Talk:Tort reform in the United States

message: For the life of me, I can'f figure out how to post my own comment on this thread.  So I'm "editing" someone else's comment.   
My comment is this:  the Wiki tort reform article is so biased and unfair that it should be discarded completely.  Nothing in it is free of material spin, misstatement or highly partisan content.
It is possible to write an entry on this subject in a fair way. For example, see the  intelligent and balanced comment on the subject "frivolous litigation."  This comment points out that the political definition and the legal definition have little n common, and defines each in neutral terms that I believe are fair to everyone who has ever used the terms. On rechecking this article, I decided to reorder the presentation there to move the lay definition of "frivolous litigation" to the top of the article, because that is the meaning used by the vast majority of Americans.  I did not change the substance, retaining the legal definition completely.  The latter describes how a few thousand active trial attorneys and judges use the term, and does so in terems that I believe are accurate. 
When I have time, perhaps I'll try to rewrite this entry in a balanced, politically neutral way.  In the meantime, I suggest that Wiki insert a two or three paragraph explaining basic terms and leave out everything else.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrister noir (talk • contribs) 00:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

message: All the issues in the political segment of are directly related, they deserve to be grouped under one section. I did not change any of the paragraph content, but I did change some bold headings. Vinnievesh 11:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Section of Tort Reform

message: These are issues I see in the article.  Unless there are objections, I plan to correct these things:
*It's not clear to me that gun immunity is a particularly good example. Reformers seem to argue for broad changes more vigorously than those targeted to specific industries. Unless an explanation is given, I think we should use something like damage caps as an example.
*Why on earth are we citing a wiki (SourceWatch) without even specifying a specific version? This is sloppy, and it's precisely what we tell outside organizations to avoid when citing wikipedia. Although we often use political blogs to characterize avowedly partisan arguments, I think we can do better than this source.
*In the Ford Pinto case, the company did take into account the value of human life—they used a monetary value, however. Their economic analysis is actually why they were criticized. Discussion of the case needs substantial revision.
*The Center for a Just Society does indeed oppose some tort reforms, but not all. They've got a surprisingly thorough four-part series on the subject. The only reference I could find to the RU-486 argument is from the chairman here; it's not on their site. I'd prefer to cite him if no other source is available.
*The "predicted ideological stereotypes" of Supreme Court justices discussion: we should include this section, but it's not so surprising that Scalia—perennial foe of constitutional substantive due process—would be in the minority.
*Discussion of the "players" seems enormously POV. The article documents corporate interests on the pro-reform side in excruciating detail, but doesn't do likewise for the anti-reform groups. Instead, the article describes AAJ in its own favored terms: "to promote a fair and effective justice system ..."
*Similarly, there are law professor on all sides of the debate.
Cool Hand Luke 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as it currently stands is a complete one-sided disaster.  It probably needs to be rewritten from scratch.  I've taken an older version and started playing with it in my sandbox here.  The entire Commonweal Institute screed should be cut to no more than a sentence under WP:Undue weight. (I'd complain also that it's wildly inaccurate and misleading, but I understand that factual accuracy doesn't matter under WP:A.) -- THF 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably should be trimmed as undue weight.  If not, and if you still perceive misrepresentation, you can cite reliable sources that question their conclusions. If none exist, synthesizing your own counterarguments would be original research, but it seems you understand that. Cool Hand Luke 22:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some issues with this article

message: RUReady2Testify 21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TedFrank has a point here. The talk page is not a chat room, and the talk page for an article is not meant to question guiding policies of the site. I've looked over your commentary and cannot find one concrete suggestion for improving the article. Please see WP:TALK. Cool Hand Luke 02:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RU, take it to the talk page of WP:NPOV, please.  And also review WP:NPA.  THF 06:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I just noticed that the neutrality of this article is disputed (not by me). In light of that, I again ask that my post here, and my invitation to discuss how and whether neutrality can be achieved, not be deleted. It is highly relevant, and relatively urgent (bearing in mind the rule that there are no emergencies on Wikipedia, in time convergence on Truth will be achieved. RUReady2Testify 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the comment above by Cool Hand Luke concerning his inability to "find one concrete suggestion for improving the article" in what you wrote.  Your case for the relevance of your comments would be much stronger if you could draw the link between your general observations and the specific question of how the article should be worded. JamesMLane t c 22:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Cutting and pasting your notice onto every paragraph is not helpful. This page does not exist for a generalized discussion on the topic. How about this: tell me one specific thing you think should be changed about the article in 50 words or less. It's clear you think it's biased in some way, tell me how. Cool Hand Luke 01:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My post began with a concrete suggestion--a proposed revision of the existing first sentence of the article, which revision I proposed as a complete first sentence. RUReady2Testify 22:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Entry Points Up the Absurdity of Neutrality as a Goal of Wikipedia

message: There are a few issues that should be included in the article.
- is tort law in the United States a federal or state matter?
- is tort law judge-made or statute driven?
- does the US use common or civil law?
- how can reform be achieved:  through legislation, supreme court decisions or constitutional amendment?
- what groups are lobbying for tort reform?
The Four Deuces (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vagueness 

message: One of the many failings of this article is that it fails to mention the Towers Perrin report, clearly important in the debate.  Does anyone object if I add a single sentence mentioning and citing it on January 4?  THF (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion Ohnoitsjamie's reasoning for removing Lbook52's contribution is flawed. I'm not aware of any policy that says that edits of SPA should be removed and Lbook52's contribution is not a spam. -- Vision  Thing -- 22:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towers Perrin report 

message: The article Tort reform seems to consist in large part of stuff almost identical to this article, except that both articles are being edited separately. Any admins around who know how to handle this? Questionic (talk Questionic 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content fork