)

Anyway It sure looks bad for lil' old me. Besides proving that girls are better than boys, Stephen Colbert is a liberal comedian, and that I hate kittens and the moon, you've shown that you have way more time on your hands than i do.

And what's wrong with being a liberal comedian? Would you prefer an oxycontin addled viagra fueled conservative comedian?Gfwesq 00:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What's going on? Are you hitting on me? For your information, I happen to like funny people, drugs and politics. Turnoffs include bad writing, terminal illnesses and North Korea. And I'm a virgo. If you don't know what any of that has to do with tort reform; welcome to my world, sister.--65.142.146.174 02:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No. I am not. I could tell you liked drugsGfwesq 02:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

(Wow, you're really insistent on this whole Tracy/Hepburn cadence of our broohaha here, so I'll leave the order in place this time - I thought it was a mistake. I am a format freak, though, so I've fixed the tabs a bit - sorry.)--65.142.146.174 02:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, the reason I did not name the specific edits because I was fearful of the underlying truth of them. Or maybe it was because there were roughly 70,000 of them in a row, most of which contained no summaries. Or maybe it's because the edits mainly consisted of adding the words "This is clearly false" to the end of of any section detailing a stance of the tort reform movement.

Whatever the case,Ted and I obviously would have better understood these edits had I read the aforementioned "'corporate-reform'" article that was left uncited in the opening paragraph of this version. Unfortunately, there isn't one. Maybe you should write it, that way it would be legal to use such a phrase. If you do, I hereby promise I won't do anything sly, like add:

"Critics argue that what is needed is 'tort reform', and not 'corporate reform'."

...and then link it back to this article. For some reason, I don't think I'll have to worry about it too much. It sounds like you intend to wander around here for a while, clicking various things and making the world safe for Americans, American puppies, rich lawyers and totally rockin' income redistribution.

Regardless of this, I come from a long line of dogged trudgers, and so will I trudge doggedly forth. I will restore the original article forever, and you unrestore it, and thusly we will be locked in an eternal conflict for trendy web real estate. At least until the time when you and Ms Bloom gain the legal right to sue me for gross not-agreeing-with-you-ness, or witchcraft, or whatever your lawyer can come up with that rhymes with "one hundred million dollars."

Love, Jarod --65.142.146.174 00:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Its quite obvious you don't address the arguments because you can't.Yelling liberal liberal liberal is not an argument. Nor is your juvenile rantings If that's the best you can do, I think I will just ignore you until you can muster a rational argument that addresses the facts. Pounding the table and screaming doesn't impress anyone. Now you run along, I hear your mother calling. Someone's flushed poor Ted down the loo! Gfwesq 01:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, weird; I just scanned my post and I didn't see the word "liberal" typed into it. If I misunderstood, and you really are hearing voices screaming "LIBERAL!LIBERAL!" inside your head, I'm actually sorry for your handicap, for everything I just wrote and for not heeding the call of my mother. She passed away in June 2003, after a long and really horrific battle with ovarian cancer. So, thanks for bringing her into this, Gfwesq - you're obviously a class act, gifted with a hilariously subtle wit.

actually you mentioned liberal in re: Stpehen Colbert. Then there were the remarks about (unless of course the nun is a Democrat and a dastardly Republican is doing the punching) hitting a nun . Oh I almost forgot, thank you for the compliment. It still not an argument addressing any of the points.Gfwesq 02:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, poor Jarod and his imaginary friend have a memory problem, Gfwesq. I thought I would add his quote: Stephen Colbert is a liberal comedian, and that I hate kittens and the moon...

That's enough quoting from Jarod, since all of it is in the same vein of drivel. It seems that he is the one who has the handicap, and it is indeed severe -- he talks to imaginary characters and has cognitive dysfunction. He also knows nothing about WIkipedia, or any responsible encyclopedia, since they are not intended to be political forums. Oh, yes, and I am a proud liberal, as entitled to edit WIkipedia as your average rightwingnut fruitcake.MollyBloom 02:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It would require a mammoth effort to catalog all the bits of vandalism that have been inflicted on this article over the past two month.

This is an inappropriate use of the word vandalism. Vandalism is not defined as edits you don't like.MollyBloom 15:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The usage was rhetorical, I admit. But the more I read this, the more research I find deleted without explanation, just the word "bias" typed over and over in the summaries? I would tend to call that vandalism. --HelloDali 16:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I think most of what I wrote I explained. Unsubstantiated claims that were opinions were deleted. We really need to make this a balanced and properly referenced document. Another problem was that there were repeated 'follow up' contradicting the anti-tort reform, without a similar treatment of the pro-tort reform. This is not legitimate. There are many many other examples of this. Most I discussed in the talk pages. ONe of the problems I see with this and other political articles (even ones I agree with) is that there are entirely too many "some people argue" or "proponents argue" or "critics argue". etc. This is simply bs. What this really means is that the author thinks this. If I were grading a paper, for example, I would fail the student. It is atrocious writing, and is anything but NPOV.MollyBloom 22:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Luckily I know several mammoths, and am feeling fit to the task. I aplogize in advance for the space this is going to consume, but it seems as though threats of deletion, censorship and lots of clicking and talking about people's mothers are going resume if it goes down any other way.

Why don't you post wth one name? We know you are the same person. And why don't you try to simply state what you don't like here, and discuss the proposed changes, instead of editorializing and perpetuating ill feelings?MollyBloom 15:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Who's "we"? How am I perpetuating ill feelings? I don't understand this comment?--HelloDali 16:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to annotate as I go. For the sake of everyone's sanity, here's how I'd like this to happen. I'll post each problem I have with each section of the article, then I will make that change. Please respond here appropriately (and nicely) to my change, calling out the protions of the rewrite you think fail NPOV

WW - Weasel words B - Bias OR - Original Research UW - Undue Weight

"Tort reform" is the phrase used by its advocates who claim it is a change in the legal system to reduce litigation's alleged adverse effects on the economy[1]. Both the advocates' intention and the need are a matter of controversy[2].

While the phrase "tort reform" might imply any change in tort law or procedure, the commonly understood use in political and academic arenas describes a movement to limit tort litigation and monetary remedies (damages). It does not include reforms that would expand liability, such as laws that create new causes of action or that increase damage awards. Critics argue that what is needed is 'corporate reform', and not 'tort reform'[4].

1 - (WW, B) In the lead sentence, scare quotes and the words "alleged" and "claim" are all used. Beside this being a really bloated sentence - I smell incredible, weasely bias.

You deny so called tort reformers allege their reforms are needed to reduce adverse economic effects? This is going to be intersting. Gfwesq 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

2 - (WW, B) This is followed immediately by a claim that tort reform's intention and stated claims are "a matter of controversy" Mind you, we don't really know what tort reforms are yet or who supports them, but we already know that they both "allege" and "claim" things, have supsicious motives and are controversial.

Actually if you read, what the claim is, is stated. Gfwesq 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

They are a matter of controversy and should be stated as such at the beginning. MollyBloom 15:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

But isn't everything in politics "controversial"? Just trying to slim this thing down.--HelloDali 16:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, everything in politics is not controversial. Going after UBL was not controversial. GWB's low standing with the American public is not contorversial. I could go on. Gfwesq 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't go on with this sort of thing. I think I get your political slant... maybe that's the point.--HelloDali 19:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

3 - (OR, UW, B) In the followup paragraph, there is a link to a Ralph Nader website. According to this author, Nader and his lobby are the key opposition to tort reform (as opposed to, say, ATLA), and are so closely identified with the movement that the deserve a mention and a link in the lead paragraph.

Nader is a single critic. To suggest it is the sole one is a strawman argument and is not logical.

?? I know - that's why I removed it (it was linked to the word "Critics"). Or maybe I'm not sure what you're saying here... please explain.--HelloDali 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to be obtuse, I refined the sentence. Ralph Nader is a major critic of so called tort reform. He has also been an important consumer activist for 40 years. He is not the only critc and unless you want me to link to every critic, one should suffice. Why do you assume the ATLA is the only critic? (is your agenda showing?) Gfwesq 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's try to refrain from shouting an interrupt at every line I type - I organized my thoughts in such a way to make them easy for everyone to read, and hoping you'd do the same in an organized response. It's starting to look very messy, through no fault of my own. Thanks--HelloDali 19:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

4 - (OR, B) The bit about "corporate reform" sounds like original research too me. It has no article or description of what it means, and the weight given to it in this article about "tort reform" at the very least, strange.

Here's the new article lead, and the one I will immediately restore:

The term "tort reform" is used by its advocates to describe a change in the United Statescivil justice system intended to improve its efficiency or reduce litigation's adverse effects on the economy. It may also be used to describe individual ammendments to tort procedures, rather than to describe the movement that supports widespread changes[1].

Actually I'm going to edit my own sentence here, since the followup is a little redundant.--HelloDali 16:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Newer Lead:

The term "tort reform" is used by its advocates to describe a change in the civil justice system that they believe will improve its efficiency or reduce litigation's adverse effects on the economy.

That's good.

While the phrase "tort reform" might imply any change in tort law or procedure, the commonly understood use in political and academic arenas describes a movement to curb tort litigation and damages. It does not include reforms that would expand liability, such as laws that create new causes of action or that increase damage awards.

What I like about this is that it very brisk and direct, and that it includes a link for people to find out more about what a "tort" is.--HelloDali 16:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine.

1 - "Intended" satisfies NPOV without the use of a string of loaded words.

2 - Simple follow. No links to any groups, funds or alliances (pro or con), just summary of the term.

No, a comment that the term (purpose and need) is controversial and the Nader statment, as an example. We need to substantiate claims, even if it is only an example. This is a theme of critics, and has legitimate bases, as evidenced by the many many corporate scandals (not just financial). MollyBloom 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Any Questions?--HelloDali 15:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I actually annotated my "Agenda" edits throughly, but they got lost in an edit-conflict. I'll retype as soon as I can.

As for the above, I'm really asking for comments on my new version as well as on the previous one. If possible, I'd like some input on why my re-write fails NPOV?--HelloDali 16:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You do not make massive deletions of properly referenced and written work by other editors, calling it vandalism. No admin or neutral observer would think that is acceptable. The problem with the piece before is that there were many claims made without substantiation, and it looked like a rant. MollyBloom 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That said, some of your intro is very good.MollyBloom 22:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A discussion on civility is in order. Also, this baiting needs to stop. Now.

1. The person using HelloDali and other aliases should try to use one name, to avoid confusion and sockpuppetry.
2. Strawman arguments will be exposed.
3. HelloDali (or whatever other name he is using) is the one making threats to delete and revert - nobody else.

Actually when I scrolled up, I noticed that you wrote a headed section entitled "Entire article should be scrapped". It seems as if that's what touched off this entire debate, does it not?--HelloDali 20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

4. THe idea of discussion is to discuss changes and get input. Not to post the change, write a diatribe about other editors, and threaten to revert any change.MollyBloom 15:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, but I'm not sure what was uncivil about the above? Please explain??--HelloDali 16:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've re-structured the top of the piece tremendously now, and added a new section for competing reports (which I also re-organized to indicate their pro and con findings) My main goal was slimming it down, trying to tone down the editiorializing at the top, and present the recommended reforms before we explain who is for or against them.

