Talk:Brianne Nadeau
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Pepco-Exelon merger
[edit]The original source for "opposition" did not actually use that term (just "serious concerns" that the PSC "should consider") so I added one, from Nadeau herself, that clarified the point. The same new source also states that she decided to support the merger following a negotiated settlement with Exelon, which - she says - addressed her original concerns. I've revised the text slightly to reflect that. JohnInDC (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Are we reading the same source. "They also note that a number of intervenors once opposed to the merger now support the settlement." Bangabandhu (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 03:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- There's that one, but there's the one I added, from Nadeau's office that says she had originally opposed the bill but that the settlement had addressed her concerns and so now she could support it. (BTW I found the one I added from the first source that was there, which also noted that Nadeau was the only council member to respond to the reporter's requests). Anyhow, that's what settlements do - they change the deal, find a middle ground, so that people can agree. The deal changes, not the position. Indeed, the language you quote reflects that. I did leave in the phrase about "changing her position" even though on reflection I think that is not accurate. JohnInDC (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't have the energy to properly communicate how outrageous it is that you're using her press releases as a RS and then crafting them to make it sound like she worked in the interests of her constituents on this issue. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand the problem. She had "serious objections" to the deal as proposed. (This was sourced to her own press release, which you don't seem to have qualms about citing.) Then the deal changed, and she supported it. The source you originally cite, and evidently prefer, used that same press release you criticize to inform its reporting, and your preferred source further reports - consistent with the meaningfulness of the settlement - that "[t]he councilmembers told the PSC they 'believe the proposed merger settlement is in the public interest,' referencing enhanced investments in the city promised by Exelon under a deal reached with Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) early this month." That source describes a "shift in her position" and "evolution" of her thinking, and nothing about a flip-flop or betrayal of her constituents. Please explain why one Nadeau press release is acceptable as an RS but reliance on a different one is "outrageous"; and why Nadeau's saying that the settlement made a difference to her recommendation is illogical, contrary to fact or otherwise sinister. JohnInDC (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- A point of further clarification is probably in order. The article reports, as you say, that the Council letter "note[s] that a number of intervenors once opposed to the merger now support the settlement." I have read and re-read the letter several times and don't see where it says that. But setting that aside - I must just be missing it - the term "intervenors" would not be referring to Council members, but rather to third parties with a demonstrable interest in the outcome, who filed formal "petitions to intervene" in the PSC proceeding, and whose petitions were granted. The word has a particular legal meaning in that regard - see intervenor. Here's a link to the PSC docket - https://edocket.dcpsc.org/public/search/casenumber/fc1119 - and if you search the term "intervene" you'll see examples of what I'm describing. I'm not sure what significance you were attaching to the quote, but in its actual meaning, it hasn't got anything to do with Nadeau or the council. JohnInDC (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- You have a valid point about intervenors. I've added another source that mentions her opposition. There is no need to get further into the weeds about what constitutes opposition, she doesn't need to have a vote in order to oppose. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ref. She herself said that she "opposed" the original deal (expressly, in the press release ref that I added) so I was okay with that characterization anyhow. But now we have another source too. And yes, I agree about votes and opposition. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- You have a valid point about intervenors. I've added another source that mentions her opposition. There is no need to get further into the weeds about what constitutes opposition, she doesn't need to have a vote in order to oppose. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- A point of further clarification is probably in order. The article reports, as you say, that the Council letter "note[s] that a number of intervenors once opposed to the merger now support the settlement." I have read and re-read the letter several times and don't see where it says that. But setting that aside - I must just be missing it - the term "intervenors" would not be referring to Council members, but rather to third parties with a demonstrable interest in the outcome, who filed formal "petitions to intervene" in the PSC proceeding, and whose petitions were granted. The word has a particular legal meaning in that regard - see intervenor. Here's a link to the PSC docket - https://edocket.dcpsc.org/public/search/casenumber/fc1119 - and if you search the term "intervene" you'll see examples of what I'm describing. I'm not sure what significance you were attaching to the quote, but in its actual meaning, it hasn't got anything to do with Nadeau or the council. JohnInDC (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand the problem. She had "serious objections" to the deal as proposed. (This was sourced to her own press release, which you don't seem to have qualms about citing.) Then the deal changed, and she supported it. The source you originally cite, and evidently prefer, used that same press release you criticize to inform its reporting, and your preferred source further reports - consistent with the meaningfulness of the settlement - that "[t]he councilmembers told the PSC they 'believe the proposed merger settlement is in the public interest,' referencing enhanced investments in the city promised by Exelon under a deal reached with Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) early this month." That source describes a "shift in her position" and "evolution" of her thinking, and nothing about a flip-flop or betrayal of her constituents. Please explain why one Nadeau press release is acceptable as an RS but reliance on a different one is "outrageous"; and why Nadeau's saying that the settlement made a difference to her recommendation is illogical, contrary to fact or otherwise sinister. JohnInDC (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't have the energy to properly communicate how outrageous it is that you're using her press releases as a RS and then crafting them to make it sound like she worked in the interests of her constituents on this issue. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- There's that one, but there's the one I added, from Nadeau's office that says she had originally opposed the bill but that the settlement had addressed her concerns and so now she could support it. (BTW I found the one I added from the first source that was there, which also noted that Nadeau was the only council member to respond to the reporter's requests). Anyhow, that's what settlements do - they change the deal, find a middle ground, so that people can agree. The deal changes, not the position. Indeed, the language you quote reflects that. I did leave in the phrase about "changing her position" even though on reflection I think that is not accurate. JohnInDC (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)