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 an argument better suited to a talk radio programme. Raising arguments from critics of tort reform only to rebut them with long quotations from conservative commentators does nothing to further knowledge. But what is troubling about this article is it is presented as a value-laden argument, not an exposition of a concept. The phrase 'tort reform' itself reflects a point of view. This was the 'talk' before, by another editor: MollyBloom 14:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Previous Talk Page & Alarm at Previous POV
Hopefully this takes care of the "POV" tag. Therefore, I reverted back to what was there originally, less a few changes. However, I tried to edit too much too fast. And the word 'frivolous lawsuit' is exactly as defined. It may have gone a bit far, and I will work on that. I left the corrections to only a very few of the many extremely biased entries. I reverted back, so edits can be made piecemeal. MollyBloom 20:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Add POV tag, but for another reason This entire artilce is a dreadful violation of WP:NPOV and I agree that it demonstrates the inherent unreliability of Wikipedia on political subjects. This article is a dreadful violation of WP:NPOV and demonstrates the inherent unreliability of Wikipedia on political subjects. 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.
I cannot believe that such an article exists in WIkipedia. This article needs to be scrapped, and cooler heads need to prevail. It shows (see below) how POV the article was and still is. I reverted back to most of the previous article. Good thing he isn't in Florida! Gfwesq 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Again, I haven't read Shwartz's article but it strikes me as historical revisionism. Further an independent body- jurors- made a finding of fact regarding the memo. 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. 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. there is a POV definition of "frivolous lawsuit" replacing the article's acknowledgement that different groups use the term in different ways and.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".the balanced presentation demonstrating that the plaintiffs' bar does just as much lobbying as the pro-reformers has been completely deleted.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).misrepresents other studies (such as using a study saying contingent fee reform doesn't work to rebut a contention about damages caps).oversells anti-reform arguments while failing to note the rebuttals by the supporters of reform (e.g., Gary Schwartz and Ford Pinto).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!).has been rewritten to be almost entirely about arguments against tort reform.The article is no longer about tort reform, and 32 Commenting withing other users' comments.28 Starting a new discussion at a different point.25 Laundry List & Structure of the Article.12 Warning: Major Rewrite/Plot Spoilers Ahead.11 Slanderous and vulgar comments by anonymous above.5 As it stands now, is still a 'tort reform' POV.3 Previous Talk Page & Alarm at Previous POV.
0 kommentar(er)