I personally think it flows better with the bullets listing specific changes, and carving off all of the various pro and con statistics that we're originally leaking into Agenda makes a lot more sense (as with hard newswriting, it seems good wiki start with a broad overview, then get into the specific scraps and bits as you scroll down)

I also like having the Studies section, since it seems everyone always has new studies and new numbers, allowing this section to evolve grdually over time.

What do you think?--HelloDali 18:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The intro paragraph does need a statement that this is a controversial subject. I included this again. Will look at the rest.MollyBloom 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it again. I think this issue was covered about a year ago, when someone kept tryin to add the term "tort deform" into the opening line. Out of curiosity I did some Google experiments. Not very scientific, but yielded some interesting results - try this for yourself, Molly:

Google "Tort reform" = about 3.5 million results

Google "Corporate Reform" = about 200,000 results

Google "Tort reform" + "Corporate Reform" = about 770 results

Of the "corporate reform" links, the group you cited appears in the #1 slot - so if you clicked "I'm Feeling Lucky" you'd hit it!

Again, 770 is a relatively low number for people who are talking about both. And neither the term or the link seem relevant enough to describing what "tort reform" is. Sorry.--HelloDali 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Where to begin? If you really want to collaborate on this article, I’ll participate, but only if we limit the citations to legitimate academic studies. Studies produced on behalf of the insurance industry or “vanity academics” (The Claremont institute, the Manhattan Institute, the Hudson Institute, with their “Olin Scholars” etc) should be eliminated as inherently biased and unreliable.

I'd disagree. T/Towers Perrin is a very large and influential group, and their '03 Study is heavily quoted by reform advocates. Plus it serves is a good primer the discussion of the effects of medical malpractice litigation on the price of medical insurance. This actually is something tort reformers talk about quite a lot, regardless of whether we think they are right or not.--HelloDali 23:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree all you like, T/Towers Perrin knows where its bread is buttered. Its harsh world bro; he who has the geld rules and my real world experience with consultants is they never forget that.Gfwesq 23:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I just read this... Please stop this sort of facile rhetoric, Gfwesq. One might as easily say that plaintiff's attorneys' "bread and butter" comes from Class A civil suits. If that's the test, that would render such individuals viewpoints invalid as well, not too mention those of their lobbies. All parties have a stake. And don't patronize me anymore. Thanks--HelloDali 19:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I won't patronize you anymore. Please note time and date stamps. However, your comparison is incorrect. If I were to argue that Plaintiff's lawyers' have sponsered studies that say X, Y and Z, your comparison would be correct. I have not done so, and do not suggest we do so. If you recall, I argued for neutral academic studies that are not sponsered by interested parties. I also argued on this page against vanity academic articles from think tanks which were set up to pursue a particular agenda and accept large donations from interested parties. That said, it has come to my attention that among its businesses TTP is a reinsurer meaning it is also an insurance company. TTP is an interested party for several reasons and its studies should be reviewed with that in mind with a great deal of skepticism. Have a good weekend!Gfwesq 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems is context. For example, the English rule is byproduct of Trial by Combat and Trial by ordeal. The idea behind those archaic (dare I say uncivilized) methods of settling disputes is that God protects the innocent. The American rule is a little more modern than that and understands that, at best, God acts in mysterious ways and the “innocent” isn’t always protected. Sometimes justice goes to the ones who can hire the best lawyers and experts- see O.J. Simpson. Hence, the American rule. If we don’t include this explanation, casual readers won’t know where the rule comes from or why the American rule is possibly (dare I say probably) more just.

Well that's all great. But again Wiki is descriptive not proscriptive. So that means we can't put in any judgements about which rule is better, right?--HelloDali 23:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out the origins of the Englsih rule and why the American courts disdained to adopt the English rule is not a value judgment. I would be content with that, let the reader decide. I have argued before juries and I have sat on a jury. I believe in democracy and I trust juries to generally get it right, provided the advocates are playing on an even field. Gfwesq 23:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of context, we will need to explore the history of joint and several liability, Standards for complaints? Are we talking the conservative California or NY rule or the more liberal federal rules (adopted by the majority of the states) or harkening back to the more challenging 19th century civil procedure practice. There are reasons why modern civil procedure scrapped the 19th century civil procedure. BTW, not to be insulting, but if you don’t have a clue as to what I am talking about or if any of this is new to you, you have no business editing this article, because you don’t know what you are talking about.

Changes in other evidentiary rules (e.g. permitting the admission of evidence that a plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt); WTF?!! ITS ALREADY ADMISSIBLE!!!!!

First off , it isn't an evidentary rule. It is a defense to negligence. If you are going to discuss this, KNOW YOUR TERMS! I gather terms like contributory negligence and comparative negligence are new to you and other "tort reformers". Because defendants are allowed to defend, under the rules of evidence, they are allowed to introduce anything that tends to prove their defense and you guessed it, plaintiff's failure to wear a seatbelt is relevant and admissible

I can only assume this proposed "reform" is a demand to go back to strict contributory negligence, which is an unnecessairly harsh rule. It means, (and I must assume you don't know, since you are using terms incorrectly and without logic) that if the victim was even 1% negligent, s/he is SOL and the guilty party, the tortfeasor, goes scot free regardless of how negligent. This is a classic example of defining deviancy down (as Newt liked to say) to zero!

The modern rule, comparative negligence, is more nuanced and assigns blame proprotionately and reduces awards proportionately. Again without context, the casual reader, would think, that such evidence is inadmissable. WHICH IT IS NOT.

Converesly, if it is not a demand to go back to strict contributory negligence, what purpose does it serve, since under the rules of evidence, its admissible.

We can collaborate and produce a thoughtful article. Or we can just have an edit war. But this is not going to be a propaganda piece like it was before. Gfwesq 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa.. calm down. I actually didn't originally write the bit about "seatbelts" - I think the original author was trying to cite an example of an existing evidentiary rule for people who didn't know what one was. Still I agree its awkwardly done, and could lead people to a weird conclusion. Consider it out.--HelloDali 23:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The original author was in over his head. Gfwesq 23:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also I think showcasing how the term "frivolous lawsuit" is used by advocates worked perfectly well the way I had writtern it (I even included a link to the legal definition for those who wanted to know more) Of course all of my work was instantly torn down and replaced with a single, terse confusing sentence.

The sentence is not terse, and it is not confusing. The points you raised do not go to any definition of a 'frivolous' lawsuit, but to either the meaning of 'merits' or even worse, the way litigation is handled. Let's discuss here on the talk page, to avoid ridiculous edit wars.MollyBloom 23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is defining frivoulous lawsuit. I think the legal definition is the only definition that should be used. Calling a desk a chair, doesn't make a desk a chair and it confuses everybody. I could consider stating the actual legal definition of a frivolous lawsuit and then say tort reformers seek to change that definition (to what? and can it be said in 10 words or less). But I suspect tort reformers would object, because objectively, the actual legal definition works perfectly well and then people might wonder what is their point. Gfwesq 00:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we can collaborate, but lets have a bit of intellectual honesty. So far I have seen a bunch of really clear, undisguised bias. Collaboration means you have to bend a little too, and that means no more sneaky edits, or contrarianism for its own sake. If this is going to be good, polished writing we need to cooperate.

I do not see sneaky edits or cotnrarianism. I agree that we all must cooperate. Gfwesq and I both have a legal background. Therefore, our edits reflect that. It does not sound like you do. Perhaps we need to discuss some of the edits, and help each other understand what we mean. The article should be concise - see below where I discuss your major edit inclusions that will serve only to lengthen the article, or produce an extremely POV.MollyBloom 23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is bias on both sides. I don't have a problem admiting I think tort reform's sole aim is to take a playing field that is relatively even and make it favor those with the money to spend on lawyers and experts to wear out and wear down potential plaintiff's who generally have little money, have lost wages and savings and face medical bills. It isn't justice, its OJ in the civil area. It is unequal justice before the law. It is anti-democratic. Those who bankroll the tort reform know perfectly well what they are doing. And they are the only ones who count. What bias do you admit to? 1. Sneaky edit needs to be defined. Is it an edit not agreed upon on the talk page 1st? 2. A framework (an outline) needs to be hammered out of what should be included and why. An article which is merely a wish list of what tort reformers what to see enacted is nothing more than an advertisment. I suggest a short representative list, that discusses the pros and cons. A "kitchen sink" list will be too long. 3. Finally this isn't something I see finishing in a couple of days. I expect to take a month to 6 weeks. Gfwesq 00:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's my first proposition - we need to come to some kind of agreement about the top of this page. I don't want the words "controversial", "alleged" or scare quotes. Its not just that I think their a little weasly, but it's not appropriate AP Style Guide usage. "Allege" is supposed to be in connection an accusation of a midemeanor or crime and "controversial" is a loaded word. Again, if we use it in the first sentence here, it means we'd have to use in pracitically every politcal wiki in existence, which would be boring and a bit 1984-ish??

The intro does need to discuss the political controversy, or it is misleading. The word 'allege' is most certainly not only in connection with a crime etc. I do not know where you got that idea. Controversial is not a loaded word. Why do you say that? It is telling a truth. There is no more controversial subject right now in politics than tort reform. Don't you think the reader should know that this is what is going to be discussed? That is generally the way a good paper would introcuce a subject.MollyBloom 23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a controversial subject and avoiding saying it is, is to ignore the elephant in the room. Knowledgeable readers won't take you seriously. Better to state openly in the first paragraph that it is a controversial subject. Both sides are make claims. The critics have an advantage becasue their claims have been tested and proven to work over the last couple of hundred years. We can subsitute claim for allege, but its going to make tedious reading. I suggest we use allege, claim or some other appropriate word but not use one exclsuively. Gfwesq 01:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I am a trained journalist, and I'm referring to the AP Stylebook, which is the generic style book that hard newswriters use. It includes lots of little rules to ensure quality and consistency of meaning across naratives (unfortunately it has a really tiny wiki - I'll have to do something about that eventually :P. In any case, AP always recommends "belief" when referring to an unproven thesis or contention. --HelloDali 00:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree to that?--HelloDali 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that about seat belts did not know what he was talking about, or he was trying to deliberately mislead. Also, I deleted several sections on your TTP and other rants, because to rebut them in the context of the article would take pages. I trust that readers can look up the external links if they want to see every point the TTP made, and every point critics (and the CBO) said in rebuttal. Even the CBO criticized as excessive some of TTPS costs. There also are criticisms that the numbers are not verifiable, they include costs that are not tort costs, etc etc etc. This is not going to be an article to profile TTP or the radical right wing who want to go back to a contributory negligence system, or a feudal system where serfs have no recourse. And to add, as I started to do, every rebuttal from the myriad of sources that rebut these statements would make this into a ridiculously long article. IN other words, your 'summary' was not a summary, but a one-sided argument.MollyBloom 23:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I will say that I am relieved that the tone is more adult here, and the incendiary comments and political bashing are subdued. Now let's work to make this a consise article, that is truly NPOV.

