Talk:Dan Debicella/Archive 2

Third Opinion

Hello, I am responding to a request for a third opinion. I have read through all of the preceding discussion and the sources that have been cited in the article. Here are my thoughts about the article:

First, I think the entire "Controversies" should be removed (hang with me for a second). Right now, it covers two issues. The first are the complaints made by Jack Finn against Debicella's campaign. The two provided sources are not full articles, and contain less than five full sentences between them. Some additional googling makes me think that these complaints are trivial and don't need to be addressed here at all. The second is Debicella's stance on the emergency contraception bill, which certainly is notable. However, I don't think the article needs to talk about it in two separate sections; they should be combined together.

To balance this change, I think that we should remove the heading "Accomplishments" and instead put the "Voting Record" heading in its place. Like this, the "State Senator" section would retain its intro, then have a single subheading for "Voting Record" that would have a paragraph sourced from the current "Accomplishments" section, a paragraph sourced from what is now "Voting Record" and "Controversies", then the paragraph talking about this ratings and endorsements. I think that this structure change will help with NPOV, since it avoids using value words like accomplishment or controversy, and also puts everything at the same structural level in the article, instead of the "Controversies" section appearing as a level 2 heading and "Accomplishments" as a level 3. Like this, "Voting Record" serves as a totally non-valued title for everything.

As far as the content for the first two paragraphs of the proposed new "Voting Record" goes, here are my thoughts about the issues in the article now:

• I think the tax credits for businesses is properly sourced, notable (in this scope at least), significantly involved Debicella, and it seems like everyone agrees about it, so I think it should stay.
• I feel the same way about the tuition bill filibuster, the toxic waste bill, and the healthy living credit. The current content written up in the article seems fine for all four of these points.
• After some googling, it really didn't seem like Debicella was that central to the downtown Shelton bond. Most articles attributed it mainly to the governor. As such, I think it should be removed.
• I think the the Operation Fuel part is fine except for the exact words used. I saw that Bard had changed "created" to "expanded" in his version, and this seems better supported by the source. I think "expanded" should be used.

• I know its "out of order", but I'll talk about emergency contraception all together right after this part.
• Clean contracting, shellfish, and trans-fat seem fine in general. There are plenty of articles about the shellfish vote, but not many that include Debicella's name. Still, since the vote itself was well covered and he was the lone dissent, I think its fine to leave in. It's also unfortunate that we can't see the full article for the trans-fat vote, but google news didn't turn up a better source.

Now about emergency contraception. I want to be very careful here. I know that [20] cites that there were some specific remarks that Anderson called "insensitive", but it does not quote them. As such, unless there is another source, the quote "All I voted against was a bill allowing morning-after contraception to be issued to victims" should be removed. Even if we had a source, I'm not sure that this specific quote should be included anyway. This does seem very much like a non-representative sound bite that political opponents use, even though it doesn't really represent Debicella's position, so without significant context around it, I don't think it would be appropriate. I think it would be a much more neutral portrayal to recast the two discussions that exist now into something like this:

Debicella was one of three State Senators to vote against requiring health care facilities to provide emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault. This position was strongly criticized by both State Representative Deborah Heinrich, who called it "criminal", and Debicella's election opponent Janice Andersen, who called it "insensitive to rape victims." Debicella defended his position by explaining that he supports access to emergency contraception but opposes forcing Catholic hospitals, who would have been affected by the bill, to go against their mission, and said Andersen was "using an emotional issue for political gain."

This gives roughly equal treatment to both sides of the issue, and also notes from [20] that Andersen wasn't alone in her criticism.

Of course, the above is just my opinion, and I think that the involved parties should be the ones to actually make any edits when protection is lifted a week from now. However, that gives us plenty of time to be sure that everyone agrees first. If I missed any points in the above discussion (it was a lot to try to hold in memory all at once), or something isn't clear, then let me know and we can talk about it here. How does that look to everyone? AlekseyFy (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

AlekseyFy, thank you, you clearly did your homework. It's really appreciated. I think this is a huge step in the right direction towards making this a legitimate article. I support 99% of the changes you suggest. I would have no problem with you making the edits yourself, since I think that would lend more credence to them than it would if either of us made them.

The only thing I would contend somewhat is that the "controversy" re: the emergency contraception was in fact ignited by a specific comment Debicella made at a debate. The subsequent rally and public denouncements would not have taken place if the comment was never made. Granted, Andersen was obviously opposed to Debicella's position, but the public nature of the dispute was a result of the comment "On the rape bill all I voted against was a bill allowing morning-after contraception to be issued to victims".

I think I finally found a working link with the full quote: http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100021144&docId=l:876229709&start=13. I submit that we should keep the quote in and add this source, rather than taking it out. I truly think the quote is notable. It's unfortunate that the Stratford Star article only referred to the quote, but didn't include it, but it's a local paper and I think that was just sloppy journalism. The Connecticut Post is a more respected source and it included the quote. But I leave the final call to you, AleksyFy. Thanks again. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

AlekseyFy-- first off, thank you for stepping in and doing such a rigorous job looking at the sources and our (at times antagonistic) discussion. I also agree with 99% of your changes-- a sign that you are a good mediator that you have gotten two people with very different viewpoints close to agreeing. I would ask that you write the next version of the article, and that myself and anonymous user 69.0.13.202 not touch it until we discuss it further....the edit war is getting old.

Let me point out one major and three minor comments to consider:

1) I find your language on the emergency contraception controversy acceptable-- it lays out both sides of the controversy fairly. However, anonymous user 69.0.13.202 continues to insist on including an out-of-context quote that clearly does not represent the Senator's position (which is explicitly laid out in the cited article and elsewhere). The quote is directly from Janice Andersen's campaign literature, and obviously is being promoted for political purposes. This is probably the only thing that is directly from the Andersen campaign, and thus not up to wikipedia objectivity standards.

