Talk:Tort reform in the United States/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

So-called "scare quotes"

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

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

That exact lexical issue is addressed in the second paragraph of the current article. We don't put scare quotes around "anti-Semite," despite the paradox that many anti-Semites are technically Semites. The Washington Post or Associated Press doesn't put scare quotes around "tort reform"; the Los Angeles Times, which regularly opposes tort reform, doesn't use scare quotes, so the NPOV thing to do is to follow the mainstream style and (as the article does) note the controversy over the terminology, rather than to adopt the style of the most fervent opponents. -- FRCP11 10:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

To the extent possible, we should avoid adopting either side's style. In the later sections of the article, neutral terms like "proponents of change" wouldn't require quotation marks. JamesMLane 10:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"Proponents of change" is both clumsy and inaccurate--what are we to do about the states where tort reformers have succeeded in passing non-economic damages caps in the legislature, but tort reform opponents are suing in court to change the law? Oregon, where tort reformers succeeded in passing a statute of repose, but the plaintiffs' bar is lobbying to repeal it? Michigan, where the plaintiffs' bar is trying to change immunity laws? -- FRCP11 10:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

That illustrates the problem. The Michigan activists probably consider that their proposal, if adopted, would be a reform of the tort law. Perhaps it would be useful for this article to catalog all such efforts, while noting that the popular usage of the phrase "tort reform" is usually confined to pro-defendant changes. JamesMLane 19:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

No, James, it doesn't illustrate the problem. The Michigan plaintiffs' bar may view the change as a "reform", but they wouldn't (and don't) call it "tort reform," and you cannot identify a single mainstream media source that would do so. Again, Wikipedia is descriptive, rather than prescriptive. The article describes "tort reform" as it's actually used in the political debate, not how you think it should be used. Again, it's the same issue as "anti-Semitism", which means something other than "against Semites," notwithstanding the individual components of the etymology. -- FRCP11 00:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I engageed in a lengthy dispute over this issue regarding defining tort reform and the structure of the article. I argued that usurping the title "tort reform" is an attempt to frame the debate. After a revert war with FRCP11, I gave up on the issue. He has more time than I do to engage in this battle than I do. The words tort reform should always be placed in quotations to point out this framing of the debate problem. Restoring it to the format it existed in prior to 14:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC), in which there was a pro tort reform section and an anti-tort reform section might help address the issue. My forcast of problems set forth at the beginning of this section has come true in spades. --Whitfield Larrabee 00:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a single person to dispute the two contentions I've made in this debate: (1) the article's description and usage of "tort reform" is consistent with mainstream-media usage of it; (2) Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Every argument here for scare quotes has been a prescriptive one; not a single person has cited a mainstream media usage in a neutral news story that used scare quotes or used the term "tort reform" to refer to pro-litigation-lobby efforts; not a single person has pointed me to a Wikipedia policy that indicates that the purpose of Wikipedia is prescriptive. The article acknowledges the contention in a prominent place, which is all that NPOV requires. The fact that Whitfield "forcasted" [sic] problems a month ago, and now thinks his prediction has come true because he still has problems a month later seems rather irrelevant. More importantly, I'm offended by Whitfield's personal attack implying that I've done anything other than follow Wikipedia policy. I'll put it up for an RfC. -- FRCP11 00:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should be descriptive. According to Merriam-Webster Online, a reform is an "amendment of what is defective, vicious, corrupt, or depraved" or "a removal or correction of an abuse, a wrong, or errors". Obviously, it wouldn't be descriptive for us to assert as a fact (expressly or by implication) that the current system for compensating victims of corporate misconduct is "corrupt", nor should we assert that limiting victims' rights is the correction of a wrong. That the right wing has displayed its usual expertise in manipulating the media is a fact worth mentioning in the article (though not in those POV terms, of course). We could also report the much less widespread use of the term "tort deform" ([1]). We need not succumb to either of these manipulations ourselves, though. JamesMLane 01:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You admit that Wikipedia should be descriptive, and then you make a prescriptive argument about what tort reform "should" mean if its etymology followed your understanding of the world. And once again you fail to challenge the fundamental principle at issue here: not a single mainstream-media stylebook agrees with your preferred construction. The article already notes this issue. Why isn't Opponents of tort reform sometimes object to the use of the term "reform" to describe the proposed changes to the law as a misnomer, because they believe tort reform proposals would make the civil justice system worse, rather than better. in the second paragraph sufficient? If you want to add a sub-section or a separate article mentioning "tort deform", or if you want to do a see also referencing an article about alleged right-wing manipulation of the terms of the debate, then no one's stopping you, so long as the edit doesn't interfere with the flow of the article. (Of course, I do feel that the current tort system is corrupt, and needs reform, as the silicosis and fen-phen and Vioxx litigation scandals demonstrate, but that's a different issue, and one irrelevant to this particular debate.) -- FRCP11 02:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm here from RfC. It's true that the word "reform" can be used with a positive connotation. In my observation, it also seems to be the neutral term of choice when parties are talking about proposed political changes. I'd suggest removing the scare quotes (they aren't very scary, so to speak, but still out of place) and the awkward discussion near the beginning about the word "reform." -- Alan McBeth 22:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

think tank funding

Two editors wish to include the following text:

Pro "tort reform" groups are for the most part strongly affilliated with the "Republican Party" and tort reform has been an important part of the Republican Party's agenda, although the issues do not divide perfectly upon party lines. The conservative "think tanks" that advocate for tort reform are largely funded by five foundations: the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Koch Family foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Scaife Family Foundations. The Bradley Foundation's money comes from Lynde Bradley, a member of the John Birch Society. The Coors Foundation previously financed the John Birch Society. The Koch Foundations were founded by Charles and David Koch, sons of Fred Koch, founder of the John Birch Society.

