User talk:HelloDali

Hi, HelloDali, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the Five pillars of Wikipedia and simplified ruleset. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly.

---

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
• You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Five will get you the datestamp only.
• You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
• If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
• If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing. —Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs}

Click here to respond to this message!

Jarod

Please tell me you are not Jarod. At first, I thought you were, which is maybe why you were confused. Surely, you are not. I appreciate your willingness to work with me and Gfwesq on the tort reform article, even though we disagree. I think we can sort this out, but not with an outrageous troll (for lack of a better word) urging 'war'. I have reported him to an administrator, and I hope you will support me in putting a stop to that nonsense. The only place this kind of rhetoric will get us is torpedoed.jgwlaw 03:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Helodali! I hope you are having a good holiday.... Thank you for your comments. That sounds fine. We can't have someone like this on Wikipedia, if we hope to have any collaboration. It was vicious, outrageous and belligerant.

I am out of town right now, and will be back next week.... so I probably won't have a lot of time to edit until then. I think we can work something out. What I have noticed on a number of the 'tort reform' type articles is not just a decidedly POV (which is obvious since there would be no other reason to even make such an encyclopedia entry otherwise), but also a dearth of understanding of the legal issues involved. I wonder if some of the people who banter around the phrase 'frivolous lawsuit' for example, really understand what that means - not just from a legal definition, but even the 'colloquial' definition. It seems that the 'colloquial' definition is based on some serious misunderstandings of tort law and the way the courts work. I'd like to discuss that with you...later. I appreciate your willingness to collaborate. There is no need to ever be abusive, and I hope that "Jarod" gets the message.jgwlaw 03:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Structure of Tort Reform article

I just wanted you to know I'm back and am trying to work on the structure of the article.

I made some changes. 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. Please take a look. What do you think of this structure? Of course, we'll need to add content, but I know you and Gfwesq can help with that.jgwlaw 00:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your edit on my talkpage. Let's talk about changes, and please see how I have changed the article. I wonder, though, if it is wise to use either "Mother Jones" or "National Review" since both are very biased. ON the other hand, it seems hard to avoid these references in an article so politically charged. That is why I think the whole idea of including an article on 'tort reform' is not encyclopedic. Or, if it is to be included, a truly encyclopedic style should be used, only discussing what it means in a general way, without detail on either side. It might be useful to look at a 'real' encyclopedia to see what one would have on the subject. WIkipedia is not a political forum for debate.

I truly do appreciate your attitude, by the way. It is a pleasure working with you, and I welcome your input.jgwlaw 20:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Reliable References

Hi Dali! (As in Salvatore?) I was thinking about the references - Mother Jones v. National Review, etc. According to Wikipedia guidelines on reliable source, we should use neither Mother Jones, nor National Review. The think tanks - both left and right wing - should not be used, because of their known bias. Nor should the TTP report. IN fact, this all suggests that we really shouldn't have an article on 'tort reform' more than what I mentioned earlier. This isn't a political forum - even if 'balanced' with pro and con political views. About the only thing that would be appropriate is a congressional report and the like. I rather agree with this, since an encyclopedia would not do this. What do you think?jgwlaw 21:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Molly! Our names sort of rhyme! Actually, my name is Jack Spence (as in Jonathan), but Salvatore is both a favorite topic and an easy pun. Actually the entire reason I started tinkering with the article was because it seemed like it was about to be scrapped. Obviously, I don't think it should be. One concession I made earlier regarded defining "tort reform" as a controversial issue. I think that's accurate; a variety of passions and intellects are inflamed by this agenda (which, as you've written, is intent on making it in general harder to bring lawsuits).

To my mind, what makes "tort reform" important to define - apart from its topicality - is that the idealogues for and vs. seem to be genuinely philisophically engaged. In other words, it doesn't appear to be a political issue any more than slavery was - that is to say, the political arguements and moneyed institutions seem to chase after the civic complaints. For instance, when we were working on the definition of "frivolous" lawsuit, I considered writing...

"In general, tort reform advocates contend that there are too few "frivolous" lawsuits."

...which, while being technically true, would have been confusing, and wouldn't have given the reader any clue about the actual thoughts and motives. Indeed, the article could have taken a broad cultural turn at this point[1], becoming purely about the anger of masses of people towards percieved tort abuse (e.g. "Jarod"). The reason I organized the list the way I did was because I thought it was important for people to know what was actually being proposed (and you'll note, I even included ideas I flatly disagree with, such as the expansion of judicial appointments). I think we both agree that people should know what rule changes tort reforms include, at least, and then exercise their judgement therein.

Anyway, hope we can resolve the "list issue" - I thought it was one of my more successful innovations before it was pulled.--HelloDali 23:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jack. I was thinking if you would like to talk (actually in person) since we seem to be the main editors on this, I wouldn't mind. You can email me through my page and I will give you my phone number. Or, we can discuss on the talk pages.... It matters not. I am sure we can work it out. I understand the reason your organized the list. I am just not sure what or how we can treat the items, without discussing each one. And I guess this goes to how to structure the article. "Tort reform" is such a huge subject, and is a political/social/legal movement. "Slavery" was very much a political issue - a huge political issue.

How do we discuss it neutrally, going into the history that you suggested, the proposals and then the 'counter' to each? I genuinely am in a quandry about it. On just the single issue of asbestos litigation, for example, there are some on one extreme, who think the danger of asbestos is 'overblown' . This particularly riles me, since my father died of mesothelioma, 40 years after working a summer job cutting asbestos shingles (and my mother was not compensated, although his death broke her emotionally). On the other extreme, are those who think everything should be compensated, regardless of whether there is actual illness or not. In the middle, and which I agree with, is the ABA proposal, which would prevent everyone ever exposed to asbestos from litigating and require actual illness (with standards consistent with the American Thoracic Society or equivalent) but at the same time change the way statute of limitations is calculated, so not to exclude those who are not presently sick but may well be in the future. (There is a long latency period on serious asbestos illness). This is part of 'tort reform'.

The 'medical malpractice' litigation debate is of course, another whole discussion which cannot be properly addressed without inclusion of the political agendas, etc etc. In fact, an article on 'medical malpractice' solely was a tort reform article, instead of discussing (correctly) what medical malpractice is, what the (correct) elements of a claim are, and what the incidents of medical malpractice are (statistics). Contrary to what I have seen some suggest, medical malpractice is not a lawsuit. It is a physician failing to meet a minimum standard of care. The article is now correctly focused on the actual subject of medical malpractice, and not tort reform,. Then there are general philosophies, and specific proposals. Merely the latter would require a long article on each one, with the main arguments for and against. Otherwise, it really is pushing an agenda. So this is my quandry.jgwlaw 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why, but I am having trouble finding the thread on the town pump. I saw your edit from the link you sent & h istory....but ...maybe I am tired, and need to get off the computer for awhile. Also, I don't yet know how to 'archive' a page, so if you still want to do so on this article, it would be helpful. jgwlaw 00:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me how you archive discussion? I need to archive my talk page...Or where do I go to look it up? Thank you!! jgwlaw 01:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!jgwlaw 02:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)