2) From reading the cited article, I believe that Debicella and Jason Perillo both had a huge impact on influencing the Governor to give the bonding money to Shelton. Just my opinion, and willing to bend if you feel strongly otherwise.

3) Bills like the transfat bill and shellfish bill really are minor issues in the scheme of what the state legislature votes on. I can point out numerous other things from recent news (e.g., increases in education funding, three strikes laws for criminals) that the Senator voted on. But these were used in his campaign, so I do not want to bias the article. Similarly, I believe these votes are here because Janice Andersen's campaign wants to make Debicella look like an extremist. Again, I will defer to your judgment on this, but hope you will consider eliminating them as irrelevant.

4) I ask that you try to make the language more neutral in the article itself. Sentences like "Debicella has on several occasions been in the minority, even within his own party, on certain issues" are tinged with bias. Again, this sentence seeks to make the Senator look like an extremist. I would encourage looking at my last version (or The Bard's) for more neutral language.

Bottom line-- I want to end this edit war. You should write this article based on the parameters you originally outline above (although I hope you take my suggestions into consideration). But inclusion of the quote from anonymous user 69.0.13.202 trying to make Debicella look like he hates rape victims is unacceptable bias from a political campaign. Thank you again for the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Orangeman, Are you denying that Debicella actually said the quote? I just provided a link to a Connecticut Post article that clearly attributes the quote to Debicella. It was this specific quote that caused the public outrage that garnered media attention. Do you consider the Connecticut Post to be "Andersen campaign literature"?

Truth be told, I'd say 90% of the disputes related to this article have centered around the inclusion of this quote, as Orangeman has removed it in every version they've proposed. This vexes me greatly. In fact, I think including Andersen's reaction to the quote without the quote itself would be taking things out of context. Andersen merely criticizing Debicella's position on the bill is NOT what received media attention. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, just as a matter of fact, Debicella has, on the whole, been on the more conservative end of his own party, and been in small minorities on votes. This is based on extensive research of his record on VoteSmart.org, not any personal vendetta to paint Debicella as an extremist. I have no real problem with the language regarding this being changed or removed if it is deemed to be non-NPOV, but I would argue that it is factually accurate as it stands. In fact, I have not verified this, and have no intention to do so, but I would suspect Debicella has voted in the minority more than any other State Senator over the past two years. I'm not passing any judgment on this fact, but it's probably true, and would mean that current language is actually a fairly mild description of his record.69.0.13.202 (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The above is again evidence that you are trying to paint Debicella as an extremist, when in actuality his voting record is that of a mainstream Republican. You make claims that you cannot back up. While it is factually true there were votes where he was one of a few Senators voting yes or no, that is probably true for a large number of other Senators on other votes. Now neither of us can prove our points, so let's stop trying to make Debicella seem like an extremist in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I could make a spreadsheet of every vote by every Senator over the last two years and tally it up, but I do not have the time or interest to do so. I am merely making an educated guess based on my familiarity with the votes listed on VoteSmart.org, on which Debicella seemed to be in the minority more often than the vast majority of Senators, including other Republicans. If you don't believe me go ahead and look for yourself. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct on one fact-- the inclusion of this quote is the most objectionable thing about your version. It is clearly not Debicella's position, and he said afterwards that he was misquoted. His real opinion appears in the article YOU originally cited from the Stratford Bard. The Senator clearly states that he is for emergency contraception for all women, especially rape victims. However, he doesn't want to force the Catholic Hospitals to give it out.

Now I have no problem putting in Andersen or Heinrich's opinions of Debicella-- they have a right to their opinion, and their criticisms belong in the article. But you actually want the article to say Debicella believes something that he does not, based on a quote that he later repudiated as inaccurate. I believe you are trying to keep this quote alive in Wikipedia because it appears no where else on the Internet, and you wish to continue to use it for political purposes. But your motivation is irrelevant.

I say include Andersen and Heinrich's opinions, but let Debicella tell his side of the story too-- in the words he said in the article YOU cited, not in quote that Andersen used out-of-context in her campaign literature. I agree with AlekseyFy's version above (now the SECOND neutral editor to suggest removing this quote). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes public figures say things off-the-cuff that they wish they did not say and don't represent their "official" stance. I think this quote by Debicella is an example of such a case. But that's really irrelevant; what IS relevant is that the QUOTE, NOT his position on the bill, caused the controversy, and thus the news coverage. Just because Debicella backtracked on the quote and says it was out of context does not make it disappear or change the fact that it prompted a rally which garnered news coverage. I will again point you to the Connecticut Post article I referenced above, which contains the quote. This Wikipedia article would not be the only mention of it on the internet, as you contend. In fact, I think the specific quote is more notable than Andersen, Heinrich, et al's specific responses. This article is about Debicella after all, not his opponents. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I humbly submit the following language for consideration:

Debicella was one of three State Senators to vote against requiring health care facilities to provide emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault. At a debate during the 2008 campaign, Debicella remarked, "On the rape bill all I voted against was a bill allowing morning-after contraception to be issued to victims."^{[cite CT Post]} This prompted Andersen and other Democrats to hold a rally and press conference condemning the comment, as well as his position on the bill, claiming it was "insensitive to rape victims" and "criminal." Debicella reiterated his stance that he supports access to emergency contraception, but opposes forcing Catholic hospitals to go against their mission, and said Andersen was "using an emotional issue for political gain."^{[cite Stratford Star]}

Orangeman, I welcome you to submit your own language for consideration. AleksyFy and other third-party editors can then consider both, and pick one or draft a compromise version. I will agree to abide by this final version and hope you will too. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, again. I took a look at the Connecticut Post article (which I agree is a totally acceptable source) and read over both of your thoughts about "the quote". I have two concerns about it:

• The first is that the Post article seems to be written on the day that the debate took place where Debicella said this. However, it makes it seem like Andersen was already actively calling attention to his vote before this day, enough at least that Debicella felt the need to respond, which is when he made the quote. I understand that this specific comment seems to have added a lot of fuel to the contention between them; I'm just pointing out that the contention was already there without the quote, so I don't think it is strictly necessary to include it to paint a valid picture of the controversy.
• The second is that the quote itself says that the bill was intended to "allow" the hospitals to give emergency contraception, which isn't what the bill actually did according to these sources. Instead, the bill was to require hospitals to provide it, which suggests that they were free to do so if they wished already. Since the quote is factually incorrect, I think it seems very reasonable that this truly was a simple misspeaking during a debate, and not an actual policy position that Debicella later backpedaled from.