From the John Birch Society website: "Ever since its founding in 1958 by Robert Welch, The John Birch Society has been fully dedicated to ..."

David Koch, the 1980 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate, funds many libertarian organizations, and is co-founder of the libertarian Cato Institute. William Simon of the Olin Foundation was a member of the secretive Christian-Right Council for National Policy, and chairman of an organization set up by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.

One editor justifies as follows:

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

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

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

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

the referenced information comes from a web site of the Commonweal Institute and is contained in an article describing the attack on trial lawyers. This group found the information relevant. The relationship of tort reform to wealthy foundations advocating a pro business and in some instances racist agenda, as with the John Birch Society, is important information for the reader to be aware. This information was deleted by FRCP11, an apparent pseudonym for Ted Banks, a paid advocate for the pro tort reform Manhattan Institute. If FRCP11 is Ted Banks, he then appears to be citing himself and his collegues as authoritative sources, without disclosing this conflict of interest. This would be an unethical and unsavory practice. The web site cited below, as well as an e-mail I received today, suggests that this is occurring.--68.239.30.138 23:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If A was a member of B (and I don't think he was; Commonweal gets this wrong, too), and A wills his business to C when he dies in 1942, and in 1985, C sells the business for $290 million and creates a new foundation D, and in 2000, D provides a fraction of E's funding, and and a fraction of E's funding is used to support F, which receives much more support from sources G through Z, how is it that B is "related to" F? 68.239.30.138 is a sock puppet for User:Whitfield Larrabee. His improper personal attack is incorrect on multiple levels (this is a hobby, I don't work for MI, I'm not Ted Banks (whoever he is)), but even if it were true, it doesn't explain how B is related to F (much less C, D, or E), and why any mention of the John Birch Society belongs here. By Whitfield/68.239's argument, one could argue that Ed Fagan opposes tort reform, and Ed Fagan is accused by Austrian authorities of illegally paying to procure sex with an underage Lithuanian[2], and that therefore tort reform opposition is "related to" pedophilia. The allegation would be ridiculous and irrelevant, but no more so than what Whitfield/68.239 is trying to add. The fact that the Commonweal Institute is making this argument reflects more on the Commonweal Institute than on the argument. -- FRCP11 07:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The John Birch Society was founded in 1958.[3] Lynde Bradley died in 1942. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation was started in 1985. The Commonweal Institute alleges that Lynde Bradley was a member of the JBS, and that this has something to do with the Bradley Foundation's support of tort reform in 2005. So just in the one sentence I fact-checked, there are at least three falsehoods: the Bradley Foundation didn't get its money from Lynde Bradley, Lynde Bradley wasn't a member of JBS, and, as discussed above, think tanks only get a fraction of their money from the Bradley Foundation. If this wasn't enough to end CI's credibility on any issue, a search on news.google.com reveals that not a single media entity--mainstream or otherwise--has cited the Commonweal Institute between 15 September and 15 October 2005; they're not even significant enough that someone bothered to create a WIkipedia entry on them as of 17 Oct 2005. This isn't high-school debate: the fact that a source says something demonstrably untrue doesn't mean you get to use it to drown out the real discussion of the issues. Put it in a new article, and link to it from here, if you really want to waste time on something easily refuted, but the allegation doesn't belong in the main article unless you're trying to completely destroy the credibility of tort reform opposition. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight -- FRCP11 12:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Via RFC I don't think it violates NPOV. However I think, in its inclusion, it suggests something about the editor's motivations. That is neither here no there though, because I just think it violates No Personal Essays. The editors that want it to be included should spread out the facts and include them in their proper places. The quote is superfluous and does not need to be included. "Tort reform" (yes, it is in quotes because it is an ambiguous phrase but is discussed as specifically one kind of tort reform here^†) is, I believe, "for the most part strongly affilliated with the Republican Party and tort reform has been an important part of the Republican Party's agenda, although the issues do not divide perfectly upon party lines." That's true and should be included. But it should be included at the top of the page.

^&daggerI think those that do not understand why someone might use "scare quotes" when referring to "Tort reform" need to work on understanding why. I'm not saying they should be used necessarily, but you have to realize "Tort reform" is ambiguous and is only worthy of an encyclopedic article because of advocacy for a specific type of tort reform, which, though I see has somewhat been dealt with in the intro, should be simplified. Maybe you should say: "Tort Reform" is a political phrase or something. --Ben 09:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Prescriptive or Descriptive

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

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

Per Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, I delete my mistaken violation of WP:AGF, and apologize. -- FRCP11 14:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't going to get into the possible reasons why the introduction to Tort Reform conveys no useful information, but FRCP11 gave us the perfect example above in his unsigned personal attack. Apparently, FRCP11 is saying that whether or not I can gather any information from this article is contingent upon who I am. If that is the case, maybe we should put an I.Q. disclaimer on the top of the article: "Warning, please do not attempt to understand this article unless you have an I.Q. of at least 180." Even that number might be too low for someone who wants to spend no more than 30 seconds getting a basic understanding of Tort Reform. Nevertheless, the important question here is, why would FRCP11 try to confuse the messenger with the issue? Does he not want people to understand the basic concept of Tort Reform? Could there be people who benefit from an ignorant public in this matter? Are there editors at Wikipedia who try to confuse political definitions instead of clarify them? Should we allow editors who exhibit these attributes to hold positions of power?