MollyBloom 23:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we can just calm Molly down we have a shot at getting this right (;

I'd reccomend not taking cheap shots like that. I'd fire back with withering fire were it aimed at me Gfwesq 00:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Gfwesq 01:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We can't turn it into an "anti-tort reform" screed either. The problem with this article has always been that there was no "original author" - from the get-go it became an battleground for pundits on either side. That said, there have always been sections available for debates over the theorectical consequences of the reforms (for instance "The Tort Reform Debate" and "Opponents of Tort Reform".) I actually do remember a set of edits in which these were very well-defined and NPOV, but they got lost in the sands of time, and what's currently up there isn't working very well. So first we need to agree to stop trying to load anything proscriptive into the lede and agenda sections (Webster's defines agenda as meaning "a list of stated purposes"), including links to oppositional pundits, etc. From there I think we could move forward carefully and stop writing all over each other.--HelloDali 23:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is most of the debates over consequences are not theorectical. What the reformers are attempting to do is undo all of the original reforms in tort law of the 20th century and roll back tort law to the 19th century. There is a reason these reforms came about, namely to address real world problems. Removing the original reform isn't going to make those old issues go away. They will return. Being an ostrich is not a soloution. The critics have the upper hand, because law is often experimental. What becomes the majority rule is what proved to be most successful in addressing the problem. Accordingly, I would object to calling consequences theorectical. We know the consequences because we know why the changes in the law came about. What is theorectical is how the tort reformers would address the old problems as they reappear as they inevitably will do. Context is everything. Gfwesq 01:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean, obviously TTP wasn' a rant.

No, it wasn't obvious. TTP pushes an industry funded POV.

It was a single sentence with a few bullet points.

To which one would have to add another section of rebuttal bullet points. This is not the way to write a consice article.

But I think this highlights an important point... people almost never notice their own bias. I think that's why the removal of loaded words is important. If you go back and read the article now, you'll notice that in the lede paragraph you (the one you erased), I didn't use any words with positive connectations. But when you first read it, all you noticed is that it didn't include any negative ones... I'm pretty sure there's a whole neural science based around why that is, but I think I find it a little despairing that we've been at it so long now without anyone being able to quote anything to me that I wrote that makes it seem as though I feel one way or the other about tort reform. Indeed, how do you even know that I'm not AGAINST it. This has been a very strange day for me.--HelloDali 00:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I. Including TTP in the intro section to the article and not in the debate, means a rebuttal is in order. This will make the article unduly long.

II. The definition of 'frivolous'.

Rhetoric, by definition, is to persuade someone of the righteousness of a cause. Therefore, a paragraph of your rhetorical understanding of 'all' tort reform critics is not the way to introduce this article.

Now, please take a look at this, before you change back the definition of 'frivolous'. A plaintiff's attorney must make a reasonable investigation into the merits of a case, to avoid an FRCP11 (frivolous lawsuit motion) or the state equivalent. One does not have to prove the case, and not even tort reform advocates suggest one would have to prove the case before they have an opportunity to prove a case.

The trial is the venue to prove a case. The vast majority of tort cases are negligence claims, and require the plaintiff to prove 4 things:

1. Duty of Care - does the defendant owe a duty of some sort to the plaintiff (this includes the general duty to not harm the public)

2. Breach of Duty - was that duty breached

3. Causation - is there a link between the defendants act and the harm done. Case law back to the 1920s states that the link cannot be too tenuous.

4. Damages - There must be some harm to the plaintiff, caused by defendant, that can be defined in monetary terms.

The real point, then, that you seem to be arguing is that the jury has not determined causation or damages. But the whole point of the jury is to determine this. That is, unless you want to throw out jury trials altogether and completely change our three branch structure of government.

That is the problem with your overly broad definition, that is much more confusing than a concise definition of frivolous.MollyBloom 00:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

Tort reform is a controversial subject, and has been one of the most debated policy issues in recent times.

That's perfect. Better than mine. Thanks.

MollyBloom 00:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No. It is not going to read as you wrote it. It is not just a 'strict' interpretation of the law - it is the legal definition. Your statement is factually untrue.

Now we can discuss what lay people or the public understand it to be. And that we should discuss here. Essentially, it all comes down to a lawsuit without merit, as opposed to the legal defintion of frivolous. If you read what I wrote above, you would understand what this means. Perhaps we should couch it in this context. Regardless, we should talk about it here before changing it. I can't speak for Gfwesq, but I imagine he would agree that the statement as you wrote it is simply unacceptable.

Contrary to what some people think, NO lawsuit can be litigated based solely on hypothetical damages. There MUST be actual damages. Therefore, your statement simply is not true. Serious 'tort reformers' would not even make that argument. WHat I included is a statement that says, 'more broadly, a frivolous lawsuit has come to mean a lawsuit that is without merit. Anything more than that, let's discuss here, before changing, to avoid an edit war.MollyBloom 00:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reason is because semantics will be important later on in the article. For instance, dictionary def is "Unworthy of serious attention" or "Inappropriately silly". I think it stands to measure that advocates of tort reform (as well as pro-reform editorials, tv news formats, comedians, etc.) often use the term to describe their grievance, and in connection with a category of personal injury and product liability lawsuits or judgments that they deem "silly." (the Mcdonald's coffee suit springs to mind as something that's been frequently labeled "frivolous" by critics, even though it isn't techincally). In addition to being a legal issue, we have to remember that "tort reform" is also a philosophical stance, and thatthis notion is at the core of it. That's the way they use it, and it will be helpful in decribing the term.

(And stop saying I don't understand what it means. You'll note I also linked to the legal textbook definition. I think we need to have both, which is how I had it)--HelloDali 00:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If semantics is so important, than you need to be more careful with the words. What you have is unacceptable.MollyBloom 00:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But why? After all this time you still haven't told me why? I haven't argued that the courtroom definition doesn't belong, and have included it each time (and will proceed to, since its appropriate and accurate.) Ther is absolutely nothing wrong with neutrally defining a key belief of advocates of tort reform in the lede paragraph about "tort reform".--HelloDali 00:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have explained it, but I will explain it again.

1. Contrary to what some people think, NO lawsuit can be litigated based solely on hypothetical damages. There MUST be actual damages. Therefore, your statement simply is not true. Serious 'tort reformers' would not even make that argument.

2. McDonald's is an issue of proportionality of damages, right? Or is it causation? Or both? You are lumping too much into one term and that is confusing. It was confusing to me, reading it. Again, tort reformers that I have talked to would separate these issues, and not call it all 'frivolous'. Frivolous is a suit without merit. That is independent of damages.

MollyBloom 00:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How's this

The legal definition of a frivolous lawsuit is one that cannot reasonably be supported under existing legal precedent or under a good-faith argument for a change in the law. The term has acquired a broader rhetorical definition in political debates about tort reform, where it is sometimes used by reform advocates to describe tort lawsuits that are seemingly without merit, or where the judgements seem inordinately high relative to the damages.--HelloDali 00:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's good! But change 'damages' to 'harm' so as not to confuse (two def'n of damages).MollyBloom 00:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I will stipulate to that definition. Gfwesq 01:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, could you make that change? I gotta get back to work now, lest my employer "reform" my salary. But good work tonight, and nice talking to you. We'll pick this up again later.--HelloDali 00:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Also, I agree with Gfwesq - you can't have a vague laundry list of items like this. Some don't even make sense. Others are not explained and there is no opportunity to discuss, really, in the article. So pick a few major points, which can be discussed in the article. Otherwise, it is meaningless.MollyBloom 01:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK - I added a citation from DHHS about the link between rising cost of mm premiums and reduced access to health care. Please do not delete it or replace it with "no statistics bear this out" before a proper discussion (or, indeed, before reading it).--HelloDali 13:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this section needs a bit of a re-write, eventually. I'll try to give it some thought later this week. Hear me out...

For something titled "the tort reform debate", it seems awkward to launch directly into an argument about product liability in the auto industry (as opposed to other kinds of personal injury, medical malpractice, etc which are just as hot-button) Basically, as written I think that only addresses part of the debate without properly framing it first. Not only that, but the first paragraph feels heavy. I think we have to choose one of the two automotive examples provided, cite it more succinctly and maybe remove the quotes (otherwise the article might start to become quote crazy). Also there's sentence in there that reads "The value of human life was not factored into the equation." If it's not a direct quote from the source, I think it should be removed since it sounds so editorial. If it is a quote, well, I think it should have quotes around it.

It may sound editorial, but it is a fact. The entire issue was a cost-benefit analysis. We'll work on this, though - the ugliness of the facts does not change the facts.

But there is no "value" of human life - human life is by definition, invaluable. That's the point, and the reason the statement can't be a fact. How could they "factor in" a value that doesn't exist?--HelloDali 18:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But there is no "value" of human life - human life is by definition, invaluable Well that sounds nice and pious, but what do you mean? Is it so valuable that no-one can ever be compensated, so lets not try? The fact is money is a poor substitute for life, but I am afraid that all the law can work with. May I suggest you check out the book, What is Life Worth? by Kenneth Feinberg which addresses the subject. Feingberg oversaw the 9-11 vicitm compensation fund and he used traditional tort law rules. Traditional tort law takes into account many factors, such as life expectancy, earning power, as well as more amorphus issues such as loss of companionship (loss of consortium). Yes money is a poor substitute but it is all we have to work with and within that framework, a value can be placed on life. And yes Ford and GM both used a cost benefit analysis to figure out what they would likely payout in wrongful death cases based upon an estimated number of deaths from defectively designed gas tanks (both Ford and GM) versus how much the retrofit cost. This is well documentated and involved two major cases. Ford went so far as to use the cost benefit analysis to try and persuade the Nixon administration NTSA that it shouldn't be required to do so. Does this help your understanding? Gfwesq 00:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what I meant (and no, I don't presume to piety). But, hopefully, we can continue this discussion on the next page so I can clarify.--HelloDali 19:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And actually I think the entire paragraph and the followup I wrote actually belong down under "Theorectical Issues - How would tort reform affect safety. If this was the case I think we could scrap the heading "Theorectical Issues" and make it just begin with "How would tort reform affect safety"? It just seems better organized this way... here's a potential new chapter structure...

The tort reform debate

How would tort reform affect safety?

Con

(saftey argument)

Pro

(saftey argument)

Controversy over job loss claims

Pro

(job argument)

Con

(job argument)

...etc. Thoughts?--HelloDali 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps...Let's discuss more here, first. I still have a problem with the laundry list of 'tort reform' complaints that a Wiki article cannot address, without becoming unwieldy. I am not sure what to do about this. I personally hope to God that the jury system and election of judges are not thrown out....And, the Daubert hearings already make it difficult to qualify expert witnesses. To have expert witnesses appointed b y an appointed judge would seriously undermine our democracy and entire system of justice. But that seems to be the aim of some 'tort reformers'.MollyBloom 17:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well look, you don't have to preach to me about any of this... to be quite honest I'm actually on the fence with many of these reforms, and there are some I just flat out oppose. But that doesn't mean that this arguement shouldn't get a fair, impartial reckoning. It is clear that there are many predatory, greedy trial lawyers in the world. It's equally clear that there are many predatory, greedy corporations in the world. And caught in the middle are industrial workers, white collar workers, doctors, patients and about a million lobbies on either side that deal their cards from the sleeve.

And the debate is not worthless, because we do live in a democracy. Our laws aren't static, and are constantly up for reevaluation. As you know, many of these kinds of changes have already been passed at the state level, which means that there are large groups of people who agree with their content. My brother is both a Democrat and an Emergency MD, and recently had cause to rethink some of his positions on this when he saw his hospital being destaffed of specialists due to several colleagues being unable to pay their premiums.

Too bad your brother bought into the insurance propaganda.