As such, if I were the only author on the article (which of course I'm not), I wouldn't include it. However, in the interest of reaching a good consensus here, could you, Orange, draft any type of reasonable paragraph that you think would be ok and that includes the quote? If not, I completely understand, but if there is some reasonable way to frame it for you, that could be helpful to see.

Another option would be to follow the lead of [20] and mention that a specific comment was said that Andersen made specific objections to, but not actually quote it here. This could clear up my two objections if we leave in 69.0.13.202's langauge from the post above that Andersen objected to both the comment itself and Debicella's position in general, since it wouldn't reproduce the quote while still giving some framework for where Andersen's comments were directed. This could be the reason that [20] choose that path when they wrote their article. We could still include the citation for the Post article if people want to see the specific comment. I know this isn't a perfect solution, but I think it is a reasonable approach so I'm just putting it out there as a possible third-way resolution.

I thought some more about other concerns that were raised above as well. I honestly don't think that the line "Debicella has on several occasions been in the minority, even within his own party, on certain issues" is especially POV or even negative. It isn't unusual for people to vote against things, even things their party supports, for small personal or technical concerns, and I (at least) don't see that as a negative or extreme thing. However, I understand your concern so I did go look at the Bard version, where he uses "Debicella has on several occasions stood alone on certain issues". To me, they say basically the same thing, so if you like it better and 69.0.13.202 doesn't object, we should use that. I'd probably change it to something more like "Debicella has stood alone in his voting on several issues." just to be a bit less wordy, but that's a minor problem.

As far as the smaller specific issues go, Orange asked me to reconsider downtown Shellton, trans-fat, and shellfish, so I looked at these sources again:

• For Shellton, I also read http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19413408&BRD=1648&PAG=461&dept_id=11784&rfi=6. I agree that he is always listed as a strong "supporter", but because I was trying to balance the content of the two paragraphs, I left this out since the main force behind this is usually attributed to the governer and Rep. Beldon. We can see how the final balance works out, but I thought this was the best point from the first paragraph to slide on.
• For the trans-fats, I actually registered on the library site to see the whole article. It is unfortunate that they don't mention why Debicella voted against. For all we know, he was opposed to something technical (like it riding in a bill to restore a swimming pool?) and this isn't some big policy point for him. The reason I had suggested leaving it in above was because it was made a bit unique since this was actually proposed by his party, so it seemed like an ok candidate for balancing. Like Shellton above, I don't have any real strong feelings on this.
• I was very on the fence about shellfish as I said above, since while the issue itself had many news articles, very few even mentioned Debicella. Of the three, this is the one I would remove first.

How do you feel about these smaller issues, 69.0.13.202?

Finally, I wanted to thank both of you for being so engaged in working this out. I think we are very close to an above-average article compared to articles about similar people. As I had said above, I normally wouldn't want to be the person to do the actual edit, so it doesn't seem like "my" version instead of "our" version, but since that's what you both said you would prefer, that's fine. After I hear back from both of you, I think it would be useful to sandbox a full draft copy of the article, maybe in my user subpages. That way we have a complete copy so that we are all talking about the same thing, then we can just copy the entire page to here when the protection is lifted. Does that sound ok? AlekseyFy (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

AlekseyFy-- thank you again for your thoughtfulness. I am actually not ok with any version that contains the misquote, for the very reasons you state above. I believe numerous reasonable people have said the same thing as you in the preceding discussion. Here is a version I am ok with, which is basically your version from above with a few clarifying words. (I am also ok with your original version):

Debicella was one of three State Senators to vote against requiring health care facilities to provide emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault. This position was strongly criticized in the 2008 campaign by both State Representative Deborah Heinrich, who called it "criminal", and Debicella's election opponent Janice Andersen, who called it "insensitive to rape victims." Debicella defended his position by explaining that he supports access to emergency contraception for all women but opposes forcing Catholic hospitals, who would have been affected by the bill, to go against their religious beliefs. Debicella said Andersen was "using an emotional issue for political gain."

On the other issues, I have no strong feeling about them. I would suggest either including all the "on the fence" items (bonding, transfat, shellfish), or none of them just to be consistent.

AlekseyFy-- given the contentiousness of the issue, I would suggest you take the next crack at writing the article. You seem to be very thoughtful about it. I believe Anonymous User 69.0.13.202 should agree to end the edit war and use this page to talk about any issues we have with whatever you write. Is that ok with everyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If the comment itself is not included in the article, then I think it should at the very least mention that the rally and public condemnation followed a comment by Debicella, which is already stated as fact in the Stratford Star article, which opens with: "Citing remarks made by state Sen. Dan Debicella, R-22nd, as 'insensitive to rape victims,' Janice Andersen, his Democratic challenger, held a rally Wednesday where victims’ rights and pro-choice groups, and an elected Democrat, blasted Debicella’s stance on the issue." That is the very first paragraph of the article. Clearly, the comment prompted the rally, which prompted the news coverage. I maintain that completely ignoring the fact that a controversial remark was made by Debicella would be misrepresenting the events that took place. The Stratford Star felt it was important to the context of the story; I don't see why we would make an editorial decision to scrub it from the record. Andersen merely criticizing Debicella's position would not have been newsworthy, and therefore would not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Also, who are we to decide if Debicella was simply misspeaking or stating his true feelings on the subject? I think we should defer to the news coverage rather than making that rather subjective determination ourselves.