Sometimes it appears that people are being idiots when really all they want is the opposite of their stated agendas. In such cases, I think the important thing is to remain calm and let them expose themselves. In a transparent system of equals, goodness, truth, and the beauty of consensus always wins. --Zephram Stark 15:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Use of This Article By Advocacy Organization

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

WP:AGF please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I admit that I do think that an NPOV presentation that fairly presents both sides advances the cause of tort reform, because I believe the cause of tort reform has the better of the argument. This article didn't fairly present one side of the debate before I started editing it. -- FRCP11 12:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, actions speak louder than words. Assumptions become meaningless in the face of evidence by your own hand. Linking to gossip when facts about that gossip are available makes an assumption of good faith impossible. Apparently, no depths of depravity are too low when you want to bad-mouth the messenger to hide the content of the message. --Zephram Stark 16:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's try to start this article with a clean slate? Start fresh from zero? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I don't know anything about Tort Reform, so what would you say in the first paragraph that would give me the best summary of it? --Zephram Stark 17:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know or care. I was asked by FRCP11, who I had a disagreement that we resolved amicably on another page to try to intercede here. I noticed everyone involved acting badly. I suggest that someone who wants to make a change to the article propose that change in talk, we'll talk about it, and improve the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As a note, I do not mean to imply that I support the article as stands, or that it should be scrapped. I merely think that starting anew without all the old personal attack baggage would help everyone out. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

$40 billion

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

Structure - going forward

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

Introduction

Old Passage:

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

New Passage:

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

Comments:

Doesn't Tort Reform has something to do with Torts? The definition of a Tort is pretty good. Why should the introduction not link to what a tort actually is? --Zephram Stark 18:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe a link to "tort" is unarguable for the intro. I think the old sentance is way, way too long for once sentance. I think that unlike "pro-choice" and "pro-life," which one could argue are used by the faction (as opposed to "pro-abortion, anti-choice"), the term is used by all (what do anti-reformers call tort reform?). I do however think that the allegations by the pro-reformers might merit inclusion in the intro, perhaps along the lines of "Supporters of tort reform often cite..." and then tell me what they cite when they argue for it, perhaps? Follow with a similar one sentance rebuttal by anti-reformers, or whatever they call themselves? I don't know the arguments aside from the basics, so I'm flying blind. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

I dislike the old first paragraph, which is unwieldly and needs to be improved. The revision is certainly shorter. But it's also less accurate by itself.

1. As discussed in the current second paragraph, tort reform isn't just about torts, it's about the litigation system. See, e.g., the American Tort Reform Association's support of arbitration agreement enforcement.[4]

2. While most tort reforms will reduce litigation, others merely reduce the costs of litigation; seek to improve the accuracy or fairness of litigation; end forum-shopping; or regulate attorney-client relationships.

Maybe:

New Passage Alternative:

A tort reform is generally a proposal to reduce the amount of tort litigation or damages in the American civil justice system.

That should read a "proposal or a law", since a successfully-proposed tort reform is still a tort reform. -- FRCP11 03:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The term "tort reform" reflects one POV (a right-wing POV). A left-wing equivalent is "chickenhawk". Our article doesn't say, "A chickenhawk is a pro-war politician who didn't serve in the military." Instead, it correctly describes "chickenhawk" as "an epithet used in United States politics to criticize a politician . . . ." By the same token, this article should preserve the current text's recognition that the appropriateness of the term, like the appropriateness of "chickenhawk", is not undisputed. As I write this, the current text is, "The term tort reform is used by supporters of the controversial contention that . . . ." That exact wording isn't the only way to do it, and making it more parallel to "chickenhawk" might be an improvement: "Tort reform is a term used in United States politics by supporters of measures to . . . ." and then whatever terse summary seems best (taking account of the problem that most of what's called "tort reform" does actually deal with tort law, but some of the proposals would have effects in other areas). As to the general structure, I'm inclined to think that the first paragraph should, as Zephram Stark emphasizes, tell the reader what proposals (at least in a general way) are being referred to. Ideally, however, the second paragraph would summarize the pro and con arguments. One function of the lead section is to provide a "mini-article" for readers who want to know as much about the topic as they can digest in a very short time. Crafting very succinct summaries of each side's position is valuable for that purpose but may pose more of an obstacle to consensus. JamesMLane 21:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

First, there's nothing inherently "right-wing" about tort reform. Tony Blair criticizes the "compensation culture" in Great Britain; George McGovern is on the board of Common Good; Barack Obama voted for the Class Action Fairness Act; the 2000 Democratic nominee for vice president was a long-time supporter of tort reform; Howard Dean wrote a letter to the New York Times demanding tort reform; in polls, eighty percent of Americans agree with the fundamental premises behind tort reform; the support is overwhelming enough that John Kerry felt he had to stand up at the town-hall debate and say (if somewhat disingenuously) "John Edwards and I support tort reform" and call for limits on punitive damages.[5]

The difference between tort reform and "chickenhawk" is that the mainstream media uses tort reform neutrally to describe a legislative program, while does not use "chickenhawk" except as an epithet. The term tort reform is no more POV than "Bolshevik" or "German Democratic Republic" or "Palestinian Liberation Organization" or "Conservative Judaism" or "anti-Semitism" or "African-American." You can prescriptively argue that the etymology of the name makes it an inappropriate label for what it names, but, descriptively, the term means what it means, and it would be POV for a Wikipedia article to decide that the rest of the world is making a mistake.

