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)
POV tag
The article is no longer about tort reform, and
- has been rewritten to be almost entirely about arguments against tort reform;
- 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!);
- oversells anti-reform arguments while failing to note the rebuttals by the supporters of reform (e.g., Gary Schwartz and Ford Pinto);
- misrepresents other studies (such as using a study saying contingent fee reform doesn't work to rebut a contention about damages caps);
- 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);
- the balanced presentation demonstrating that the plaintiffs' bar does just as much lobbying as the pro-reformers has been completely deleted;
- 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";
- there is a POV definition of "frivolous lawsuit" replacing the article's acknowledgement that different groups use the term in different ways; and
- 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)
Add POV tag, but for another reason
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)
Previous Talk Page & Alarm at Previous POV
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.
A frivolous lawsuit
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)
As it stands now, is still a 'tort reform' POV
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
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 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)
Tort Reform still EXTREMELY POV
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'
Of particular concern to many tort reform advocates is the present tor
Mesothelioma: Asbestos Lawyers & Lawsuits - Find a Mesothelioma ...
Asbestos Lawyers & Lawsuits - Call 866-952-9669 for a Mesothelioma ... to pursue legal action without the intervention of an experienced mesothelioma lawyer ... In which US state or ...
Alabama Class Action LawSuit | Birmingham Class Action Attorneys ...
Mesothelioma; MRI Dye (NSF) Trasylol® UBS Tax Shelters ... Birmingham Class Action Attorneys. A class action lawsuit is a lawsuit brought by a ... service, or pharmaceutical drug can help us ...
Mesothelioma Class Action Lawsuit - Asbestos.com
Mesothelioma Class Action Lawsuit. A class action lawsuit is a type of lawsuit filed by a collective group ... About Us | Contact Us | Resources Last Modified Wednesday, September 30th ...
Find Mesothelioma Lawyers Nationwide Asbestos Lawyer Lawsuits
... Mesothelioma | Real Estate | Vioxx Lawsuits | Family Law | Site-Map | False Arrest | Links | Contact us | Bail Bonds | Web Mesothelioma Lawyers
How to Organize a Class Action Lawsuit | eHow.com
How to Join a Class Action Lawsuit; How to Join a Mesothelioma Class Action Lawsuit ... other people share your complaint, a class action lawsuit ... en-US Portions of this page ...
Lawsuits & Legal News, Settlements, Verdicts, Legal Issues, Labor Laws ...
Asbestos Mesothelioma: health issues and cancer ... Are You Owed Lawsuit Money? You may be owed money from a class action settlement.CHECK HERE ... Member Login | Link to Us | Author ...
Class Action Mesothelioma Lawsuit - Class Action Asbestos Lawsuit
Contact Us ... or Class Action Lawsuit? Class ... Class Action Lawsuits. While for a few people, being part of a class action may be beneficial, most benzene, mesothelioma and ...
Class Action Civil Lawsuit
Call us: 1-877-200-6LAW California Mesothelioma Attorneys – Find Medical and Legal information ... Class Action Civil Lawsuit © Resources to Help People find Lawsuits Affecting ...
Class Action Mesothelioma Lawsuit - Are You Part of a Class Action ...
Mesothelioma. Benzene. What is AML. Benzene AML Lawyer ... Class Action Overview. A class action is a lawsuit against a particular defendant or ... Success Record | Resources | Contact Us | ...
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT Lawyer and Attorney Securities Fraud Securities ...
A class action lawsuit is a court procedure under which a ... Attorney | Contact Us | Class Action Pros and Cons ... WRONGFUL DEATH LAWSUIT | MESOTHELIOMA LAWSUIT