Talk:Tort reform in the United States/Archive 2

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 20 September 2005 and 16 October 2005.
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/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. FRCP11 15:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

message: I think it is unwise to structure the article the way it has been revised.  One section should be for the pro arguments made by tort reform advocates, on one for the con arguments made by opponents.  It was set up in this manner yesterday, and I thought that was wise.  Dividing the article in this way will permit the debate to settle down.  It will encourage the respective arguments to be refined.  It will make for a more clearly understandable article to the reader.  Otherwise, it invites one side to try to frame the arguments of  the other side with too many additional clarifications.  In a sense, it invites parties to dispute and sabatage the arguments of one another so that arguments become a muddled mess.
--Whitfield Larrabee 14:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Organizationally, it's easier for the reader to follow the issues by an organization of A/~A B/~B C/~C D/~D than one of ABD~B~C~A~D, which was the way it was. I fail to see what's wrong about the likelihood of someone refining the arguments.  There were several claims that were made in the anti-reform section that were categorically false, and it's useful to have the other side juxtaposed.  For example, you had quoted Graham in the opposition section, when Graham's study is one of the leading arguments against the current product liability system.  It doesn't make sense to split Graham's conclusions between pro and con--far better to have all of Graham's conclusions in one place.  If someone is misframing (and I see no evidence that anyone is misframing), it can be edited.  Please read the FAQ, as you continue to violate Talk page style conventions.  -- FRCP11 15:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of Article

message: This section covers to arguments in against lawsuits improving product safety in depth but provides no counter-arguments. Surely their must be studies or in depth arguments in support. As it stands now it simply describes the basic argument by tort-reform opponents then proceeds to knock it down with one study by a proponent of tort reform. As such it is not very NPOV. --Cab88 11:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The study was added by User:Whitfield Larrabee, who opposes tort reform.  He didn't read the study, however, so when I added the rest of the paragraph to the sentence he took out of context, it has the current result.  But it is NPOV.  Opponents of tort reform believe that the status quo improves product safety and reform would hurt it; supporters believe the opposite.  Both sides' arguments are presented.  The empirical data just doesn't support the opponents. -- FRCP11 13:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I have with the safety section is that both sides' arguments are not equally presented. While evidence, (the study by the Harvard professor), that opponents of the safety argument claim support their position, is presented, no counter studies or criticisms of the professor conclusions by tort reform opponents is offered. That is why I feel the section is currently not NPOV. It is what isn't included not what is. --Cab88 10:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What isn't included?  The anti-tort-reformers don't have a study supporting their position -- they just cite to the Graham study, and quote it out of context.  (See Whitfield Larrabee's original edit.)  The quote used in anti-tort reform publications from the Graham study is included in this article.  No one has deleted anything from the argument that tort reform decreases product safety. The article includes the full statement of the anti-tort reform position, two cites to anti-tort reform advocacy websites, and the full quote from the study that anti-tort reformers cite.  I can rewrite the section so that the anti-tort reformers have the last word, but it doesn't change the substance.  I haven't seen anyone try to refute Graham.  There are lots of pro-tort reform studies (such as the Rubin & Shepherd study showing that tort reform has saved 14,000 lives) that aren't in the article.  Empirically, it's one of those "sky is blue" vs. "sky is green" kind of things, but both arguments are stated in the article, so I don't see how someone can complain of POV.  -- FRCP11 04:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I added a link to ATLA's page on the subject. -- FRCP11 06:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tort reform and product safety section

message: I followed the links in the external links section; two of them were general-interest leftist sites that had no tort reform articles on their front page.  I deleted both of those, and replaced them with two blogs: CorpReform.com, which somebody had already cited; and Legal Underground, which was mentioned in the New York Times this weekend.  CorpReform appears to be written by a college student with no special expertise in the area, so if someone has a better idea for a site, they should feel free to put it up there.  I don't particularly think it belongs as an external link or reference, but don't want to be accused of bias for deleting it unless there's a consensus that it's not appropriate. -- FRCP11 23:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked somebody to justify this link and noone did.  So, a week later, I deleted it, and received an unmerited personal attack.  Can a third person look at this site, and decide whether it's an appropriate Wikipedia link? -- FRCP11 03:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links 