The current article bends over backwards too much to acknowledge the objections of fervent opponents. To the extent Wikipedia is descriptive, rather than prescriptive, it's inaccurate to qualify the definition with "used by supporters" in the first paragraph, because both opponents and the mainstream media use the term also. (See the scarequote discussion above for cites.) -- FRCP11 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

If "Tort Reform" is the right-wing version, what is the left-wing version? ("Pro-Life" is to "Anti-Choice" as "Tort Reform" is to ""). I honestly have no clue. Please cite sources. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate, the analogy would be tort reform:"tort reform". Even more rarely tort deform. But the use of scare quotes is only done by a fraction of the left, and even then not consistently. Unlike "pro-life", where there's a neutral "anti-abortion rights" phrasing, the mainstream media accepts the term tort reform as neutral. -- FRCP11 23:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Can I ask that we focus only on the first sentence in this discussion? We can do the next paragraph in a section section below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I've split it up below. -- FRCP11 04:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there any objection to Proposal #2? -- FRCP11 12:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I like proposal #3 best. I would consider reform a weasel word (as in the current thing needs to be reformed and is bad). That's arguable, because reform can be neutral, but paired with the content of the article it is a weasel word in my opinion. That's not really the main point. The main point is that the reform in "Tort reform" is only in one direction which tells me that the article shouldn't take itself literally and describe all sorts of ways one might "reform" tort litigation. It is a partisan political phrase. Taken literally it does not deserve a Wikipedia article, unless you want to write the history of tort, which should just go on the tort page anyway. However it does describe very real legislation and views and things and it definitely deserves an article, but remember what you are talking about. The solution is to not try to treat the title as if it were neutral because it simply isn't. Consider it something of a partisan political brand name for a legislative package. That's why I would use the quotes. If it were literal and the article (somehow) was really about various tort reforms then I wouldn't use the scare quotes. But it's not, and so you should--but (another but) it's ridiculous to constantly use scare quotes in the article. So, the answer is to sort all of it out in the introduction and make it clear just what the article is about. That's why I like #3. --Ben 08:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this will help put it into perspective. What if all these tort reforms passed? What if then the Democrats or people in general wanted to change it back for instance, and lobbied for their own tort reform? What would need to be rewritten? The introduction and second paragraph are good actually, but they do need to be more specific somehow. Such as "Tort Reform was/is a political term used in American politics during the late 90's and early 00's by people, generally but not limited to conservatives, lobbying to... etc." The section "Tort reform and American politics" should probably be the first section too. --Ben 08:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Second paragraph

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

New Passage:

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

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

I'm not sure that there's a single sentence that either side would view as fairly epitomizing their support for or opposition to tort reform.

I don't have any objection to moving the disclaimers in the second paragraph elsewhere in the article. The current version of the second paragraph reflects a compromise to end a revert war with editors who complained that the first paragraph did not reflect what they thought how the term "tort reform" should be used (rather than how it is used). -- FRCP11 20:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Ideally, however, the second paragraph would summarize the pro and con arguments. One function of the lead section is to provide a "mini-article" for readers who want to know as much about the topic as they can digest in a very short time. Crafting very succinct summaries of each side's position is valuable for that purpose but may pose more of an obstacle to consensus. JamesMLane 21:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Any objection to this proposal? -- FRCP11 12:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Noneconomic Damage Caps

Old Passage:

Main article: Non-economic damages caps

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

New Passage:

1. merge sub-article into main article

Comments:

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

The article is so long that all of the arguments cannot be featured--see Wikipedia:article size. Non-economics damages caps is a significant enough debate on its own that it deserves expanded treatment. The sub-article now has lots of articles that link to it. Thus, moving the text to the main article will create the problem of parallel articles addressing the same topic, with the potential problem of diverging inconsistency. The fact that there is a sub-article hardly "minimizes the importance of the subject" -- rather, it means that the subject is important enough to have its own separate article that can be expanded much further than it could be if it were a subsection in the tort reform article.

You repeat the claim that the article gives "more prominent positioning to pro tort reform sections", but the claim is clearly false: every single section mentions the anti-tort-reform argument first, and sometimes first and last. To the extent it's skewed, it's skewed anti-reform--the false-on-their-face wild-eyed anti-reform conspiracy theories involving time travel are included, while the harsher critiques of the trial bar are not.

If you have a proposal for a better NPOV summary of the sub-article, feel free to make it, but it's not going to fly to include 2000 words on the subject when tort reform is much more than non-economic damages caps.

The place for your objection, incidentally, is in the sub-article. If you were to make a proposal in the Wikipedia:articles for deletion area to delete the non-economic damages caps article on the grounds that it should be merged into the tort reform article, I guarantee that it would fail, but you should feel free to make that proposal if you feel so strongly about it. -- FRCP11 03:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestion that the only way to merge article together is via AFD is incorect. The correct method was entered into above, when someone suggested the articles be merged. Also, WP:COOL. I have no opinion on a merger, though I would not object to a larger treatment of damage caps in the article itself. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not married to the current one-sentence summary, and don't object to a longer NPOV summary. But I think it's a mistake to put the entire non-economic damages caps article in this article for the reasons I stated, and that's the only proposal on the table. -- FRCP11 14:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Remove All Blogs - Pro/Con all uncited "sources"

Old Passage: Refrences and See-Also

New Passage: Remove: Evan Schaeffer's Legal Underground, http://www.legalunderground.com/tort_reform_2/index.html CorpReform, an anti-tort reform blog, http://corpreform.com Overlawyered, the leading tort reform blog, http://www.overlawyered.com. Point of Law, the Manhattan Institute's blog on tort reform, http://www.pointoflaw.com. ] Walter Olson, Point of Law, "Procedure" Walter Olson, Point of Law, "Regulation Through Litigation" CorpReform.com, 2003 Oct. 30, "What Is Tort Reform - and Why Is It Bad for the Public?" Ted Frank, Point of Law, 2004 Sep. 23, "What is 'frivolous'?"