I never said the debate was worthless. What I said is that we cannot address every tort reform wishlist point in a general article on tort reform, in Wikipedia. The article would go on forever. And it is not NPOV to raise the specific point as something tort reformists want, without a full discussion (pros and cons). We can't possibly address all of them. That is my point. jgwlaw 00:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And while you seem content to decribe "corporations" only in terms of their being evil, souless monoliths, I beg you to remember that although corporations pay out settlements on the front end, much of that bill is actually footed on the backend by shareholders, taxpayers and consumers in the form of of higher administrative costs, reduced share prices and higher production costs. Dollars gained from successful suits don't just "stick it to the man" - they come out of the pockets of employees. A "corporation" is just a piece of paper, but they are composed of lots of flesh-and-blood people of all incomes and political stripes, all of whom who get hurt every time the price of doing business goes up.

You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say any of this. Corporations are the way they are because they have a legal duty to maximize profits of shareholder. Therefore, it is not surprising that left alone, corporations will maximize the profits of shareholders - at any cost. A corporation is a legal entity. The tripe (and excuse me, but it is) that corporations are composed of people is irrelevant to this discussion.jgwlaw 00:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, what about American corporations that find they cannot compete with foriegn corporations that don't have to contend with the same litigation costs and defensive measures? They typically cannot borrow out increasing amounts of debt - so they pack up and head overseas, taking blue collar jobs with them (e.g. the "evil" American auto industry). What I'm saying is that this is a complex, hydra-headed debate, and there are legitimate players on each side of it who want the same thing... better laws and better justice. My $0.02--HelloDali 18:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Who says they can't compete? This is a popular complaint of tort reformists, but there is little evidence to support it. Of course, it is a complex issue. But if you look at these tort reforms, the forces backing these would throw out our entire civil justice system.jgwlaw 00:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear why you believe that the "English Rule" could never, ever, ever benefit a plaintiff? I'm sure you don't want me to dig up English case law to find instances where a plaintiff actually won... that could be an article (or a website!) unto itself ;-p. Please restore, thanks--HelloDali 22:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. On the whole, plaintiffs will be far more adversely affected than defendants by this rule, because generally individuals would be risking everything they have and more to file a legitimate lawsuit. Frankly, to suggest that this would benefit plaintiffs is disingenous. The purpose of all of these is to benefit defendants.jgwlaw 00:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

" It is clear that there are many predatory, greedy trial lawyers in the world. It's equally clear that there are many predatory, greedy corporations in the world." This is boilerplate nonsense. The former is a hasty generalization, not grounded in logic. The latter is not grounded in reality. You are ascribing human characteristics to a legal fiction.The for profit corporation's 1st duty is to maximize profits. Its not a question of being greedy. It is also not a question of sticking it to the man, its a queston of fair compensation to tort victims to be made by tortfeasors. It would help if you would throw away your preconcieved notions of what tort law is all about and start with an open mind. Gfwesq 00:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what the motivation is for tort reform, I am only concerned with what is the result- taking a playing field that is relatively even and make it favor those with the money to spend on lawyers and experts to wear out and wear down potential plaintiff's who generally have little money, have lost wages and savings and face medical bills. That is the objective. The effect is to turn tort law back to the 19th century. I don't profess to read minds as to why. It isn't sticking it to anyone other than the tortfeasor. It accountability. Gfwesq 00:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"I'm unclear why you believe that the "English Rule" could never, ever, ever benefit a plaintiff?" That's not what I said. The English rule is designed to make those with little $ to think twice, because rightousness of your casue and $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, but it won't win cases. When the playing field is level, when the advocates are well matched, then right makes might. Otherwise those with big bucks can hire the best lawyers and best experts and he who has the most money wins, regardless of the merits. A loser pays rule adds a couple of wild cards to the side with the most money. Does that make it clearer why I don't think it is a good idea. Justice should not be available solely to those with the most money. I think this is intuitively obvious to most people. It is not designed to benefit plaintiffs, its designed to discourage plaintiff, regardless of the merits of their case. If you lose, you are now stuck with defense costs (and if you think plaintiff's lawyer make big bucks, wait to you see defense counsel's bill). The quaint idea that God protects the inoccent is not grounded in reality in a modern court room. Gfwesq 00:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I was the one who made the edit to which I think Doli refers. However, that said, it is disingenous to suggest that the English rule would benefit plaintiffs. While obviously some plaintiffs win, many do not. Many with legitmate claims do not, because few plaintiff's firms have the resources that defendant law firms have. The huge PI firms are not the norm. What 'loser pays' would do - and is intended to do - is to deter all lawsuits, with or without merit. Most people, no matter how good their case, would be reluctant to pursue it if they could be responsible for defendant's costs if they lost. Further, there already is a provision in place that would award defendant attorney's fees in the case of a firvolous lawsuit, and that is Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 (most states also have such a rule). Therefore, the only plaintiffs that would generally be affected by a loser pays rule would be those who prosecute, but lose, a legitimate claim. The plaintiffs law firms would not pay these costs - they would be the responsibility of the plaintiff. jgwlaw 01:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Historical revisionism. Factually incorrect. Reccomend those who do not know the history read Jerome Auerbach's Unequal Justice which traces the use of lawsuits beginning in the 1920's to overturn Plessy. See also Fox News commentator Juan Williams' biography of Thurgood Marshall. It was a deliberate strategy. One that was so successful that it has been copied by the anti-abortion movement. To say the lawsuit strategy is overstated is to not know the facts. The legislation that followed was primarily after Brown. This will not do. I am willing to leave it up with a facts needed for a couple of weeks, but if the best tort reformers can do is a highly controversial book cited in Wikipedia that is not academically accepted, the line needs to go. Frankly I am being charitable, this is just simply incorrect and to leave it in invites other factually deficient assertions. Gfwesq 02:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

.,,but this last exchange got my dander up again. Dali, listen up. You seem okay (basically sane, sober, clean-shaven, etc), but you're completely and totally nuts. Why are you even having a conversation with these beautiful, amazing, flawlessly reasoned people? After all, isn't it clear that the TTP, since it was contracted by insurers, is hopelessly biased (as opposed to trial attorneys and their consultants, who have no vested financial interest in tort reform whatsoever, and therefore are free to quote studies as they please?)

A slice of advice, my friend - this arguement is completely absurd. With a straight face, they are arguing that civil trial lawyers and their backers don't have any financial interest in enforcing strict caps on punitive damages and contingent fees, then in the next breath, say that insurers and their countless minions do. Ga-huhhh???

(Actually I don't know if they have a straight face. They may be giggling psychotically. In a bathtub full of tobacco money.)

The point is, at least one has already admitted to being a trial lawyer, and therefore probably has more money then 6 rooms full of me and you. She argues for a living, and will argue, inanely and illogically, forever. Her condescension is emblematic of why we need tort reform. Trial lawyers have forgotten that all citizens in a free society create law. They just practice it. So stop being so sycophantic and start kicking some tail, buddy. A mildy special third grader could dissect the nonsense about "factoring in the value of life" (of course its an editorial comment Molly - are you even SERIOUS?)

Now watch this magic trick. I'm serious watch... In about forty-five seconds, what I just wrote is going to be interrupted at least four times, and will include howling appeals to censor me, claims that I'm a Republican operative or a child and at least one sentence with a subtext of I know much more about everything than you. It's their livelihood their fighting for. I get it - even respect it - but that respect is not mutual my friend. This is why you must stop sitting on the fence and fight. Love, Jarod--65.135.43.33 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can take Jarod seriously. "Fighting" is not the way Wikipedia works. At least Dali is attempting, as am I, to discuss issues. I appreciate Dali's civility. We have agreed on some, as well - we negotiated, and then Dali came up with a couple outstanding statements that were more NPOV than mine. This is called collaboration, Jarod. If you can't do that, then you don't belong on Wikipedia. Furthermore, what you have said above is so far from the truth, it is not even funny. You are making up things that you claim I or Gfwesq said. Unless you can be civil and collaborate on this article, I will not discuss anything with you. Your edits will not stay, either. Oh, by the way, I am not a trial lawyer, and these 'tort reforms' would not affect me one way or the other. jgwlaw

I concur with co-counsel. Gfwesq 02:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, counselor, but my stenographer Ted actually does read your comments back to me from time to time. I think you wrote this gem, Ms Bloom...

The tripe (and excuse me, but it is) that corporations are composed of people is irrelevant to this discussion.

Irrelevant Tripe! Sounds pretty civil to me!

As usual, you seem to have different rules for different views. Looks to me like you did not address Dali's "value" question... you evaded and phillibustered it. Pray tell me... what is the actual dollar value of life? Is it adjusted for inflation?? More pointedly, does it differ from state to state?? If so...and if you think that's incredibly wrong... guess what?

Welcome to the tort reform movement.--65.135.43.33 02:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reported you to an administrator and will continue to do so. This is not a forum for fighting, lashing out and trolling. I am not answering anything you say, at this point. Your incendiary comments won't be tolerated here.jgwlaw 02:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

When the administrator comes, I do hope he or she reads the full volume of this discourse (about what you yourself insisted was a VERY controversial topic). I have been sarcastic, perplexed and, at times, angry about your comments. But despite all this, I've never threatened anyone, used foul language or made any personal attack aside from parody. So far, the only person who has even come close is [Gfwesq], who above started to talk about my mother, who is dead 3 years now. I'd also like to note that I never reported anyone about it, but it did hurt me. Thanks, Jarod--65.135.43.33 02:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

May I remind editors of WP:CIVIL and that Wikipedia is not a battleground? Also note that, in my experience, edit warring and lack of civility seldom do any good. No one benefits. Neither the article, nor the possibility of enjoying the editing process. Of course, passionate editors are always welcome, but we need to rein in our passion so that it does not obfuscate the main purpose of this project: to edit an encyclopedia. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi!jgwlaw 11:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Some friendly suggestions:

1. Remove the {{POV}} tag from the article;
2. Add the template {{sectNPOV}} to those sections about which there is an NPOV dispute;
3. Take one section at the time, starting from the first section downwards, discuss, reach consensus via proposals, edit and then and move on to the next section;
4. Edit the article's lead so that it summarizes the manin points of the article (readers often only pay attention to the lead, and only if it is interesting, they explore further);
5. Finally, move to another article that can benefit from your expertise.

Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

Hi. If no one has a strong objection, I'd like to archive this page and put all this ugliness behind us. Despite getting a little sidetracked (and I'll take a healthy share of blame for that), I think we were actually making some progress.

I do think we could collaborate. When we continue, I want to continue slowly. I'm going to refrain from any rhetoric or personal opinion in this discussion from here on out, and hoping everybody does the same. I'm also going to try to be more concise (mainly, because my fingers hurt)

On the next page I'd like to start with the four items that I think are currently on the table:

Whether or not it is a fact that the English Rule could in some cases benefit a plaintiff.

The structure of the "Debate" section

Whether or not the sentence "The value of human life was not factored into the equation" is a statement of fact, or an opinion.