message: Many edits in this article generally focus to a great extent on viewpoints that can be found on websites hosted by the the Manhattan Institute, Ted Frank, Walter Olson, the American Enterprise Institute and other well funded enterprises funded through right foundations such as the Scaife Family Foundations, the Olin Family Foundations, the Coors Foundations, etc.  Citing these web sites as authoratative sources is questionable.  Much of the article is really a post from these web sites.  These extreme right wing institutions create studies in which their authority is based on citing each other as authorities.  You could call much of what the put out to be propaganda.  Walter Olsen has written a book, the "Litigation Explosion."  Clear statistical evidence shows that lawsuit filings have declined dramatically in recent years as have the amounts that juries have been awarding.  To claim that there is a litigation explosion is plain and simple propaganda.   This term is recited in the article.  This term is a talking point often used by "Tort Reformers."    Viewpoints critical of tort reform are prioritized at a lower level.  For example, in the external links and the references section, pro tort reform viewpoints are given top billing while anti-tort reform view points are given lower billing.  attempts to correct this are reverted.  Strong arguments against economic damage caps are shunted of to sub articles. Lengthy quotes from pro tort reformers are given prominent display.  There is only so much time in the day to resist this.  It would be a full time job to undo all of these edits and skewing.  I think it is best to just put a permanent point of view tag on the article.  As another editor has noted, the article is probably hopeless at this point.  --Whitfield Larrabee 00:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has cites and quotes from well-funded opponents of tort reform: ATLA, Center for Justice and Democracy, EPI, Public Citizen, Commonweal Institute, and even a college student's website, "CorpReform.com".  The sites of tort reform supporters are cited solely for the NPOV proposition that tort reform supporters take certain positions.  It's also utterly and demonstrably false that reformers are given top billing: in every single sub-section, the tort reform opponents' arguments are first, and in some they're both first and last; in the references section, the top reference is to a neutral CBO study; the only change I made to the order was to group like articles together--thus Walter Olson's expose' of the litigation lobby's influence is beneath the attack on the funding of CALA.  "Litigation explosion" is mentioned solely in terms of the debate over whether it exists; the statistics you assert are irrelevant to Olson's point or simply phony, but that's beside the point, because the debate is in the article, including the statistics you think should be included.  There's nothing wrong with moving the pro-and-con non-economic damages caps to a sub-article; in my mind, the pro argument is so far ahead, that it's hardly the case that omitting the details here creates problems.  You haven't identified a single specific violation of NPOV.  Your complaint is that the article is neutral, when you would prefer it to be skewed.  Read the FAQ, because it's clear you still don't understand what NPOV means. -- FRCP11 02:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Right Wing Skewing Problems With The Article and Proposed Permanant Point of View Tag

message: Several important references were unilaterally deleted, see two listed below.  These had been in the article for some time.  The reference section and the article in general is already skewed with references to articles by Ted Frank, Walter Olsen, the American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute.  As I have noted above, the article has been hijacked by advocates for the AEI and the Manhattan Institute.  The Pro Tort Reform references are featured first and editor FRCP11 has gradually deleted most of the links to information that would challenge tort reform.  Deletion of these sources and the skewing of the article in this manner is most inappropriate.  The article, the Attack on Trial Lawyers, is well footnoted and contains a wealth of information to contradict articles such as Triallawyers, Inc. that were linked to by certain authors.  The constant deleting of any views that disagree with the pro tort reform view is tiresome.  If these links are deleted again, I am definitely going to put a NPOV tag on the page.  I might put one there anyway.
The constant deleting of information that would contradict the pro tort reform gloss put on this article by one editor who has the time to dominate the debate here is unfortunate.
* 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")
--Whitfield Larrabee 03:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of References and NPOV Violations