Categorize as Pro/Con: American Tort Reform Association, "Facts on Tort Reform" Jeff Milchen, 2004 Oct. 27, "Beware of 'Junk Lawsuits' Hype" (discusses corporate abuses of the American legal system) Public Citizen, 2004 Oct., "Corporate Hypocrisy in Accessing the Courts" (study asserting that corporations are the most frequent initiators of litigation in the U.S.A.) Carl Deal and Joanne Doroshow, Center for Justice and Democracy, "The CALA Files" (discusses funding of CALA) CorpReform.com, 2003 Oct. 30, "What Is Tort Reform - and Why Is It Bad for the Public?" Commonweal Institute, "The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law" (examines use of front groups and funding sources for "tort reform") Manhattan Institute Center for Legal Policy, "Trial Lawyers Inc." (multiple reports on the economic and political power of the plaintiffs' bar) Richard Epstein, Wall Street Journal, 2005 Aug. 22, "Rule of Law: Ambush In Angleton" Walter Olson, "The Lawsuit Lobby" (discusses funding of tort reform opposition) Carl Geiger, testimony about Small Business Liability Reform Act before House Judiciary Committee Paul H. Rubin, Wall Street Journal, 2005 Oct. 8, "Tort Reform Saves Lives" Economic Policy Institute, "The Frivolous Case For Tort Law Change" (characterizes the costs and benefits of the current tort system) Tillinghast/Towers Perrin response to Economic Policy Institute Economic Policy Institute response to response of Tillinghast/Towers Perrin

Retain as "References" Congressional Budget Office, "The Economics of U.S. Tort Liability: A Primer" Washington Post, "Advocacy Groups Blur Media Lines" (article discussing U.S. Chamber of Commerce's use of newspaper to promote "tort reform") John D. Graham, "Product Liability and Motor Vehicle Safety" and Myron Mackey, "Liability, Safety, and Innovation in the Automobile Industry" in Peter W. Huber and Robert E. Litan, eds., The Liability Maze: The Impact of Liability Law on Safety and Innovation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, ISBN 0-8157-3760-2

Comments:

The references and Pro/Con section are hopelessly tangled. Most of those references are not used in the article whatsoever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Overlawyered and Point of Law and its writers (which include think tank fellows, law professors, and other published authors) are often cited by the mainstream media, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, US News & World Report, National Review, the New Republic, National Journal, Forbes, and the Weekly Standard--and several of those publications have affirmatively endorsed Overlawyered as an indispensable site on the subject. If it's good enough for them, it's surely good enough for Wikipedia. Point of Law is a web magazine published by two think tanks. Both are legitimate reference sources for pro-tort-reform arguments, and are a very real part of the public policy debate--much more so than the Commonweal Institute, who I had never heard of before someone added a link in the Wikipedia article, and I still haven't heard of outside of that. When the Washington Monthly attacked Stuart Taylor for his Newsweek cover story on tort reform, he posted his full response on Overlawyered. It's prominent enough that anti-tort reform activists feel the need to attack it.[6] Those two sites belong, and the linked pieces provide important summaries of pro-tort reform arguments that would be too long to place within the main article.

The section does need to be cleaned up; most of the references are really "external sources." Previous efforts I made to organize the reference and external links section were the subject of personal attacks, but I hope that changes with the clean slate. -- FRCP11 17:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll tell you right now - it certainly appears from where I sit that you are trying to POV the external sources, not organize and clean them up. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That perception is an artifact of the iceberg effect of the talk page. I'm the only pro-tort reform person participating in the article. When I delete a pro cite or add an anti cite, no one says boo and it's quickly forgotten as uncontroversial; when I add a pro cite or delete an anti cite or try to categorize sites so that related articles are next to each other, I am subjected to a personal attack. I've added numerous anti links, including two you're proposing to delete; I've shunted several important pro arguments to sub-articles. I'm not getting credit for any of this because of the drumbeat of false personal attacks on this page. I'm worried about the direction this can go, if I try to be NPOV and the anti-tort-reformers are demanding the whole cookie. It doesn't make it NPOV to give them 75% of the cookie. It's not like I'm proposing to add links to crackpots; the writers are among the leading public advocates of civil justice reform. Identify them as pro-reform sites, but don't eliminate their perspective from the debate. -- FRCP11 19:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair. I'll have to review. How about if the put all the blogs back in (only one bite at the apple per blog, though), but in the pro-con sections? I like that there are three real references from three real sources, and I think that the article is better if the refrences were a little higherbrow than overlawyered.com, which is a bit.. Juvenile. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There's only one reference to overlawyered. Everything else is the higher-brow Point of Law, which is published by two think tanks, is meant to be a serious reference for what tort reformers argue on various issues.

In terms of division, there's should be a generic pro/con category, but some of the links are better classified as relating to sub-issues. Four of the anti links and one of the pro links have to do with descriptions of supporters and opponents and funding for the various sides; it would be better to put those five or six together, rather than segregate them by pro or con. Another example: Tillinghast released a report describing the costs of the litigation system[7]; EPI attacked it; Tillinghast defended it; EPI responded to the rebuttal. All four links should be included (the reference section only includes the last three); it makes more sense to keep them together than to split them up.

(Slightly different issue: In addition, some tort reformers have criticized the Tillinghast report as underestimating the costs of the tort system because it doesn't include second-order effects; there's no mention of that at all in the article, only the anti-tort-reformers' allegations that the report overestimates.) By the way, Tillinghast disputes the contention that the article was meant to support tort reform, so it shouldn't be in the pro section--except the anti-reformers would argue the contrary because they're an actuarial firm that does some work with the insurance industry.

Paul Rubin's article supports some tort reforms and opposes others--does it go in pro or con?