Speaking of which, I humbly suggest that our priority be notability, rather than balance. I don't think we should be including things that aren't notable to satisfy one side and excluding things that are notable to satisfy the other side. I understand the good faith effort to satisfy both mine and Orangeman's concerns, but this should not be done at the expense of the quality of the article. Comments, votes, positions, etc. that are clearly attributed to Debicella and covered by neutral media should be included IMO, regardless of whether a particular editor wants it included or excluded. Likewise, votes, positions, accomplishments, etc. that are not covered by neutral media should be excluded. I'm pretty sure what I am suggesting is in line with Wikipedia's standing notability guidelines... I think what we can decide is what the minimum threshold of media coverage is for inclusion in this article. For example, if the shellfish vote goes in, then just about any media item mentioning Debicella is fair game. That's fine with me. Or we could set a higher threshold that it must be established Debicella played a significant role, in which case much of this article would be deleted.

I do object to using the language "Debicella has stood alone on things", because to me that is POV, trying to paint him as some kind of an independent maverick, in addition to the fact that it's factually inaccurate since he's rarely stood "alone" - there's almost always been at least two or three Senators voting the same way as him. It should be noted that I believe, with a high degree of certainty, that TheBard2 is Debicella himself, and therefore take any edits made by them with a huge grain of salt. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm responding to the new comments quickly before I head off to work. 69.0.13.202, it seems like you agree with what I suggested as a "third-way resolution" above, basically handling the issue here like [20] did by mentioning a comment, but not printing it. Based on the responses this morning, it actually seems like this is a position everyone could agree on, which is great. When I sandbox this article this afternoon, I'll write it up that way, and we can work from there.

Concerning my use of the word "balance", you are right that this doesn’t mean that each side get the same number of bullet points. Rather, I was trying to apply a (somewhat) consistent standard across all the points so that if something was removed from part, no less notable point remained in the other, without stripping out too much of either side. Orange above said that it would be fine to remove all of what I agreed are the marginal-at-best issues in bonds, shellfish, and trans-fat, of which I think shellfish is the worst and you seem to think that too, 69.0.13.202. From looking over the responses, could we just drop these three and all agree? I'll type it up that way this afternoon if nothing changes here, but of course we can adjust that if I misunderstood what one of you was saying.

Finally, I honestly prefer the "Debicella has on several occasions been in the minority, even within his own party, on certain issues" line. Since you (69.0.13.202) do have an objection to the Bard version replacement for this line, I'll try to think of third option, but barring that, I think we should retain the "minority" line, for the factual reason you said above and because I don't see being in a voting minority as patently negative. Also, I understand that you don't view the Bard version as neutral; I was looking at it just to see some previous options for some of this language. Please, though, let's confine this to just the content, as I think we are making good progress. I'll post here when I finish sandboxing the page. AlekseyFy (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This all sounds good to me, Aleksy. The "third-way solution" seems like a fair compromise while still accurately describing what transpired. I also don't think it would hurt to cite the CT Post article with the actual quote in it, as you suggested before. I think that's more responsible than referring to an unspecified quote. I have no problem with removing the items you suggested unless articles exist demonstrating a more significant role on Debicella's part. Doubtful, but I'll check again. Don't get me wrong, I recognize and appreciate your noble attempt at balance in the article; I think it's very important and helpful. I just didn't want to see that aim override the aim of an encyclopedic article with a consistent notability policy. You've placated my concerns that this won't happen. I don't want to get back into the who's who/pointing fingers game either, I'm sorry for going there, but at a certain point it's really difficult to divorce the motivations of editors from the substance of their edits. Hopefully you understand. But all in all, I think we're on the right track and I look forward to reviewing the sandbox version. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This actually all sounds fine with me too. I am fine with taking out transfast/shellfish/bonding if we are applying a high-level of notability standard. Sounds like we are making progress here-- although continued unfounded, partisan accusations are not helpful Mr. Anon 69.0.13.202. Aleksy-- Let us know when the sandbox is up and we'll finish this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I finished the first draft of the article in my sandbox, here. I think it includes all of the changes coming from the above discussion. Of course, if I missed something or there are concerns about specific language, we can hash that out. AlekseyFy (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! I think this is almost perfect. A few ticky-tacky things I figured we might as well address while we're at it:

• Think we could add a photo of the Senator? I believe this one is fair use sine it's provided by the Senate Republicans as part of a media kit: http://www.senaterepublicans.ct.gov/sen_photos/debicella/media_kit/color.jpg
• Could we possibly find a source for Gunther being Debicella's "mentor". I'm not saying it's not true, but it's quite a strong statement to make without a supporting source.
• Do you think there's anyway to cut down the part about the anti-asbestos bill? Maybe get it down to one sentence and a little less verbose? I actually wrote that language myself, but looking at it now, it's a bit clunky IMO. I don't think the description of it needs to be as detailed as it currently is. People can click the article if they're interested in the full scoop.
• Should citation [9] be placed after the comma rather than before? I believe that is the general Wikipedia rule, but I could be wrong.

Those are pretty much the only things I see that could potentially be improved. Other than that, I think it's great! Thanks Aleksy! 69.0.13.202 (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Googling turned up no source about Gunther being his mentor outside of the Wikipedia pages for the two people. I also reworked the asbestos sentence to make it a bit shorter and moved the citation (thanks for pointing that out). The photo is a little trickier. This is my first involvement in fair use at all, but Wikipedia:Fair_use#Unacceptable_use seems pretty clear that we can't just argue fair use for a "non-free promotional image" of a living person. As such, I sent one of the boilerplate requests for permission to Debicella. Let's see how (or if) he responds to that, since that would make things unambiguous. Or, if I've misread WP:FU, please correct me. :) AlekseyFy (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the image is hosted on a .gov domain, meaning it's government property, which I believe automatically releases it to the public domain, which would be fair use. It's not Debicella's personal site; it's a government website. But I too am not well-versed on Wikipedia's fair use policies, unfortunately. I was just the understanding that government-published works are automatically public domain and fair use. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Aleksey-- thanks for the first cut. The article still has a definite negative tone about it, mostly around language selection from Anon 69.09.13.202. I would encourage the use of my article, or The Bard's article, as a basis rather the one you have selected. If you do choose to keep this as the base, some areas I would suggest editing:

-"Aside from being a State Senator, he is currently unemployed." This is factually true, but is it relevant? It sounds mean and negative. Many other State Senators have no other jobs.

