Talk:Tort reform in the United States/Archive 3

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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" ().  We need not succumb to either of these manipulations ourselves, though. JamesMLane 01:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: So-called "scare quotes"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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, 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)
thread_title: think tank funding

message: 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)
replies: text: WP:AGF please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Let's try to start this article with a clean slate? Start fresh from zero? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Use of This Article By Advocacy Organization

message: 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)
thread_title:  $40 billion 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Opening