I have to think there are better choices than CorpReform.com for the anti side. -- FRCP11 20:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Generally, the deletion of useful links is a bad idea whether they are pro or con. By containing links to diverse information, the reader benefits. If links were to be deleted, I would suggest that some of the duplication of links to Ted Banks and Walter Olsen, associates at the web sites pointoflaw.com, overlawyered.com and etc be eliminated as they have received undue prominence and emphasis both in the footnotes and in the links and references sections. Links to articles and blogs and projects operated by the American Enterprise Institute and the Manhattan Institute are receiveing too much emphasis. --Whitfield Larrabee 01:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Template

Old Passage:

New Passage:

Comments:

Sheila Jackson Lee quote

I restored some information that was deleted without discussion. The deleted information appeared to be properly sourced and included quotes from political and intellectual leaders that were relevant to the article. Bill Smoot 03:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the quote in question, as follows:

"In some instances, tort reformer's claimed agenda to bar frivolous has raised concerns that restrictions of "frivolous" suits could be used to bar legitimate lawsuits that are politically unpopular. "Brown v. Board of Education might have been (considered) frivolous," said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat of Texas, referring to the 1954 case in which the Supreme Court declared school segregation unconstitutional. In opposing limits on so called frivolous lawsuits, she said, "I don't want a law that says you can't go into the courthouse"

First and foremost, I think NPOV demands that a quote of this sort has no place in the lead descriptive paragragh of the "agenda" portion of the article. There seems to already be a heading for opposing viewpoints in the body of the article, and if the author insists on including it, I'd suggest relocating it to that section.

Additionally , I have a problem with the hypothetical tone of the quote (i.e. Brown vs Board "might have been (considered) frivolous" and "I dont'(sic) want a law that says you can't go into the courthouse") Proceeding from the latter statement, a reader who knows nothing about the tort reform movement might assume that it is proposing a law that prohibits litigation. If the author can provide evidence of that, I ask that he does so, along with a reference to the proposed legislation (or failing that, a published article by a tort reformist that spells out the need for such a law.)

As for Ms. Jackson's former statement about Brown vs. Board of Ed, I would strenuously argue that the comparison requires support from some source within the actual tort reform movement. Without any material to support this comment, one might assume that the tort reformists' agenda includes repealing civil liberties for minorities. While this may be a political belief shared by Ms. Jackson and Mr. Smoot, as written (and without context) the quote seems little more than a casual smear by a partisan opponent that lends no descriptive function whatsoever to the term. For this reason, I'd request that this portion of the quote be stricken from the entire text, regardless of the section. JDeke 15:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I would add one additonal note; in regards to the latter part of Ms. Jackson's quote (since I've already stated the case for removing the former), I would additionally ask that the author disclose the following linked reference to put the quote in context, since the reference comes from Ms. Jackson's own filings: [8]. Of course, I encourage Mr. Smoot to provide contrary evidence and materials as well, but I'd like some discussion before he submits changes to this article. Thanks. JDeke 02:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue of Jackson receiving a payment from the trial lawyers could be useful information for the reader with regard to Jackson's motives. I have no objection to adding this information, except to say that it might be somewhat awkward and of limited relevance. For example (Jackson received a $5,000 campaign contribution from a trial lawyers association) could be added. The article, by its nature is descriptive of various points of view. If descriptions of only pro tort reform viewpoints are included in the article, it becomes a POV violation, and does not accurately describe the subject of tort reform or the debate. There has not been any allegation that the Jackson quote is an inaccurate quote of Jackson. The deletion of an undisputedly accurate and relevant quote from a political leader, properly sourced, pertaining to the issue at hand - the "tort reform" agenda and particularly the issue of frivolous lawsuits, thus detracts from the article. The deletion of properly sourced and accurate information has the tendency to lead to edit wars. It seems to me that the better approach is to introduce additional information from a countervailing source so that the reader has both points of view. In this way, the article is built up with more information. Deleting and edit wars cause articles to get torn down and result in the reduction of useful information to the reader. I also assert this point with regard to the Robert Reich quote, recently deleted. I am amenable to re-positioning the quotes if they are inappropriately positioned. For this reason, I would ask that the individual or individuals who deleted quotes from from Mr. Reich and Ms. Jackson restore these quotes to an appropriate section of the article. Quotes from these intellectual and political leaders help to describe the debate that is occuring between the so called "tort reform" advocates and their opponents. Bill Smoot 04:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Smoot - I would like to restore the quote to some other portion of the document, but it appears awkward and out of context almost anywhere in the article's current form. I certainly don't want to start an "edit war", but I'm almost certain a better quote can be found to support the opposing thesis. As I stated, I take issue with the quality of the quote itself. To merely describe her as a "political leader, properly sourced" I think is not an adequate standard here. For instance, where does this quote originate from? What is the source? I see no link to the full body of any article or published paper by Ms. Jackson (and, indeed, the tone of the quote indicates it's almost certainly a soundbyte - but even this should include some contextual source, such as "in an October 8 speech to House Representatives, Ms. Jackson said...").

Additionally, I think I've stated my case for removal of the first part of Ms. Jackson's quote clearly enough to deserve some kind of intellectual defense of it. I don't believe that Ms. Jackson mentioning the term "frivolous lawsuit" is informative enough to stand alone anywhere in the document. For instance, if Sen. John McCain was quoted - accurately - as saying "The abundance of frivolous lawsuits is part of a secret Nazi conspiracy"... well he might indeed have said that, but I would feel hard-pressed to include the statement on its own merit without some sort of context or support. In the same vein, if USA Today quoted Harry Reid as saying "Tort reform is stupid", I would have deleted it for the purposes of defending the quality of the article. In the case of the Jackson quote, I think it's a bit of both.

I would suggest authoring a new section of the document, presenting the full case of Ms. Jackson (and of those who think as she does) about how tort reform pertains to the struggle for civil rights (actually, such a case might fit into the "Federalism Debate" section, which seems a little thin in its current form). But I won't author this section myself, and in truth I'm not sure what the "pro tort reform viewpoints" are that you think inundate the current article; it seems as though the article is describing the actual positions of the tort reform movement, which I thought was the point. So unless someone can mount a defense for why the Sheila Lee Jackson quote has enough merit that it should appear by itself, I can't in good faith restore it. As for the specific NPOV violations, I believe the quote fails according to the following requirements:

- failure to cite the source (see Citing sources)

- Political bias (particularly in its original positioning within the article)

- Undue weight (in giving excessive weight to an implied link between tort reform and racial segregation without citing any additional references)

- Subjectivity/poor research ( "In some instances, tort reformer's claimed agenda to bar frivolous has raised concerns..." -- in what source material do tort reformers claim to want to "bar" frivolous lawsuits? "Limit" would obviously have been the more accurate choice, but the quote setup still seems vague and problematically subjective.)