-I might separate the "In 2007" and "In 2008" paragraphs. In addition, I would suggest adding a "In 2009" paragraph from the latest news sources. Here is suggested language and citations:

In 2009, Debicella has said he is focusing his efforts primarily on improving the economy, eliminating Connecticut’s budget deficit, and reducing healthcare costs. He has proposed lowering the deficit by shifting social services to lower cost community providers without cutting the level or quality of service to the needy. (http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17999:debicella-lands-appropriations-seat&catid=186:local-news&Itemid=517). Debicella has also proposed a centralized patient health database (http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_11574458), and has reintroduced his proposed for tax credits to those who obtain all their preventative tests prescribed by the American Medical Association. (http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/01/health_care_ref_1.php) None of these proposals have yet become law.

-For the emergency contraception paragraph, I actually think using the Senator's own words are the best way to explain his position:

Debicella has voted in the minority on several issues, even compared with members of his own party. Debicella was one of three State Senators to vote against requiring health care facilities to provide emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault. This vote, as well as a specific comment made by Debicella at a 2008 campaign debate, were strongly criticized by opponent Janice Andersen and other Democrats, who held a rally to condemn Debicella's position as "insensitive to rape victims" and “criminal”. Debicella defended his position by explaining that he “fully supports access to emergency contraception for all women, and especially for rape victims. However, I do not believe that the Catholic Church should be forced to give out emergency contraception in violation of their beliefs."

-I would eliminate the line on the "clean contracting" bill. The line is from Janice Andersen's campaign, and somehow sounds like Debicella approves of John Rowland's scandal. The bill was actually an anti-privitization bill, and had little to do with the John Rowland scandal.

-The paragraph on scores is selective. What about the NRA rating? What about the ACLU rating? What about the Love Makes a Family rating? There are literally a dozen other ratings you could include here. The scores were selected to make Debciella seem like a radical right-winger (and are the same scores cited constantly by the Janice Andersen campaign in her material).

-I think the idea of the picture is fine, but actually like the language around the EPA bill. That one needs a little explaining (unlike the jobs creation tax credit, which really is self-explanatory). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For starters, NOTHING I added to the article was based on Andersen campaign literature, and I would appreciate if that characterization was retired. The sources speak for themselves. The way I wrote the clean contracting bill sentence, for example, was based entirely on the cited article, not any campaign materials or made-up facts of my own design. Read the article and see what I mean.

I updated his employment information so that it was current. He is no longer Director of Strategy at PepsiCo, which is what the article had previously stated. I went with the simplest sentence possible to meet that aim and even included a source. I did not intentionally write it in a way that is negative or mean, as you perceive it to be; I thought it was just neutral and direct. I would have no problem with that paragraph being re-written in a way that reads a little better but is still factually accurate.

"In 2009, Debicella has said he is focusing his efforts primarily on improving the economy, eliminating Connecticut’s budget deficit, and reducing healthcare costs." - Do you have a citation for this? I don't object to including the other items as long as they meet the notability threshold that (I think) we've agreed to. I'll leave that call to Aleksy.

I think the way the contraception bill controversy part is currently written on the Sandbox version is perfectly fine - neutral and fair to both sides. I don't see how including the full quote improves anything. We already decided to tell Debicella's opponents' side of the story without including the quote that makes Debicella look bad, so I don't see why we should include a full quote that makes Debicella look good. It's not any more necessary to the article.

I did not intentionally omit any ratings or endorsements. I included the four that I was aware of. If you are aware of others and have links to them, I would not object to their inclusion. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Two comments back for consideration: -Emergency Contraception: I don't think Debicella's quote necessarily makes him look good, just explains his position. Reasonable people can agree or disagree with his position, but I think the quote lays it out more directly. Why would you be opposed to letting him explain himself when he was attacked as "criminal"? -Ratings: At the very least, pejorative language like "anti-labor" and the "worst in the State Senate" should be left out. If you are going to post scores, leave it to the reader to decide what they believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

On the same token, why would you be opposed to including Debicella's own words to illustrate the context of the rally and public denouncements? I think you're advocating a double standard here... We paraphrased his opponents; we should be paraphrasing him too. People can read the articles for the full quotes and details.

It does not say the "worst" score in the State Senate - it says the LOWEST - which is 100% accurate. This isn't even subjective commentary - the numbers are right there. If I wanted to commentate on it I would point out the irony that he serves on the Environment Committee, but that wouldn't be very encyclopedic. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Orange, I simply chose the base version used in the sandbox because it was the latest one, not because I thought that is was necessarily better. I think it would be easier to just amend specific language instead of trying to change that now. Do you have other concerns along those lines? Responding to the new comments:

• I changed the language about "unemployed". Is the new version ok?
• I did go ahead and split the voting record section by year. That paragraph was getting a little unwieldy.
• I pared down the "in 2009" proposed section to be sure that everything in it was well supported by the provided source. In particular, the article didn't provide as much detail as you did about how service spending reductions would look. Do you think the result properly characterizes his plans? Taking a step back, I'm concerned that a section about future plans is going to age very quickly as the proposals are passed/altered/defeated. Any thoughts about that?
• Orange, it is my opinion that the emergency contraception section would be better without a somewhat lengthy quote pulled in its entirety. Do you think that the paraphrasing that is in place now doesn't properly represent Debicella's position? If not, could we amend it a bit, instead of pulling that whole quote in?
• Granted that I have only read the provided source on the clean contracting (and it is the only one returned by google news), but it sounds like it was a bill designed to combat specific problems that led to the scandal with the former governor that also included some anti-privatization pieces. Would it help to simply remove the scandal reference - "He was also one of two Senators to oppose a "clean contracting" bill designed to prevent preferential treatment and no-bid contracts."? Or if we add a short "because of concerns about anti-privatization.", which seems well supported by the article?
• Finally, I agree that "anti-labor" was a bit much. You are right that readers can interpret those score however they wish. However, any list (at least any that is of reasonable length) of ratings and endorsements that we put here is going to be selective. Looking at this hard, is the section really needed at all? If either of you think it is truly important, could you each list maybe the top two that you would like to see? AlekseyFy (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Aleksey-- Again, thank you for your thoughtfulness. I believe the article now reads in a very neutral way. I am absolutely fine with all the changes you made. Let me respond to last few remaining outstanding issues (from my standpoint):

• Emergency Contraception: You are right-- quote is a little long. I think I would simply add a few words rather than the full quote. Something like: "Debicella defended his position by explaining that he supports access to emergency contraception "for all women, especially rape victims" but opposes forcing Catholic hospitals...."
• Clean Contracting: I think your suggestion is a good one. How about this languague-- "He was also one of two senators to oppose a 'clean contracting' bill designed to prevent preferential treatment and no bid contracts because of concerns it would limit the state's ability to privitize or outsource government services."
• Endorsements: I agree any list is going to be inherently subjective because we cannot list them all. I would say we take this out, rather that just have the two best and two worst (which is what will happen if Anon User and I pick). If you decide to keep it, I would also take out the words "a group opposed to same-sex marraige" when describing the Family Institute of Connecticut. No other special interest group has a similar tag line, and it implies that the Senator is also opposed to same-sex marriage (and I am not sure if he is or isn't). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Alexsy, you make a good point about the shelf-life of "proposals" and such. Personally, I don't think proposals or anything of that nature should be included until its legislative fate is known. For example, we included the proposal that Debicella authored about rewarding people who get preventative tests, which didn't get through committee. These 2009 proposals are still going through the legislative process and I don't think we should put them into the article until they become a law or a bill or fail in committee or whatever. A politician's article would quickly become unwieldy if you include every proposal they make. If one of Debicella's proposals goes through the legislative process and we still feel it's notable enough at that point to include it, then we can add it. I think that whole "In 2009" paragraph as it stands now should be removed or significantly pared down.

Also, you're absolutely right about the intention of the clean contracting bill as described in the article, which is exactly why I wrote it in the way I did. Of your two suggested revisions, I think the first is much more preferable to the second, which is I find to be quite nebulous.

As for the ratings... Of those four organizations, the LCV and AFL-CIO are the most notable. I included the CBIA, which doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and the Family Institute, whose article is promotional and entirely unencyclopedic, in the interest of balance. I added a short description of the Institute's main issue because it's not a well-known organization and its name is ambiguous. Believe me, if Debicella wasn't opposed to same-sex marriage, the Family Institute would not have endorsed him. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And I still think we should remove "his mentor" describing Doc Gunther, since it's not supported by anything. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally, just for the record, I used the term "anti-labor" to describe his AFL-CIO rating simply following the same approach used by OnTheIssues.org, a non-partisan aggregator of ratings and public stances of politicians (unfortunately not on the state level though). For example they describe former Rep. Chris Shays' AFL-CIO rating exactly the same way: "Rated 27% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)" (See: [1]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.13.202 (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, they actually use "anti-union" instead of "anti-labor". That's probably better. I really don't think it's a stretch to say that Debicella has a pro-business, anti-union record. We could even add that his CBIA endorsement indicates a pro-business voting record. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually disagree with Anon 69.0.12.202 on each point above, but will stand by whatever Aleksy decides. Just to counter point-by-point:

For the 2009 proposals, I actually believe these have been the major items cited in the media (hence the links to larger regional media sources). Debicella has probably introduced dozens of bills, but these are the ones that were notable enough to make the press.

On the clean contracting bill, Anon would like nothing less than to tie Debicella in with the Rowland scandals (which he had nothing to do with-- he wasn't even in office then!) I would use the following quote, suggested above: "He was also one of two senators to oppose a 'clean contracting' bill designed to prevent preferential treatment and no bid contracts because of concerns it would limit the state's ability to privitize or outsource government services."

On the mentor point, I would actually look at his personal website, www.debicella.com (cited later in the article), there is a picture of the two of them on the front page. Additionally, if you google "Debicella Gunther" you will come up with a host of articles of them working together on issues. Debicella was factually his campaign manager, so it is not too much of a stretch to call Gunther his mentor

On the ratings point, Anon actually proved my point-- he suggests taking the two low scores and eliminating the endorsements. Having these at all is inherently biasing the article by which we select. (I could just as easily say include the CBIA and Family Institute endorsements and leave out the others). We should eliminate the paragraph.

Again, Aleksy, you decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is we need to respect the sources. We can't just make editorial decisions based on how we view a certain issue or how we want Debicella portrayed. We need to defer to how things are portrayed in the sources. In the source for the clean contracting bill it clearly links the bill to the Rowland scandals and I don't think a short phrase in the article simply EXPLAINING what the bill is hurts anything. Most people don't know what "clean contracting" means just by the name of it. On the other hand, the reason you have provided may be Debicella's position, but it's not in the article, nor does it appear anywhere except in your revisions to this article. It's basically made up. The way I wrote it is supported by neutral media. Big difference. If you can find a news article with his position in it I would fully agree to its inclusion. The idea of the "Voting record" section, as is the case with all good politician articles on Wikipedia, is to give the average reader an overall picture of the politician's views based on their VOTES, not on the politician's reasoning for every single vote. Politicians are notorious for spinning their votes the way that makes them look best. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for such spin. Let the voters decide for themselves.