Also just realized that the "laundry list" complaint needs to be addressed. (I might need further explanation of what is meant by this before I can comment)--HelloDali 19:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, is that okay? Thanks--HelloDali 14:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine, Dali. Thank you! I am out of town right now, and may not be able to help discuss this for a few days...I will check in as I can, and be home next week. jgwlaw172.147.54.243 15:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Structure of article

Let's deal with one thing at a time. The 'laundry list' is a list included in the beginning of the article, of individual proposals that are not addressed below in the debate. This is simply not a good structure for any article, since the introduction should spell out what is discussed in the body or here, the 'debate;' section. I fear that the length of the article will become unwieldy if each of those points is discussed in the debate. So perhaps a better way of organizing the article is to list only those points in the introduction that can reasonably be discussed in the body. In other words, the intro could say, "Some of the proposals include..." and list the top few proposals. I am open to suggestions. It looks like Gfwesq added some about 'loser pays', which is a pretty good history of the English rule. jgwlaw 20:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Tillinghast-Towers Perrin

In assessing any argument it is necessary to have all pertinent facts. Accordingly, I have added information from Tillinghast-Towers Perrin's web site as to the nature of its business and legitimate criticism of the unverifiable nature of its claims. I tried to keep this as NPOV as possible. Let readers armed with knowledge decide for themselves Gfwesq 22:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Laundry List & Structure of the Article

I removed the list from th e introduction of the article. We wont ignore it - we just need to talk about structure. I am thinking we put this in the debate, and adress 'pro' and 'con' of each point: A few of the changes commonly advocated in the United States include:

Caps on non-economic damages (e.g., monetary compensation for pain and suffering), punitive damages;

Limiting or eliminating the collateral source doctrine

Use of court-appointed expert witnesses and elimination of elections for judges (In other words, mandatory appointment for both judges and expert witnesses) ;

Limiting the applicability of joint and several liability in favor of proportional liability;

Reducing appeal bond requirements for defendants who file appeals when faced with potentially bankrupting judgments;

 :

Adopting the English rule of "loser pays"

Limits on contingency fees

 :

Requirement that class actions that have a nationwide class of plaintiffs be tried in federal courts. All of these measures benefit defendants, and are intended to discourage lawsuits. A few, such as sanctions for delay, and early-offer settlement requirements, could benefit plaintiffs. Not all tort reform advocates support all proposed tort reforms. For example, there is a split over whether the collateral source doctrine should be abolished. There is also a growing debate over the wisdom of further restricting the ability of attorneys to charge contingent fees.[1],[2]

I am open to discussion about how we want to do this. But we should consider how a good article is structured, with an introduction, then an explanation of what was outlined in the introduction. Also, we must consider length. We won't be able to go into extensive detail on each of these points, or this article will have to be bound and published.  ;-) The next question is - is this really appropriate for an encyclopedic article? The point of Wikipedia is not to present a thesis, but a concise definition and explanation of the subject. This doesn't appear to do that. Instead, it appears that this is developing into a political argument which isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia - although it may be the purpose of the original author. Frankly, I don't think 'tort reform' warrants an inclusion at all. But that's just my opinion.jgwlaw 00:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Structure

I made some changes to the structure. I know that the 'tort reform' advocate position needs to be elaborated on in some cases here, but I am working right now on structure of the article. Eg removing the 'laundry list' and having an introduction, body, etc. Dali, would you help with this? I personally appreciate your cooperation, and respect our differences of opinion. What do you think of this structure? Of course, we'll need to add/change some things, but I know you and Gfwesq can help with that.jgwlaw 00:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is wrong with laying out a list of commonly proposed changes (with links) at the top of the article, since these changes are what together constitutes "tort reform". As it stands, the definition just seems unfinished. It talks about changes, but has no reference to what's actually on the table. Since the list was descriptive, with links to terminology and didn't prescribe anything, I still don't see the problem. Also, "agenda" literally means "list", so again I get a little confused when I don't see one. Basically, not finding a way to briefly enumerate the proposed changes in an article about the changes seems like a logical disconnect to me.

Maybe the way to go would be to do as you suggested above and break each change - appointed experts, joint & several, etc - into its own section, then use the description of the proposed change as a springboard to the debate (sort of the way that the "Joint and Several Liability" heading does it right now.) It shouldn't require a ton of re-writing, just re-organizing what's already there. Also, we could use these headers as links to their own articles, so people can learn more about what the legal terminology means.

As for your other changes, I actually think its good writing and is starting to work. I'd still recommend one of the following strategies:

1) Restore the heading "Theoretical Issues" (or something else that's a logical break) to distinguish between the agenda section.

Okay.jgwlaw 00:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

2) If we are going to go issue-by-issue instead of reform-by-refrom, I think we must include an segment on Medical Malpractice. If that's the case, I'd like to restore my DHHS report (unless there is some NPOV violation that you can see).--HelloDali 19:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but it needs to be short and not a long 'tit for tat' as it was. What was in 'medical malpractice reform' was a long tirade both for and against, which was nothing more than a political debate, rather than an encyclopedic article. That is my concern about even the inclusion of 'tort reform' as an entry in an encyclopedia . No other encyclopedia has such an entry that I could find, and I believe the entire subject is nothing more than a political agenda. But that is a topic for another day. I am considering raising this as an issue in a broader sense, as it seems to be a problem on Wikipedia. The whole 'tort refomers claim' and 'critics argue' verbiage is poor writing and only a pretense at encyclopedic - but that is not your fault.jgwlaw 00:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to re-write this paragraph in the agenda section:

Torts reformist advocate a variety of changes, ranging from a change to the English rule of 'loser pays' (attorney fees) to political appointment of both judges and experts.

This seems a somewhat dithered range, and could be misleading. Why not "ranging from Caps on contingent fees to limitations on joint & several liability" or "from caps on punitive damages to restictions on filing", etc. Its why I thought the list works well. Also, although writing advocate over and over is getting boring, I'm not sure if we can use the word "tort reformist" - I don't think its widely used slang. "Tort reformer" might be better, but I'm still afraid we're inventing words.--HelloDali 19:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

THe problem with the list is that it is either going to be a POV of what tort reformers (!) want, or it turns into a political debate, which is not what an encyclopedia entry is supposed to be. I am not sure how to remedy this without scrapping the entire entry, other than making a more concise explanation of what tort reform is. THe paragraph you included is better, though. Suggestions welcome. jgwlaw 00:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree the list works well. How are we going to discuss each issue? They aren't even defined. Before adding the list back, let's discuss more. What bothers me most about this article is that it looks a lot like using WIkipedia as a vehicle for pushing one political agenda. jgwlaw 21:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Tags

I have found appropriate tags for this. Unencyclopedic and POV-subject matter (rather than facts in the content). It appears that this article is a prime subject for these tags. It clearly does not fit within WIkipedia guidelines, for numerous reasons. IT just took me awhile to sort out how to express it, other than by saying the subject itself is a political agenda.

And that is exactly what these tags do.

We need to delete the entire article. I hate for Dali and I and Gfwesq to take so much time on an article that simply has no place in Wikipedia. It's a great piece for a political blog or political article by a political group - which is what most of the references in the article are. That';s another reason the article doesn't belong here. By defintion, the majority of references are polemics, supporting one or the other view.

I might be confused. I didn't want to add polemics; I wanted to strip them out. That's why I promoted the "laundry list". If our biggest problem is with the Debate section, why can't we simply scrap that? If you remember, the sole reference work I cited since we started editing was a report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This was deleted, and I was never given a reason for why, even though I asked several times. I meanwhile left the "Mother Jones" citation in place, because I didn't want to remove it until we resolved what the secondary sourcing rule was. --HelloDali 22:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe you, Dali. You seem polite, and reasonable, and not a lunatic, like some on both sides of the 'tort reform' debate. I don't believe a Mother Jones article is an appropriate citation, anymore than the right wing articles are. Legislative works are, but also need to be referenced accurately (which they often are not). jgwlaw 22:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have also added a discussion on the Village Pump about this, as a policy question. THere are multiple other articles that ostensibly relate to other topics, but which are nothing more than a guise for another tort reform discussion. THis would NEVER fly in a *real* encyclopedia - regardless of the editor review board personal opinions on the subject itself.

If need be, we can do a Rfd on the article, for that purpose. I need to find out what the proper process is.jgwlaw 05:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

When I viewed the current listings of "unencyclopedic" tags, here's what I found...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_which_may_be_unencyclopedic

Are you saying that "tort reform" is equally or less encylopedic than "List of sexual acronyms", "List of Bush administration puns", "Images of castles", or "Warders of the 7th sigil"?

Molly, could you give me an example of a topical entry of the same encyclopedic merit (or lack thereof) that is either in this list or has already been removed from Wikipedia for the reasons you list? When I scan the current list, it definitely gave me a vibe of "one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other."

Also if this becomes the precedent, that would seem to mean we would personally have to Rfd every U.S. policy entry in Wikipedia ("Affirmative Action", "The War on Terrorism", etc) which would seem to me to lean to heavily towards censorship. Please reconsider. I'd also ask that you please replace your current tag with this one, which I think is more appropriate.

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (August 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Thanks.--HelloDali 22:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the "War on Terrorism" yet. Groan. I can only imagine the flaming discussion there,.jgwlaw 22:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dali, I think you are right. I found that there is an entry for "asshole". So if anything goes, then I suppose this does too.jgwlaw 21:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...I think!?! Anyway, I've reconsidered the structure of the "laundry list" - I think it's informational, reads better, and is impossible to refute by either side of the debate.--HelloDali 21:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Then we need to discuss more. It is not informational - it is a political agenda without balance. The problem wtih the structure now is that a few items are mentioned, as to why one side favors it and another doesn't, then there is a laundry list of items that aren't even discussed. jgwlaw 21:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't take the 'asshole' reference personally, please. I was just commenting that there are pretty strange topics for an encylopedia. No legitimate encyclopedia would have a term like 'asshole'. A dictionary of slang, maybe, but not an encyclopedia.jgwlaw 21:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, no problem. But you must admit that the vast majority of social movements would tend to fall under the category of "political agenda" ( my comments at the Pump ). The notion that political debate about an issue makes it immune to histiography or neutral examination is anathema. Certainly, Dred Scott would be one of thousands of such exceptions, as would the de-segregation movement that culminated in Brown v Board of Ed. To dismiss CALA or like legislation because the social aim isn't universally lauded would be, to my mind, unfair and wrong. I think that what we need is a history, starting with MacPherson vs. Buick and culminating in Campbell vs State Farm.--HelloDali 21:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are still many who think Dred Scott was a right decision (No, I am not joking) and that Brown v. Board of education was a bad decision. And if you get into the history of 'tort reform', then you can also discuss the cases like BMW and others which did address proportionality b/w compensatory and punitive damages...which most 'tort reformers' don't address. I wrote on your talk page. I think this article is going to be a challenge, to find a way to address the main concept without addressing each and every point, each and every SUpreme Court case dealing with damages (as a counter) etc etc etc. I also believe we can do it, with some thought... I would rather work with you than some rabid um...well, you know. Also, my complaint about political orgainizations (and their 'studies') is that these are not deemed reliable resources by WIkipedia. Legislation, on the other hand, is. I don't know how we avoid citing political groups, though, in an article like this. The only thing we can do is to have a section on what the organization is, who funds it, etc, as I started to do. jgwlaw 22:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Starting a new discussion at a different point

If I may weigh in here... the trick is to write the history in a NPOV manner. What exactly is tort reform? Its not a scientific theory. Its not an historical event. What it is, is a part of the modern conservative political movement of the late 20th century (and now the early 21st century). I don't have a problem with describing it as such, because it is accurate. However, I suspect "tort reform" advocates will object to that. Generally speaking, you will find that most of these socalled "reforms" are merely turning the clock back to the law as it existed before the 20th century. Most of these "reform" ideas were tried and found wanting as a matter of justice. However, a "turn back the clock to the 19th century" movement doesn't have the rhetorical appeal as a "reform" movement.