- Subjectivity/poor research ( "Brown v. Board of Education might have been (considered) frivolous," -- this is an extremely tendentious hypothetical. What stated supporter of tort reform has described Brown vs The Board of Education as a "frivolous lawsuit"?)

Thanks in advance for not simply restoring the quote again. I would respectfully ask that you rebutt my stated argument before doing so - I think its healthier if we try to avoid some kind of outside arbitration. JDeke 17:03, 17 March 2006

(UTC)

The concern that restrictions on frivilous lawsuits could harm civil rights legislation was a concern express by the committee that studied the proposed 2005 Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act in the US house of representatives. House Report 109-123 - LAWSUIT ABUSE REDUCTION ACT OF 2005 [[9]] It is a well documented potential risk that has been repeatedly raised by experts long before the current debate. For example, in 1989, the Honorable Robert L. Carter, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, noted: "I have no doubt that the Supreme Court's opportunity to pronounce separate schools inherently unequal [in Brown v. Board of Education] would have been delayed for a decade had my colleagues and I been required, upon pain of potential sanctions, to plead our legal theory explicitly from the start." Symposium, The 50th Anniversary of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 1938-1988, The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a Vindicator of Civil Rights, 137 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2179, 2193 (June 1989). Thus, authoritative sources have argued that restrictions of frivolous lawsuits by tort reforms would harm civil rights laws. Bill Smoot 02:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is much, much better. However, I think we can agree it still seems highly unsuitable for the agenda [10] portion of the article, since the term applies to the actual statement or list of purposes. I'd also note that that the quotes you selected don't seem to square exactly with the theory that tort reform takes a fundamentally recividist attitude towards established civil rights. I've taken the liberty of moving the statement into the "Theoretical Issues" portion of the document, since the statements imply theoretical impact of reforms rather than statements of purpose. I'm still of the opinion that this debate could be somewhat more fleshed out in the "Federalism section", but I fear it might simply become an article unto itself at that point. I also made a phrasing tweak, revising a somewhat subjective descriptor ("so-called" frivolous lawsuits) and altering the opening phrase to fit the argument that follows it (i.e. Not that tort reform is fundamentally opposed to civil rights litigation, but that individual proposed reforms could be used to deter the process by which civil rights litigants can establish a grieviance).

I'll try to flesh out the actual debate portion, since there seems to be a lively one. How so we feel about something along these lines as a rejoinder argument?

With regards to the impact on civil rights case-law, some tort reform advocates refer to a constitutional concstructionalist argument that links regulatory litigation to anti-democratic recividity. Often cited are the 13th, 15th and 19th amendments to U.S. Constitution [11], which abolished slavery, and guaranteed black and female suffrage respectively[12][13]. Tort reform advocates note that all three amendments were debated in Congress and passed into law by democratic ratification from state legislatures, rather than emerging from the federal judiciary as the result of a interstate commerical regulatory litigation. They also refer to the language of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment [14], arguing that this civil protection limits the "size of punitive damages awards and procedural limits on when and how punitive damages may be awarded."[[15]]. In discussing the effects of the expansionism of federal review of civil rights matters, civil rights Brookings Institute Senior Fellow Pietro S. Nivola writes:

“Another notable share of the centrally dictated standards that have multiplied in the past three decades falls under the capacious category of civil rights. What began in the 1960s as a straightforward goal of ensuring equal opportunity for African Americans would later expand into a vast apparatus of federally mandated protections and preferences for multiple minorities, women, the elderly, the disabled, and so on. It is questionable whether all these groups merit the same compulsory remedies, and whether the remedies ought to be designed and decreed from the top down.” [16]

Other reform advocates[17] [18] further contend that the increased scope of federal civil rights litigation violates the intention of the separation of powers as described in Federalist Papers No. 80-81 [19][20], in which they believe the author (presumed by most scholars to be Alexander Hamiliton) argues for certain limitations on federal judicial authority to act as a safeguard of individual civil rights.JDeke 18:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The material pertaining to frivolous lawsuits was deleted from the section pertaining to tort reformers agenda, then was moved to a separate civil rights section after I answered various objections. The comment regarding the substance of the amendments was "In my opinion, this is much, much better." I had no objection to moving the subject matter to a separate civil rights section, but, I don't understand why the information keeps getting removed from the article by a series of evolving objections. I believe that the notion that restrictions on frivolous lawsuits have had or would have a negative impact on civil rights laws should be in the article because it is reasonable and has been made by significant and identified sources, including a federal judge, a committee of the house of representatives and a congresswoman. Bill Smoot 15:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this is directed at me. In any case, I didn't delete the section (in fact I actually spent a bit of time helping to write it).

I could see how a case could be made that this debate isn't really a "tort reform" issue, since advocates typically cite product liability, personal injury and medical malpractice litigation as their major areas of greviance, rather than civil rights case law. If it gets restored, I think what it might additionally need to be more relevant and informative would be specific case law reference. Abuse of the Title IX protections, for instance, is one thing tort reform advocates do refer to quite a bit (i.e. gender equity in sports education funding, etc). Obviously there are a ton of articles that defend Title IX based on its merits, but through the lens of the tort reform argument Title IX is seen a stomping ground for meritless (if not pernicous) lawsuits by opportunistic law firms. It could be a useful debate, but again it would need specific case law and scolarship, otherwise it's not really informative.