I really don't care that much about the mentor thing, but I think it's just a small example of self-importance sprinkled in by the Debicella camp. I've taken pictures with lots of important people who weren't my "mentor". If he was his campaign manager and there's a source for that then maybe we can include that instead. What little knowledge I have of Gunther's and Debicella's relationship does not indicate quite a mentor-mentee relationship.

Actually, you misunderstood me about the ratings. I think all four should be left in. My point was that if two HAD to be taken out, it should be the CBIA and FIC, which I added myself to show you I wasn't cherry-picking ratings that made Debicella look bad. But how can you argue the LCV and AFL-CIO aren't more notable organizations? Everyone has heard of them. I had never heard of the CBIA or Family Institute until doing research for this article. And I STRONGLY object to removing the endorsements/ratings. To me, they are the most important part of the "Voting record" section. The whole point of an encyclopedia article is to get INFORMATION. People need to have some kind of idea of what this guy's voting record is. Ratings by non-partisan, credible organizations is a very clean and fair way to do just that. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just finished reviewing the new discussion. Here are the changes made to the sandbox version:

• I removed the word "mentor" and replaced it with Debicella working as Gunther's campaign manager before assuming office. It seems like this had agreement, and I pulled a citation from debicella.com, which I think is fine for a simple biographical detail like this.
• I re-reviewed the "in 2009" paragraph. I hadn't noticed before that the healthcare database was proposed on the 28th of last month. While this may very well end up being notable, I think we should leave it out for now per WP:DEADLINE. The first line of the section is really talking about his intended focus for the year, pulled directly from the cited article where he was talking about his plans since being elevated on appropriations. As such, I think that should age slower, since it isn't a specific proposal, so I left it in. I also left in the reviving of the Healthy Living tax, because its previous defeat is in the article. That leaves the section quite brief at two sentences. Is that ok with everyone?
• Pulling a limited Debicella quote instead of the full, long one for the emergency contraception section doesn't seem inappropriate, so I implemented the suggested words from Orange. Does the section still read fine to you, 69.0.13.202?
• Finally, the endorsements. I retweaked the language a bit per the above talking, but I'm still not a big fan. This stems from what 69.0.13.202 notes - the notability of the CBIA and the FIC just isn't the same as the AFL-CIO and the LCV. Since 69.0.13.202 feels strongly about the section and because I don't think there is anything wrong with noting reasonable endorsements, are there some bigger organization ratings you would rather see represented, Orange? I know you mentioned the NRA, for one, before, but I couldn't easily find a score by them.

Also, regarding the photo. Since the ct.gov site does not mention any licensing at all on the page, and because I found from this that state governments "usually do retain a copyright on their works" I don't think we can pull the media kit photo without approval. Debicella hasn't answered yet about that. Also, the debicella.com page, which does have some pictures that could work, does explicitly assert copyright. I could find no freely licensed photos of Debicella anywhere else, just his wife. ^^ AlekseyFy (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Aleksy, This is great! I think the changes you made are very nicely done and fair to both sides. I would support the article as it stands being posted ASAP. The only outstanding issue for me is how significant of a role Debicella actually played in the Operation Fuel bill... supposedly it was co-sponsored by upwards of 50 state legislators. I have no problem giving credit where credit is due, but if a legislator co-sponsors a bill it doesn't mean they necessarily played a significant role in its authorship or passage. It is quite common for bills on the state and federal level to have dozens of co-sponsors. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

On a side note...

This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the work we're presently doing on the article, hence the separate section, but I feel that I need to get it off my chest... Debicella is a rather conservative politician, especially by Connecticut standards. It's time we stop pretending otherwise. His record, taken on the whole, has a decidedly conservative slant, both on fiscal and social issues. Past editors who have no connection to or interest in Connecticut politics have agreed with this. Debicella is constantly trying to portray himself as more moderate than his record indicates, which is probably politically wise on his part, but I feel like the same thing is happening with this article and it is very frustrating. He is just not a moderate. Moderates don't vote against protecting transgendered people from discrimination, vote against requiring hospitals to provide emergency contraception, and oppose same-sex marriage. Moderates don't vote against clean contracting bills or allowing children of illegal immigrants who have excelled in Connecticut public schools to receive college scholarships. These are conservative stances. The funny thing is, there is nothing necessarily WRONG with being conservative, but apparently he and his supporters think there is, because any inclusions of any aspect of his conservative record have been met with fierce resistance.

Now, I do not believe these things because of Andersen's campaign or anything like that. Some of these issues were raised by her campaign but I have my own brain and I decided to do my own research, which was how I came upon this Wikipedia article in the first place. I actually went in with the assumption that he was in fact a moderate Republican and that Andersen was just cherry-picking and exaggerating particular aspects of his record. It was only upon doing this research of his actual votes that I realized how conservative Debicella's record actually is. I can understand the political motivations behind not wanting this publicly known, but Wikipedia is a non-partisan venue for public information and the average member of the public who finds this article by Googling Debicella's name deserves to get an accurate picture of his record. That is why I have spent all this time working on this article. Not as a part of some politically motivated smear campaign to defame Debicella or paint him as an extremist, but in an honest effort to have at least one visible public source that reflects his actual record. The zealotry of those attempting to thwart this effort has only motivated me more. There is nothing that irks me more than the suppression of the truth, especially by those in power. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would advise sticking to the article rather than your motivations. If you want to talk motivation, yours is quite simply to smear the Senator rather than actually portray him in this article. If it were not for Aleksy, you would simply write an article that reflects Janice Andersen's campaign literature. Debicella is pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, pro-civil unions, and generally socially moderate. You have cherry-picked votes to make him seem like a social conservative for this article. Janice Andersen and your campaign sought to portray him as some religious right nut-job. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to try to portray your campaign's beliefs as "objective" fact by Wikipedia. In fact, I think you are upset that all your smears on this discussion page were put into an "archive" and you wanted to make sure they were front and center. Now I don't know if you are Mike Brown or Dave Mooney or whoever from the Andersen campaign, because it doesn't really matter. What matters is you claim objectivity while trying to get anything negative possible into this article.