Reform usually means to improve. How do these proposals improve the law of torts? Do they improve the law of torts? What is the standard we are measuring improvement by? I have no problem discussing the proposed "reforms" and perhaps that is the way to go. For example, we could discuss the collateral source rule- what it is, why it came about, why ultimately the majority of the jurisdicitions adopted it. Then we could discuss the "reformers" complaint. A tortfeasor, is by definition one who has been found at fault. Should a tortfeasor escape personal liablitity (paying damages) even though s/he is at fault merely because the plaintiff's medical bills were paid for by medical insurance? On the surface it sounds like double compensation to the plaintiff and unfair to the defendants and thus eliminating thee collateral source doctrine sounds like an improvement (a reform) until you learn that the medical insurer has a right to be repaid- subrogation- and yes they do pursue subrogation claims. Which means if the award is reduced, the tort victim (the plaintiff) goes undercompensated for his injury and the party at fault, gets what amounts to a slap on the wrist. So much for the conservative value of personal responsibilty.

Is this good public policy? Is it even conservative? Would a laundry list of so called reforms enlighten the average reader? Would it be NPOV? Or would a laundry list of reforms serve as a propaganda tool for one side? These are reforms! Reforms are improvements. Ergo these reforms need to be enacted! I don't think the average reader of this article would be enlightened by a mere laundry list. I also don't think a mere laundry list would be encyclopedic, nor do I believe it to be NPOV. I suspect it would be wise to limit the topic to a specified number of commonly cited "reforms" and discuss them fully, rather than a complete laundry list. A complete A to Z list would be a book in itself. Gfwesq 23:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that good writing generally has an introduction that describes what will be discussed in the body. Here, there is a list of proposals, and then a discussion about a couple of those but also 'tort reform' topics that are not in the list, without ever discussing some of the list. As a result, it sounds POV, although I don't think Dali, you did intend it that way. Therefore, we need to consider what an introduction should say, and what can reasonably be discussed in the body of the paper. I also suspect that in such a political topic, the use of political organizations as reference can not be avoided. For this reason, we need the section "The Players in the Debate" or something like that, as I had started.jgwlaw 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

“This is for the last editor who had trouble reading, and seemed intent on stirring ill feelings.jgwlaw 00:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)”

Jgwlaw, I noticed that this short-lived edit which you rescinded appeared directly after I’d reverted your reductive alteration of what you’ve coined the “laundry-list”; this comment was heading this section. Your revert-comment on the article itself assumed that I had not read the discussion previous to my own reversion. On the contrary, I have read and reread this discussion-page very carefully and with an open mind, and see no evidence of the quorum you claim. Was this the section you felt I must read to be convinced of the agreement you’ve mentioned? Additionally, if my intention, which is to do my part to keep this article free of polemics, stirs ill feelings in you, you have my sympathy. Thank you though; I think you made the right decision in rescinding that comment, I appreciate your taking some time for reconsideration. --KihOshk 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this unnecessary section; I believe you're attempting to advertise to the casual reader that KihOshk is being unreasonable again with reference to my comments in your equally unnecessary “Please stop reverting” section. “STOP” what exactly? Stop responding to your attacks? You claim that my comments are “heated and inflammatory”, that I am “yelling” instead of collaborating. By the way, I have no idea what you meant by implying that I might have a problem with the word “absurd”; have you been accused of overusing it? As for your refusal to respond to my statements, which is your prerogative, remember that all of my statements were made in response to yours and G’s; you decided to respond piecemeal throughout, and I responded to your assaults. I must also point out that you have left many of my refuting questions unanswered. I don’t appreciate being publicly cast as unreasonable and overly emotional; I expect that readers can come to their own conclusions. And as far as emotions affecting opinion; I believe your own writings demonstrate this clearly. May I suggest something to you as you have to me now? If yes; perhaps you should consider my previous request that you temper your language; write less dogmatically and keep the superlatives to a minimum. This style of communication can make collaboration much less contentious, and when your arguments have a basis in fact instead of emotion, it is harder for others to refute them in the audience of reasonable and intelligent people.

Please stop reverting

I copied this from my user-page since I thought it was pertinent. I received these comments after reverting Jgwlaw's updates to a disputed section only minutes after the author, HelloDali, had made them. --KihOshk 03:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reverting when you do not know what is going on. For one thing, with Gfwesq and I, it would be a consensus over the other author. Secondly, the list is not properly sourced. Thirdly, the author is a decent sort and we are discussing this amiably. If you would look at his talk page, you would see this. I would appreicate it if you would not create a war where there is none. jgwlaw 02:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being polite. Why would you assume that I don’t know what’s going on?

• Firstly, Jgwlaw, you and Gfwesq do not make a consensus; my educated opinion counts here as well.

Well, at present, it seems those active tonight are you, me and Gfwesq. It appears that there is a consensus, at least for now. If you include Dali, then there was not a consensus. And, the idea is to build a consensus. jgwlaw 06:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So your rule is what, exactly? May I go hog-wild after you guys go to bed then? I think the term we need to consider is quorum; it needs to be defined maybe. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Will you refute that you made disputed changes to Dali’s work only minutes after the author’s update? As Gfwesq points out; Dali is quite capable of speaking for himself. Why not show him the respect of leaving his work unmolested until this dispute is settled? Gfwesq, are you paying attention? I cited you.

Making changes minutes after another edit is not inappropriate or against any Wiki guideline. I have repeatedly explained why I did that, but instead you continued to revert.jgwlaw 06:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Jgwlaw, you are exaggerating. Plus, I personally think it is inapproriate. I think HelloDali would as well. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Secondly, if it is your contention that only properly sourced material will be permitted here, you appear to me to be filibustering;

NO. That is the Wikipedia guidelines on Reliable Resources, which I suggest you read. jgwlaw 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand the rules, my point is that there must be some reasonable considertion for the DEPTH of "Reliable Resources"...more on this later. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am presently a novice at Wikipedia,

That much is clear.jgwlaw 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Touche! --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

but I expect that there is a regulation regarding that type of disruptive activity.

Yours is the conduct that is disruptive.

No, yours is. (am I really playing into this?)--KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Every one of Dali’s talking points is referenced to other sources.

That is simply untrue. This list is of common points of those who advocate tort reform, none of which have a citation. That is one of the problems, but it is not just his edits.jgwlaw 06:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is where I believe the crux of the matter is here: Tort Reform is a concept, this article should be a reasonable description of that concept and what it encompases. Pro and Con arguments should be stubs in their own pages. There should be no argument of right or wrong here, just a description of what Tort Reform is.--KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

May I ask which of these bullet-points you refute? I have read the arguments for including pro and con opinions on each bullet-point, this is in dispute, therefore I believe the very clear and concise list should remain until the dispute is settled.

I don't refute the bullet points. I object, as does Gfwesq, to the structure and where they are. Until we could sort out how we (and I mean all editors who were involved), I asked that it be a paragraph rather than a laundry list. Again, if you had read my comments as you claim to have done, you would know that.jgwlaw 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I did read that and I know what you requested, that's not the issue. The issue is that YOU say it was agreed upon and it was not. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thirdly, are you advising me that I must now review authors’ talk-pages in addition to the discussion-page of the articles I feel like commenting on? This sounds to me like some odd form of projected filibustering. I would suggest to anyone to keep whatever commentary they feel is important to the articles in question on the the articles’ discussion pages. If individual authors discuss the matter on their private pages, it is their responsibility to transfer any pertinent discussion; to expect contributors to hunt and peck is ludicrous. That you’re having amicable relations with this author has nothing to do with my opinion on this matter. As for your appreciating that I not start a “war”; would you please elaborate? I have done nothing to start one; I am contributing in good faith. Are you threatening me that you will start one, Jgwlaw? ‘’I’’ certainly do not intend on starting one.

Reverting repeatedly, especially when you had not previously participated in the disussion is disruptive.. Generally, repeated reversions is not considered good fatih, jgwlaw 06:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted twice, and I think I made a very good argument for it. I believe your totally re-editing HelloDali's work 7-minutes after he was done with it is in bad-faith.

Thank you. --KihOshk 03:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I said "Thank you."! --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pay attention to detail. Dali is quite capable of speaking for himself. We have all agreed to discuss things first before making edits. Dali concurred. Gfwesq 02:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Gfwesq, I will thank you to show some decorum and not to command me to "Pay attention to detail.". I assure you that I am quite capable for speaking for myelf as well. If you had paid more attention, you would have noticed that Dali had made edits to this disputed section minutes before Jgwlaw deconstructed his work without consent. As for any agreement to discuss changes before they are made; I have paid enough attention to this article and its discussion to recognize a pattern of what consider steamrolling on both your and Jgwlaw's parts.

This shows a lack of decorum and good faith. jgwlaw 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh brother, here we go. J, could you please let Gfwesq speak for himself? If you must comment on my rebuttle to him, please do so outside this commentary. Honestly, you have every right to comment, but this is my response to him. Should he respond, he'll now need to navigate through our mish-mosh. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that your implication that only the author or editor may defend themselves if their work is changed is laughable.

More lack of decorum.jgwlaw 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How so? That I personally find something laughble? It's true, it made me laugh. Do you seriously think that expecting others to delve into disjointed commentary, like your causing now with your inter-editing in a commentary wwhich didn't involve you directly, is reasonable? I don't. I think it's so ridiculous, it made me laugh. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As for your claim that all have agreed to discuss changes before they are made: I merely reverted an edit that Jgwlaw made without agreement;

No, I was reverting back. Dali had changed it after we had discussed it, and without further discussion. jgwlaw 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, just for the record though, it's "reverting" not "reverting back", which is redundant. I don't mean to be a jerk about it, seriosly, but I'v seen that mistake before, and it's the first time I've had the opportunity to comment on it. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

the author of the piece in question clearly states in the discussion that he or she believed that this format was appropriate, as do I; here is the last entry in the discussion by the author (previous comment included for context):

Dali, I think you are right. I found that there is an entry for "asshole". So if anything goes, then I suppose this does too.jgwlaw 21:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...I think!?! Anyway, I've reconsidered the structure of the "laundry list" - I think it's informational, reads better, and is impossible to refute by either side of the debate.--HelloDali 21:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken; Dali did not concur. Please pay attention in the future.

You are doing what you criticize Gfwesq for doing. This is juvenile. Dali DID concur, before he decided to add the bullet points again, without coming to a consensus.jgwlaw 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Where, please tell, is this "juvinile". You're casting aspirsions without backing them up. And where exactly does Dali concur? I gave you a specific conversation that YOU had with him recently where he states that he would rather keep his bulleted format. Please REFUTE with evidence. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you too. --KihOshk 03:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dali had offered to write a different type of paragraph than my original paragraph. Then he decided to go back to the 'bullet point'. Dali and I have been discussing this reasonably, and will continue to do so. Again, you are not helping matters by creating a war, here, where much effort has been made by Dali, me and others to collaborate. I have agreed to some of his edits, and he mine. THe idea is collaboration,. If you bother to read all the discussion, you will see this. I left a long discussion on Dali's talk page about my concern about the structure of the article, its lack of organization, and how we could address his points, and organize it better. I even offered to give him my phone number, so we could talk about it, if he wished. This is because I have grown to respect his motive for NPOV, writing skill, and willingness to collaborate. So please don't be so confrontive. This is already a sensitive subject. jgwlaw 03:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Jgwlaw, unfortunately, I must use stronger language here: I resent your accusation that I am starting a war for simply asserting my opinion on this mater, this is the second time you’ve done it, and I respectfully request that short of apologizing, you not falsely accuse me of that again.