Again, I removed the original quote, but I didn't delete the section. I tried to compromise by helping to tone down POV and offer a brief rebut. I'd guess part of the problem people are having with this section may be that, given the tone and sinister implication of the quotes you've selected and the profile you've written of yourself, people suspect that your edits are sensationalistic and hopelessly biased, and that your the goal isn't to inform people about what is meant by the term "tort reform", but rather to use this article as a bulletin board to lobby against it.

I did write that I thought that the revised quote was "much, much better", but "better" is, of course, a relative term. And once again, when you initially restored it, you restored it to a highly prominent area at the beginning of the article, even after admitting it didn't belong there. Not sure if it rises to the level of "vandalism", but at the very least, it's enough to make one question your motives here, don't you think? JDeke 16:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Update* Mr. Smoot - after reviewing the article again, I stumbled across a new revised version of the quote, now - rather bizarrely - embedded in the section outlining the concept of "Loser Pays" (The English Rule). I promptly removed it. Even a casual read of our dialogue here would show I've been extremely patient, to the point where I allowed an otherwise informative article to be pulled into a ideological pie-fight. I think your latest edit has shown me the error of my ways.

So now let me be frank; I don't believe you've read this article. You're continued attempts to inject racial demogoguery into the text, coupled with your stated purpose of showcasing "both points of view", have caused me to believe that you not only don't care for the concept of 'tort reform', but that you might be unaware of what it actually is.

Unfortunately, the subject of tort reform is an issue often given the short shrift by the television news outlets. Whether this is due to institutional bias, or merely a result of the issue not being "sexy" enough to get the editor stamp we may never know. But I think this makes it even more important that, the precious few times that people actually see or hear the term, they understand the definition, no matter what their opinion. Aristotle insisted that a subject could only be properly debated once both parties agreed to its definition. If I'm wrong - if you indeed have a keen grasp of the definition, have read the Tillinghast Report cover to cover, scrupulously inspected the stated arguments of supporters, etc - well, there are numerous debate sites and blogs available for you to argue your case. Let's leave this space for description only, shall we? JDeke 19:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I recategorized the Sheila Jackson Lee quote into a new section because the lengthy arguments opposing the Lee quote were both inapposite to the rhetorical point Lee was making (which was that increasing the likelihood that losers would have to pay attorneys' fees had potential costs to litigants) and irrelevant to the issue of tort reform, since it made no effort to defend the loser-pays rules that Lee was attacking.

Lee's point is factually incorrect (not least because the NAACP consistently had success in the courts as they fought against Plessy), and far too much emphasis is made of it in some edits of the articles. (Do we need two people making the same point? The second quote doesn't add anything to the first, since it's the same rhetorical assertion without any new data.) But the gigantic section on "tort reform and civil rights" was also inappropriate, because it wasn't really about either subject, and it wasn't especially coherent. Putting it into a loser-pays section was the best way to accommodate those who wanted to make Lee's point while keeping it within the descriptive flow of the article.

I'll leave it to others to decide whether or how to incorporate Lee in future edits, since whenever I edit this article, people mistake my late-night hobby work as some sinister conspiracy, and such tsuris I don't need when there's real tort reform writing I should be doing. Cheers. -- FRCP11 03:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to JDeke's above comments addressed to me, I would note that I did not move the quote or a summary of the idea to the loser pays section of the article. I thought that the subject of restricting civil rights litigation through restrictions on so called frivilous lawsuits was most appropriately placed in the agenda section. The tort reform movement encompasses restrictions on all types of lawsuits by private individuals against businesses and, incidently, the government. Caps on punitive damages in civil rights lawsuits were pushed through in 1991, for example. The points that Carter and Lee were making belong somewhere in the article. Part of the agenda is to restrict civil rights lawsuits by cutting back on punitive damages, making Rule 11 more threatening to plaintiff's attorneys by imposing sanctions against attorneys for plaintiff's who bring such claims that are found to violate rule 11, etc. This is part of the agenda. Bill Smoot 03:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 expanded plaintiffs' rights in civil rights lawsuits, not limited them. Before 1991, punitive damages weren't available at all, so the cap was zero. While tort reform is certainly needed in employment discrimination litigation, the only actions Congress has taken have been to expand liability. -- FRCP11 13:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening

Holy Moses and McGee... the first two sentences were a runon pileup of weaselwords and twisted syntax. It was...

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

While the term "tort reform" would seem to imply any change in the tort law or procedure, the commonly understood usage of the term in the political and academic arena is to describe a movement that would reduce the amount of tort litigation or damages. It thus does not include measures that expand liability, such as laws that create new causes of action.

I slimmed back to:

The term tort reform is used by supporters of a controversial contention that revision of the American civil justice system is desirable, in order to reduce litigation's alleged adverse effects on the economy.

While the phrase "tort reform" seems to imply any change in tort law or procedure, the commonly understood use in the political and academic arena describes a movement to constrict tort litigation and damages. It thus does not include measures that expand liability, such as laws that create new causes of action.

More slimming seems in order but I think my head might explode if I look at that any longer! UncleFester 07:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• The first paragraph now no longer has a definition, so the original version, while unwieldly, was at least accurate and thus preferable. For the second paragraph, I'd prefer "reduce the costs of litigation or damages" to "constrict." Several tort reforms do not constrict litigation or damages. -- FRCP11 15:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• I made your change about "constrict," opting instead for "curb" as "reduce" was already used in the previous sentence. I'd say the opening was more than "unwieldy" -- IMHO, it was a downright unreadable runon. If something isn't readable, it isn't accurate, at least in my book. If you have to read a sentence three or four times and dissect it before it makes sense, it's not well written. The Fox Index rating on the former opening sentences is off the charts.UncleFester 20:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but now we have an introduction that provides no meaning whatsoever. The first sentence should answer "What is tort reform?" and it doesn't do that. -- FRCP11 00:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Value loaded

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.