Now, once Aleksy (who will no doubt ignore this on-going bickering) finalizes his decisions on the article, I will stand by them-- even the ones I do not like. I hope you will do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that my archiving of the talk page was not motivated by anything but proper maintenance, since the old discussion was inactive and because the talk page then was sitting at over 150k, which is quite large. I hope this wasn't misunderstood. AlekseyFy (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you AleksyFy, I realize that's why the page was archived. It was a big long mess.

Orangeman, yes, I do claim objectivity while trying to get this article to portray the Senator as accurately as possible. I admit I went a little overboard with the negative stuff when I first started working on the article, but keep in mind that at that point it was being reverted by you and (at least once) Debicella himself to promotional material from his website. As you have slowly warmed up to the idea of this actually being a encyclopedia article, I have been willing to compromise and work towards an article that satisfies us both (if possible), which we're doing right now, thanks to the help of AleksyFy.

Is Debicella really pro-choice and pro-civil union? I would appreciate if you could provide me with a public statement he's made to that effect. Seriously. His voting record would suggest otherwise. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a public statement, only bills he has voted on. If you do a search on the Connecticut General Assembly's website, you will find he voted in favor of SB-323 in 2008, "An Act Concerning the Validation of Certain Marraiges and Civil Unions" which codified civil unions and SB-464 in 2008 "An Act Concerning Stem Cell Research", which established standards for CT's $50 million stem cell research effort. I do not think the General Assembly has vote on an abortion bill since he has been in office, but have an article from Huntington Herald (not online unfortunately) that states he is pro-choice. But in terms of Wikpedia, this goes to the point that we can pick out any of the hundreds of votes he has taken to support our positions-- so we should not "cherry-pick" them. I think the article Aleksy has with the small changes I suggest above will be perfect in being balanced and neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He already addressed your concerns by removing the reference to the Rowland scandals and including Debicella's role as Gunther's campaign manager. Check out the latest version of the Sandbox article. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Aleksy-- sandbox version looks great. I have only two more suggestions, and just let me know if you decide against them and I will stop suggesting them. Otherwise, you should feel free to post this article when the protection comes off and edit war will be over.

On clean contracting, I would include the reason he voted against it (from Senate transcript): "He was also one of two senators to oppose a 'clean contracting' bill designed to prevent preferential treatment and no bid contracts because of concerns it would limit the state's ability to privitize or outsource government services."

I would still eliminate the paragrpah on scoring, as it is "cherry-picking" certain organization and votes. I also think tags like "pro-business, anti-union" are a little too leading-- let readers judge for themselves.

Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am in favor of posting the Sandbox version exactly as it stands now. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 69.0.13.202. The problem with adding to the clean contracting line is that while the article does say that the reasons you mentioned are why the governor turned down previous versions, it does not say that Debicella objected for the same reason. If people want to draw that inference (which is very possibly true) from the cited article, that's fine, but we shouldn't draw it for them. About the ratings, since I don't think there is anything wrong with the section, and since 69.0.13.202 feels strongly about it it staying, I think it should be included. Again though, if you would rather see some other organization rating used instead of the Family Institute, for instance, just point out a link.

Regardless, it is great that we were able to work so constructively here, and come in with a consensus version before the protection expired. Thank you both for being so engaged in this process! AlekseyFy (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Aleksey-- sounds good. I'll abide by your decisions. Only suggestion I would have is that if you are going to keep the ratings, that we just list the ratings without commentary. (Similar to your point about the clean contracting bill, let's let people draw their own inferences about what the scores mean). Here is what I would propose:

"In 2008, the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters gave Debicella a 58% rating on their annual scorecard and the Connecticut AFL-CIO gave him a 29% rating. He was endorsed in the 2008 election by the Connecticut Business & Industry Association and the Family Institute of Connecticut."

This language is more neutral. For example, if I wanted to be partisan I could say that the 58% rating meant Debicella voted more with environmental issues than against them. This is factual (just like the current version stating "lowest in the Senate" is factual-- but each has a positive or a negative bias to it. But again, I leave it up to Aleksey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is reasonable; I see your point Orange. Any objections to that language, 69.0.13.202? AlekseyFy (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I still think it's a basic and notable fact that his score was the lowest in the State Senate, but that's fine. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus reached

Over the last week since this page was full protected, I helped the two involved parties reach a consensus version through the third opinion process. The conversations all appear above. The resulting article is in my user space at User:AlekseyFy/Dan Debicella. Could an admin please move that page in its entirety to the article space, leaving out the {workpage} template? AlekseyFy (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kudos to you Aleksey, for taking an acrimonious discussion and mediating a constructive article. Very well done. I'm sure that my Anon friend and I do not agree on much, but we can agree you did a fine job here. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching the developing consensus. Instead of making the requested edit, I have unprotected the page, as it appears that the two sides have indeed reached a middle ground. I will also do a history merge from the developing version, and then we will have a new version from which to work. Everyone keep in mind... if disputes again arise, then the article is likely to be quickly locked down again, or even blocks handed out. Both of you are now well aware that you should not be edit warring over this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Phew. Never thought I'd see this day... Thank you Aleksey for a completely professional and thorough job on your part. I appreciate how much of a jumbled mess the article was and the tight-rope you had to walk to mediate both sides. Couldn't have been easy. A+ for you. I have a couple minor concerns but I'd rather let them go and settle for the current version for now... I'm thoroughly exhausted with this page and it brings me great joy to finally - HOPEFULLY - not have to monitor it anymore. I would also like to thank you Orangeman for your good faith effort to reach a consensus. Seacrest, OUT. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)