You have started a war, and I suggest you stop it.jgwlaw 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have started nothing, J. You say the was has started; is this your declarastion? I told you I want no part, you must stop your veiled agression now. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As for collaboration, I fully intend to do this, but not on your terms specifically, which I feel you’re implying I should.

No, the idea is consensus, which you don't seem to understand.jgwlaw 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe you don't, based on your comments, which I addressed, in G's rebuttle (take a look). --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised that you would use the disparaging “bother to read” comment a second time, especially since, in my response to you and in my reversion comment, I made it clear that I read and re-read these discussions before my action. It would appear to me that you didn’t bother reading my response to you, which could be considered bad-form.

I do not appreciate your talking down to me either, I feel it rude. Please don’t do it.

When someone behaves rudely, that is usually what he gets in return.jgwlaw 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

J, you made assumptions about me using emotional language. This is illogical. I have not been rude, I have merely displeased you. I think your language speaks for itself. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I must also point out that, though I’m sure your intentions are good, your attempt at collaborating with HelloDali over the phone, just as discussing specifics about an article away from its discussion-page is counter-productive and counter-intuitive. I respectfully request that ALL discussion about this article be held here exclusively; this way all of us can collaborate.

Since Dali and I were the only ones, other than Gfwesq, who had been working on this, it seemed appropriate to try to understand what we both meant or hoped to accomplish. It was meant as a gesture of good will. I meant what I said, that I was in a quandry, about how to structure the article. That is no longer the case.jgwlaw 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but can't you concede my point that you can not hold people accountable if they don't understand the discussion and implied rules if they are not documented and available for all to see? We all have a right to contribute and comment, ESPECIALLY about laws that affect us all. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I regret that you perceive me to be confrontational; it worries me that you have already cast my character and will treat my contributions with prejudice and distain. I don’t believe my asserting my opinion on a matter is being confrontational if it differs from yours; by labeling me as “confrontive” necessitates my defensive reply, which is unfair of you to do considering I am a newcomer here. I didn’t expect I would be put into a position of defending my character as well as my contributions. I ask that you think a little more before disparaging people’s characters; it can only stifle collaboration.

I can only judge by your actions, and thus far they have been confrontational. You did not previously contribute to any of the discussion on this, but started reverting, because you agreed with one editor. Then you wrote missives and continued reverting. That stifles collaboration. It looks like a troll to me. However, if you are indeed a newcomer, then I do apologize if I seemed unduly harsh. However, I wish you would not be so combative and start reverting when there had been an ongoing discussion., The better approach - especially as a newcomer - would have been to discuss your opinion on the talk page, especially after you had seen the lengthy discussion about this point, That would have been wise, more collaborative, and far more polite.jgwlaw 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the appology. I am not a troll. And if you believe I'm being combative, it is in defense of combative attacks. I can and will defend myself when I believe I am right. I am equally able to admit when I am wrong. --KihOshk 07

32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally, would you please explain why you think this subject is "sensitive"? Are there contributors here that are allowing their emotions to steer their opinions? --KihOshk 04:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The subject of tort reform has been an extremely hot topic, as you are well aware, or should be. The history of this article has been contentious, and if you have read it as you claim, you would not be asking this question. Before Dali, Gfwesq and I began collaborating in an amicable manner, a troll had been here that was purely disruptive. That is why we discussed all of this at great length, and not tolerate trolls. While your conduct has not yet been at that level, your combativeness is approaching it.jgwlaw 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

J, the only reason I initially had interest in Tort Reform was when I saw your repeated complaints of the "Tort Reform Rant" on the "Abulance Chaser" article. My interest was piqued. I'm totally serious; YOU were so emotionally attached to this topic, I needed to check it out. It just so happens that I'm interested in the subject now. I have a few lawyer friends, and I now have something to pontificate about. As for my "combativeness", I believe you and G are the agressors here. You also say that my conduct is not "yet" at that level, you seem to be predisposing me to some future infraction f which I have no idea what you're talking about. As for that troll I THINK you're talking about...if it was the fish gy, I discussed him on my page in response to you. If he didn't contribute anything but disruption, then I'm on your side. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Jgwlaw, if the “war” you alluded to is a war-of-reversion to be declared by you upon me, I want no part in it.

Good. The 'war' started with your reversion, and unwillingness to collaborate. jgwlaw 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Now you're rewriting your own rules: first you say that my revisions, etc. COULD start a war, which I refuted; now you say that's when "The War" started. So you must have declared it without telling me. What is it? As for my unwillingness to be colaborative, this is your mistaken opinion. I think you are refusing to be collaborative with me by your changing your own rules, using superlatives, acusing me of starting a war, and acusing me of having trouble reading --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This thought has not stopped me, though, from reversing your recent changes.

Clearly. And this is what I mean by combative. You might want to read the Wikipedia rules on 3RR. You can be banned for this. I have retained the bullet points, but moved them to a separate section on individual proposals. Two of the bullet points were already expanded, thus I did not repeat them. jgwlaw 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your statement on 3RR is spurious. Are you playing games now? Is this chess? Were you thinking "Well, HE'LL run out of reversions before me, so I'm safe.". I made TWO reversions and documented each one specifically. This is not being combative. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made a second reversion to HelloDali’s list-version, and I believe I have made a good case for why it should stay in this form until this dispute is settled. Furthermore, I think your dismantling his work so soon after he’d edit it shows bad-faith; please consider this.

Again, that is your unilateral decision. I have moved it to a separate section. If you think that editing shortly after another, then you don;t understand Wikipedia.jgwlaw 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you affect a temporal warp in the time-continuum: you moved it to its own section AFTER you UNILATERALLY decided to dismantle HelloDali's work 7-minutes after he finished it, and THEN I reverted. If you are in such good communication with him, why didn't you contact him to stop him working if you were just going to changed it to your liking anyway? I think THAT'S bad-faith and it's sneaky. I understand Wikipedia fine, I don't think you understand continuity and its importance to an argument. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for removing the quotes from “frivolous” without commenting on it. There is an article on Wikipedia covering this topic and I believe that it should be linked to the term here. Also, I’ve read discussions on “scare quotes”, and I believe that these quotes are unnecessary; I is tantamount to saying “so-called frivolous lawsuits” and I think would constitute bad-faith

No it is not a scare quote in this context.jgwlaw 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I found your re-reversion comment in bad-faith as well:

This hardly warrants comment,. You are the one that started reverting, without having participated in the disucssion of this previously, at all.

I specifically stated my reasoning here, and I stand by it: according to your own documented discussions, YOU broke the rules. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

’’Unlike you, the author and I are working on this. And the author did not originally have it this way. Therefore, it stays in a paragraph’’

I think your attempt at claiming ownership of this article, or even a section of it is just plain silly.

You are the one claiming ownership as to how you insist it will be. You decided it was an 'improvement'. Well, at least two of us disagree.jgwlaw 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I insisted nothing, I reverted your work when I could plainly see you broke an agreement. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I can and will be “working on this”. Also, it makes no difference if the author didn’t have it in its present form originally; he’s obviously improved upon it. That’s why it’s changed. In fact, he clearly stated that he preferred this cleanly listed and referenced format.

A pity you had not been involved in the discussion, but instead chose to start reverting. Dali didn't "obviously" improve on it,. That is your opinion, not mine and not Gfwesq. I have since moved the bullet points to its own section, that can be expanded, and has on some of the points already. The bullet list will not stay in an introduction. We can ask for an Rfc, if you insist. For now, all the 'points' are covered, in the section to which they belong.jgwlaw 05:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to point out now, since it's the third time you've done this; you use the term "started reverting" as if I ave been reverting like crazy. I made ONE revert for what I thought were very good and documented reasons; YOU then reverted, to which I reverted, to which you, and I do thank you, compromised. That was a good thing, I recognize that. Dali did "obviously" improve it; trust me, as you get to know me, I will do my damndst not to talk in absolutes when it comes to projecting my opinion. In fact, even as I wrote that he "obviously" improved it, I thought it would be taken in the wrong context. I assert there that certainly Dali believes he improved it; why ese would he have edited it as such? To make it worse in his estimation? You understand my point here, I hope, right? --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

‘’… Anyway, I've reconsidered the structure of the "laundry list" - I think it's informational, reads better, and is impossible to refute by either side of the debate.--HelloDali 21:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)’’

He was diligently working on it just minutes before you totally reduced his efforts to an unreferenced, hard to read paragraph without discussing it, remember?

Dali and I and Gfwesq had discussed all of this at length, and you had not said one word. Dali changed this back, without discussing it, after he had agreed to leave it for now in paragraph form. THat is why I reverted it. In Wikipedia, continual reverting is not allowed. You may be banned if you continue to revert,jgwlaw 04:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you PLEASE show me where Dali agreed to this? I found it nowhere. And if this agreement does exist, he explicitly stated to YOU in his last comment on the subject that he intended to keep the bulleted list. Please show me this agreement. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I implore you to leave it in its present form unless a true consensus is reached.

You are not imploring, You are being belligerant. You had previously contributed NOTHING to the discussion on this, yet now you are jumping in and reverting and ignoring everything that has been said and explained.jgwlaw 04:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

You can be banned for violating 3RR. I suggest you not do this. I will not engage in a war. I have gone to great lengths not to do that on this article. I wish you would do the same. And I believe you know exactly what I meant when I said 'working on it'. You had NOT contributed to any of the discussion on this.jgwlaw 04:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

All this "War" talk began with you, and apparently you've already decalred it on me, so please keep the war-talk to yourself. As for trying cloud the issue by bringing up the "banned" word; this wasn't neccessary, and I'm sure you wouldn't mind if I was, so please don't pretend you're trying to protect me; I certainly don't need you to. No, I did not know eactly what you meant by "working at it", please stop all this assumption and accusation, its misplaced and inappropriate. As for contributing to the discussion; I am now. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ad whan I say "Thank you.", I rarely do so sarcastically. --KihOshk 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

STOP, KihOshk

I am not going to continue to respond to each of your heated & inflammatory statements. This is absurd (and if you don't like the word 'absurd', that's your problem, not mine). You've had the last word. Now I suggest you stop yelling and start collaborating, if indeed that is your intent.jgwlaw 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this unnecessary section; I believe you're attempting to advertise to the casual reader that KihOshk is being unreasonable again with reference to my comments in your equally unnecessary “Please stop reverting” section. “STOP” what exactly? Stop responding to your attacks? You claim that my comments are “heated and inflammatory”, that I am “yelling” instead of collaborating. By the way, I have no idea what you meant by implying that I might have a problem with the word “absurd”; have you been accused of overusing it? As for your refusal to respond to my statements, which is your prerogative, remember that all of my statements were made in response to yours and G’s; you decided to respond piecemeal throughout, and I responded to your assaults. I must also point out that you have left many of my refuting questions unanswered. I don’t appreciate being publicly cast as unreasonable and overly emotional; I expect that readers can come to their own conclusions. And as far as emotions affecting opinion; I believe your own writings demonstrate this clearly. May I suggest something to you as you have to me now? If yes; perhaps you should consider my previous request that you temper your language; write less dogmatically and keep the superlatives to a minimum. This style of communication can make collaboration much less contentious, and when your arguments have a basis in fact instead of emotion, it is harder for others to refute them in the audience of reasonable and intelligent people. --KihOshk 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Separate section on laundry list

I have moved the bullet pointed laundry list to a separate section on indiviudal reforms. It should not be in an introductory paragraph to the article, without any discussion as to what the points mean. The bullet point 'format' is retained, until they are expanded. I have removed two of them, since they are already expanded. Clearly this will not be resolved in any other way.jgwlaw 05:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, though I don't agree with its placement, intro re-writing, or the retitling. Still, thank you for maintsining the link in the intro. --KihOshk 06:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to the title. But 'reforms' should at least be 'proposed reforms'. Let's discuss the intro. I didn't rewrite it, so I;'m not sure what you mean...I just moved the individual proposals to their own section. I don't know where else the placement would be. The artilce still needs reorganizing, and I fear it will become unwieldy. It is going on 3 Am here. Let's discuss on another day. Okay? jgwlaw 06:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Commenting withing other users' comments

Can we all agree NOT to reply to comments by inserting the replies piecemeal in other users' comments? I for one find this extraordinarily disruptive to the flow of discussion, also it makes it nearly impossible to respond to each point without having to add to the history-list nightmare. Also, please try to make sure you're happy with your comments BEFORE committing them...these multiple commits are really making it hard to follow any threads.

Yes, that is a good idea. And please sign with 4 tildes.jgwlaw 06:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

DAG NABIT!!! I forgot to log-in...all my comments are IP addresses...now you guys can track me down! --KihOshk 07:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for agreeing to the above. I appreciate it. Can I go to bed now? --KihOshk 07:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

References

I added a tag, mainly to draw attention to the need for proper citations (references are not cited and the previous reference list did not link to anything in the text. Instead of removing that list, I retitled the section 'references uncited' and added a section for references that are cited. I have started the process of properly citing, and then 'marking off' those sources from the "references uncited" section, but there is still a lot of work to do. Some of the links that had been in the text had dead links. jgwlaw 19:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, just a note in article writing, one should not cite a reference that does not support the claim or argument made, or the main point. This is misleading.jgwlaw 19:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The List (again)

Okay, now I absolutely am going to archive this page, as soon as I finish work. In short order, I'd like to note the following:

Molly is correct that the discussion about this list has been ongoing.

Gfwesq is incorrect in saying that I've ever agreed to have it removed. Molly removed it originally without agreement from the author(me), then I decided to keep it off in moratorium while we discussed. She re-wrote it once, then I re-wrote as a paragraph, then the paragraph was hurting my eyes again, so I decided to restructure as a bullet list.

I'd like to note that these descriptors were always a part of the article. Originally they were a part of giant, unreadable paragraph separated by semicolons. I think my main innovations thus far as an editor here have been to:

Reformat the individual reforms as bullets (to improve readability)

Streamline wording and the content (such as removing or consolidating redundant reforms)

Move it to the "Agenda" portion of the article, where I submit it truly belongs, as this is quite literally the tort reform "agenda."

So that there's no confusion this time around, its current form (no mention of damage caps) and its new placement under the "Debate" header - along with a redundant introduction by an uncited comment about the beliefs of 'critics" - is unacceptable to me. My main reason for this is that it's a logical disconnect; no one is "debating" whether or not this list of proposed changes individually and collectively describes "tort reform". The debate centers around the social activations and consequences of such changes.

One compromise would be to revert to the original placement, using my paragraph form. I'd consent to that, although I'm guessing that's not the problem, since Molly re-used the bullets in her current revision.--HelloDali 22:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is okay with me. The bullets are simply placemarkers in the later section, to be expanded - discussing the debate over each and every issue that you raise in the intro paragraph. The damage caps most certainly are mentioned -- look at the article. The bullets that have already been expanded in that section are removed - because that would be redundant.

If you object to unsourced belief of critics, then each of these proposals gets scrapped, since they are unsourced. So what do you want to do?

Dali, there are many comments here about 'critics' and 'advocates' are unsourced. I have felt this was inappropriate from the start, but there are many like this. If you want to remove this, then we remove all such statements. LEt's discuss.

There is a debate about the validity and usefulness of these proposals. That is why it is under 'debate.' And that is why each and every one mentioned need to be discussed as to what they are, and why they are proposed, and why they are criticised. Your insistence that this is not a debate is incomprehensible. jgwlaw 23:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

1. In general, tort reform advocates contend that there are too many frivolous lawsuits. 2. Your entire laundry list, as it had been bulleted, was unsourced. The paragraph now is unsourced, as well. That is acceptable now, though, if each point is defined, and the debate over each is discussed. That is why there is a separate section on Debate. jgwlaw 00:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said want to remove the "shields" paragraph Molly- my problem was that it was a duplicate paragraph (it also existed as the closing paragraph of "The tort reform agenda.") I just thought that the fact that it was uncited was important to note, since you added the tag. The "shields businesses" language has actually been in the article for quite some time. I never removed it (and still haven't!) for the same reason I am defending the list - because no one can reasonably argue that critics of tort reform don't contend that it's an effort to protect businesses (indeed, a healthy share of tort reform "supporters" might even stipulate to that) . But the fact is, I never really thought it belonged in the "agenda" section, nor as the header to the individual reforms section. I just think it makes more sense under the heading "Corporate Lawsuit Abuse."--HelloDali 00:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Dali. Except the shield statement is one of the few things that IS cited. In fact, I had changed the citation so it would link to the reference list. The discussion about shielding businesses should be somewhere, whether obvious or not - and it isn't to more people than you would think. I also changed a paragraph, and added a couple of refernces. I also added ^{[citation needed]} to an unsourced quote. We DO need to clean up citations and references - they are horrible. That is why I added a references section and am beginning to format accordingly. Also, many claims are unreferenced.jgwlaw 00:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. My contribs will probably be dodgy over the next week or so, as I'm in the process of moving my offices. I do think the MacPhereson vs. Buickcase deserves a mention somewhere in here - maybe as part of a tight section on product liability - since the ruling really sparked the 20th century movement towards the regulatory function of litigation. I'd also like to take a stab at globalizing this a bit more, perhaps by exploring how the term is currently being used in Australia and other parts of the Anglosphere (maybe a comparison to England and continental European systems would also be helpful in framing this).--HelloDali 00:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. We do need to tighten the entire article. How much history do you think is reasonable? jgwlaw 01:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

History is difficult without establishing an authoritarian voice. I guess it's particularly difficult when passions are inflamed about a subject. Agreeing on a beginning would be a good start. The goal would be to be as dispassionate as possible, only including cases that are notable and illustrative(e.g. landmark cases, milestones). I already posited Macpherson v. Buick, but this only introduces product liability. As a show of good faith (and because I'm a long-time NYC resident), I'd also recommend including the Triangle Shirt Co. fire as a way of illustrating an early impetus to "reform" tort law by means of expanding liability and victims compensation. Afterwards, we could also include notable asbestos litigation as a midway point.

Following that I'd also recommend we include language covering Philip Morris, CALA and a contentious product liability suit (I would offer Barber v. McDonalds, as long as there is general agreement) that illustrates some of the movements main concerns regarding extensive regulation through litigation, or the desire for added protections to businesses.

Another potential problem will be introducing some of the philosophical underpinnings of the movement and affording it some reasonable framework as a social movement. For instance, I could propose many essays, speeches and narrative work (editorials, political cartoons, etc) that frame "tort reform" as a ideological backlash against social dependency, statism and dearth of personal responsibility.

In other words, some motivations of tort reform are sold by advocates as less a civil bureaucratic movement for the common ecomomic good, and more of a moral/intellectual pursuit. Indeed, even enemies of tort reform stipulate that this ideological component is a major facet of "tort reform," but it currently appears nowhere in the piece.

...from section| The Ideology of Tort Reform

But a number of tort reform arguments rest upon a broader, underlying ideological foundation, one built around the ideas of personal responsibility, free markets, deregulation of business, and privatization of government functions. For example, the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility are evoked in tort reform arguments regarding the dangers of cigarette smoking and fast food. The free enterprise theme is frequently evoked in arguments for limiting punitive damages, because of the potential harm to a company or a whole industry. By promoting an anti-government, pro-corporate philosophy that encompasses many issues, the Right has laid the ideological groundwork for public acceptance of these tort reform arguments. The problem is that the right's ideologues have warped the values they claim to espouse, and the danger is that they have taken them to extremes.

Any thoughts on how to incorporate?HelloDali 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's too late tonight for me to take all this in. I am curious, do any of these tort reform groups believe in corporate 'personal responsibility', or is that just for those who are harmed by their products? I mean, since corporations are 'persons' with civil rights, should they not assume some personal responsibilities, as well? Or is the "free market" (in quotes, becuase there is no such thing) supposed to take care of it? In the history of our country the free market has not protected rights and safety.

And are tort reform promotors' only examples cigarettes and fast food, or do they also believe in 'personal responsibility' for those things of which the consumers/workers are unaware, you know, like the workers who were not aware and not told of the dangers of asbestos (like my father who died of mesothelioma)? How do tort refom groups propose someone like my father should have taken personal responsibility for working a summer job cutting asbestos shingles in 1943? The dangers were not public knowledge, and the companies knew but hid this from their workers and the public. What would his responsiblity have been? Did he have the resonsibility for seeking out obscure medical reports from 1925 to which he had no access or knowledge? Should he have guessed asbestos might not be safe, and therefore not worked there? Or should he jsut assume the corporation's personal responsibility for his illness, because he is the one who acquired it, and therefore he is the one who should suffer and die from it? Who is the one in this situation that should have taken personal responsibility? Oh, and my father did not smoke. And that would have been irrevant, even if he had, since there is zero correlation between smoking and mesothelioma. THere is a new drug for MS that my neurologist wanted me to start - Tysabi. Several people later died from taking it - are they responsible (there were no warnings for them, or any knowledge other than their doctor recommending it). What about medications that ARE FDA approved that should not have been, and are in fact dangerous. Tort refomers would deny patients even their right to access to the courts to redress the harm. OR how about the women who died at the negligent hands of my former surgeon who improperly administered anesthesia? WHat about drugs that have been

What this philosophy would do is to revert back to the 19th century or earlier. And yes, the Triangle Shirtwaist was another good example. I believe that the rabid tort reformers that you quote above would say the free market would correct that? After how long a time and how many deaths? Those companies did not voluntarily clean up their act. IN fact, no business voluntarily cleans up their act - history proves that time and time again. This is a political movement, more than a social movement. IN fact, I object to it being called a social movement. And of course, the end goal is to provide immunity for corporations and businesses and doctors, while shifting all the 'responsibility' onto those who were harmed. Some kind of tort reform. More like tort deform. This philisophical movement, as you put it, is framing the debate in a way to convince people of a reasonableness that does not exist. Its sole purpose is to relieve tortfeasors of liablity. What astonishses me is that so many people believe this crap, and yes, including your brother if he goes along with it. That doctors would want to assume no liability is the antithesis of their professional code. In fact, their frantic insistence on absolving themselves has surely affected my opinion of doctors - they rank somewhere below the sleaziest lawyers, because of not only greed but the risk they pose to the public. At least corporations have a duty to maximize profits. Doctors, on the other hand, have a high duty to their patients. SO how do we add all of this? And perhaps the opposite philisophy of the tort reformers which is personal responsibility for all, where responsibility is warranted, What a world. No regulation and no liabilty for gross negligence. A dream for business, but a nightmare for those affected. And ultimately, a societal nightmare. THe 'nanny' state would be coddling tortfeasers.jgwlaw 05:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)