Jump to content

Talk:Dan Debicella/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New 3O request

[edit]

Hello, again. Just wanted to let you know that I've started reviewing all the new discussion above. I should be done by tonight. AlekseyFy (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting re-engaged AlekseyFy....I think we both will appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished reading the new discussion and trying to wade through the page edits. To be sure I'm starting from the right place, could each of you confirm that the article version that you were reverting to today is actually how you think the article should look right now? If so, I'll make a first round of suggestions after work tomorrow. AlekseyFy (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're both blocked until ~04:00 2009-06-18 for that revert-war. DMacks (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

I have protected this page for a month due to the full-blown edit war that broke out here on June 16. I have absolutely no dog in this fight, but the editors here need to realize that this type of repeated reverting is both disruptive and ultimately futile. Both of the the participants were blocked by another administrator. When those blocks expire, if you are able to come to consensus here, I have no objection to any administrator unprotecting the page. Good luck to all. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moderation

[edit]

AlekseyFy-- thank you again for helping us with the article. As you can see, we need it. In answer to your question-- "Is the article version you were reverting to actually how you think the article should look?", two-part answer:

1) Much of my version is already a compromise, based on the moderation of three months ago. Two parts in particular-- the Accomplishments section and the emergency contraception controversy. I feel very strongly we should keep this compromise language, as it was just agreed to three months ago and nothing substantially has changed. As noted above, I believe there is a difference between things Debicella actually drove (Accomplishments) versus things he just voted on (Voting Record); I additionally believe the compromise language on the emergency contraception bill fairly shows both sides of the controversy.

2) Everything else in my version is worded how I believe it should be. Content-wise my version is the same as the anti-Debicella partisan; and if I am incorrect, I am ok including any content in his version that is not in mine. My problem with his version is not the content-- it is the specific wording he chooses that (in my opinion) cases a negative bias towards Debicella. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the descriptions I use in "my" version to be more objective and more closely aligned to the sources provided. I would say that Orangeman2 sometimes embellishes language to put a rosy spin on certain things. I would contend that the language used in mine is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. 67.80.231.44 (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't believe my questions as to what exactly in "my" version is considered to be a "political attack" or makes Debicella look "pro-rape", "hateful", etc., have been explicitly answered. If Orangeman2, Aleksey, or anyone else can tell me what I wrote that comes across as biased or derogatory, please let me know, and I will be happy to defend myself or admit I went overboard and support more neutral language. In fact, I have already deleted a few things on my own that Orangeman2 had complained about. I'm not necessarily opposed to changing certain phrasing, and as I've said, I don't consider my version to be perfect by any means. However, I do consider it to be considerably preferable to Orangeman2's most recent version. But again, I am willing to defend and/or compromise if given specific examples of questionable language. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again. I’ve finally finished (I think) working through all the language differences between the last two versions. I found it helpful to pull all the text from each version apart and rearrange it in a point-by-point, head-to-head comparison. I was surprised by how many blocks were using identical language; the two articles are not really that far apart. Below, I’ve copied in the comparisons for all the points that had any substantive language differences. I’ve numbered each and included my thoughts about them. Could each of you respond by number to each of these points where appropriate? This should show which are causing the most tension and which we can merge right away if there is no disagreement. Each is presented with the matching text from 69.37.244.16’s version, followed by Orange’s. This ordering isn’t significant.

1:

  • Omit
  • In 2007, Debicella joined the majority of Senators in voting for a budget that did not raise taxes, was under the constitutional spending cap, and increased education funding by 10-20% to all towns.
69.37.244.16’s version doesn’t talk about the 2007 budget at all. Orange provides a source, but is just a link to the bill record and doesn’t directly support what the article text says. 69.37.244.16, do you think this is an important point? Orange, do you have another source you could provide?
I believe this would fall under the category of "generally opposes creating new taxes or raising existing ones", which already has two supporting sources. This could be added as a third I suppose. As to the additional information, I agree that it is not supported by the source and strikes me as more of a Senate Republican characterization of the budget (i.e. highlighting the parts about it they liked). So yeah, unless there's a better source re: the 2007 budget I don't think it calls for its own sentence. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2:

  • In 2009, he has opposed Democratic deficit reduction plans and indicated a refusal to vote in favor of any budget that raises taxes. He and other Republicans in the state legislature have proposed a series of spending cuts as an alternative, such as the amount of social services covered by state funding.
  • In 2009, Debicella came out strongly against a Democratic proposal to increase taxes by over $3.3 billion. Instead, he joined other legislative Republicans in proposing a budget that cut spending to close the budget deficit.
Both of the citations in Orange's text and one in 69.37.244.16's are broken links. However, I think 69.37.244.16's cite 11 covers this information pretty well. I can see how 69.37.244.16's first sentence could be read as saying that Debicella was actually opposing the idea of deficit reduction instead of just the Democrat's proposed methods. Would a version like "In 2009, he opposed Democratic plans to reduce the budget deficit by increasing taxes. Instead, he joined other Republicans in proposing spending cuts to balance the budget without new taxation." work?
Aleksey, that re-wording is fine with me. I see what you're saying. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3:

  • Debicella was endorsed in the 2008 election by the Connecticut Business & Industry Association, indicating a voting record that generally favors businesses.
  • Debicella was endorsed in the 2008 election by the Connecticut Business & Industry Association.
I don't think it is necessary to include "generally favors businesses". Since the name of the group is pretty self-explanatory and because the group has their own article, I think readers can draw their own inference about what their endorsement means.
True. However, I have seen things phrased similarly on other politician articles. I think it just helps to characterize the rating/endorsement a little more strongly, but if you don't think it's encyclopedic, I'm OK with taking off the "indicating a record..." part. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4:

  • The Connecticut AFL-CIO gave Debicella a 29% rating on their 2008 scorecard, indicating a record generally opposed to the interests of labor unions.
  • The Connecticut AFL-CIO gave Debicella a 29% rating on their 2008 scorecard.
I think the same argument applies here, as well.
Ditto. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5:

  • In March 2009, Debicella was named a “Guardian of Small Business” by the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
  • Debicella received the "Guardian of Small Business" award from the National Federation of Independent Businesses in March 2009 for his work in supporting pro-small business legislation.
The difference is just Orange's extra explanation of why Debicella won the award. This seems supported by the cite, so I don't see any problem with it. Any objections, 69.37.244.16?
Yes, but the source provided is a Senate GOP press release, which is why I don't feel totally comfortable with expanding beyond the basic fact that he was given the award. Press releases can be spun to say anything so I think as a rule we should only use them to establish basic, noncontroversial facts. I realize this is a bit pedantic on my part, but I would like to stick with my version on principle. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6:

  • Debicella generally opposes health care mandates, as well as the creation or expansion of government-run health care programs. He has voted against mandating insurance companies to cover hearing aids for children, but in favor of requiring coverage of autism diagnosis and treatment.
  • Debicella has also generally been against government involvement in healthcare. / He co-sponsored a bill to provide autism diagnosis and treatment, but voted against mandating insurance companies to cover hearing aids for teenagers. Instead, Debicella introduced an amendment that would have replaced such mandates with individual choice without pre-conditions—allowing people to choose to be covered, but not forced to pay for more coverage they do not want.
The difference is in Orange's last sentence. The provided cite is the actual text of the amendment, which is of course a bit dense. I can parse what you are saying out of it, but if you have a media source saying the same thing in more natural language, that could help. Also, I'm not sure what "instead" means (He voted against a bill he had tried to amend? Did the amendment fail?) or "without pre-conditions". If we leave this piece and don't have another citation, I think this should be changed to more closely match the text of the amendment, to make sure we aren't extrapolating. What do you think, 69.37.244.16?
Agreed, Alexey. To be honest, I find Orangeman's language to be very confusing and I don't see how the last sentence relates to the one preceding it. I also don't see where it's supported in the source. Also, I don't recall seeing anywhere that the hearing aid bill only applied to teenagers, not all children. If there's a source supporting that then I would be OK with changing it to "teenagers", but as far as I know the bill applied to everyone under 18. This is a case where I would strongly support the language in my version, as I feel it is more succinct and more true to the sources. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7:

  • Debicella voted against the creation of SustiNet, a program that would guarantee limited health care coverage for all Connecticut residents.
  • He voted against the creation of SustiNet, a program that would create a government-run health care system.
You both give the same cite, but it isn't very helpful since I'm not familiar with the program and there is no summary. The phrase "government-run" is somewhat pejorative, but if the plan is government-administered or -funded (and I'm guessing it is), then not mentioning that at all is too far the other way. Would the proper choice from those two phrases be acceptable?
I'm OK with amending my version to say "...would guarantee limited government-run health care coverage...". I'm not super familiar with the program myself to be honest; any omission on my part was unintentional. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8:

  • as well as expanding Connecticut’s HUSKY health plan to cover more children.
  • as well as expanding Connecticut's HUSKY health plan.
Is this difference meaningful to either of you?
To some extent, yes, only because there have also been bills that would have expanded coverage to parents. I wanted to make it clear that the particular vote cited specifically expanded coverage for children. Also, not all readers would necessarily be aware that HUSKY is the state-run health plan for children. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9:

  • During his first term in the State Senate, Debicella served on the Environment committee.
  • Omit
This doesn't seem like a big deal either, but it is a difference. Is that concerning to either of you?
I included it because I think it helps put his environmental votes/accomplishments from that time period in context. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10:

  • The Connecticut League of Conservation Voters gave Debicella a 58% rating on their 2008 scorecard, the lowest in the state legislature.
  • The Connecticut League of Conservation Voters gave Debicella a 58% rating on their 2008 scorecard.
This is in the same vein as the CBIA and AFL-CIO differences above, but I feel differently about this one. It is hard to know what a seemingly middle-of-the-road score like 58% is supposed to mean, so the relevant context that is was the lowest score makes more sense here, to me at least.
Agreed. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11:

  • In June 2009, as political backlash against Senate Democrats, Debicella filibustered another bill that would have attracted qualified teachers to needy districts by explaining how much he liked the bill while running out the clock to prevent a vote on it.
  • Omit
The cited article is an opinion piece, so its characterization of "backlash" is a bit more suspect. Is there a more reliable source discussion this motivation, 69.37.244.16? How do you feel about inclusion, Orange?
In fact, I have a video source of Debicella's filibuster: mms://ctnv1.ctn.state.ct.us/S/senate_6-3-09.wmv. I'm not sure how to cite a video source, or if they're even acceptable for use, but the filibuster itself occurs between 7:04:25 and 7:12:45. I think a viewing of the video definitely substantiates the language I chose. It shows Debicella going on and on about things in the bill he likes until he gets cut off and the Democrats table it. At one point he's even shown smirking when he realizes he's getting under their skin. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Just found this through a Google News search- http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-crisco-gaffey-controversy-06.artjun12,0,1296083.story. This is a normal article, not an editorial piece, and the author of this one even writes "Sen. Dan Debicella of Shelton talked the bill to death". 69.37.244.16 (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12:

  • Debicella voted against a bill that increased penalties for trafficking firearms in the state and required lost and stolen firearms to be reported within 72 hours.
  • Debicella voted against a bill that required lost and stolen firearms to be reported within 72 hours.
The included "penalties for trafficking firearms in the state" seems supported by the cite, and doesn't seem POV. Any concerns here?
Agreed. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13:

  • Omit
  • He has proposed amendments to end the power of judges to force affordable housing on communities.
  • The cite here is also just the bill record, which doesn't mention this point in an obvious way. Do you have a better source, Orange?
Even if the bill were to be included, which I'm not necessarily opposed to, that language strikes me as somewhat POV. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14:

  • He was endorsed in the 2008 election by the Family Institute of Connecticut, an anti-gay marriage outfit that advocated strongly for the amendments to the bill.
  • He was endorsed in the 2008 election by the Family Institute of Connecticut.
"Anti-gay marriage outfit" is pretty charged language. Since this group also has a pretty self-explanatory name and its own article, I don't think the extra part in 69.37.244.16's text is necessary.
I would have to say I disagree that the name "Family Institute of Connecticut" is self-explanatory as to the nature of the group. I find "Family Institute" to be very vague and the group's sole purpose is to advocate against the legalization of gay marriage in Connecticut. I would be OK with "toning down" the language if you feel it's too charged the way I have it, Aleksey, but I wouldn't feel comfortable with entirely omitting the second part of my sentence. Though the wording may need work, I think it's a fair characterization to make based on the sources. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15:

  • Debicella supports referendum and initiative, including a constitutional convention.
  • Debicella supports referendum and initiative in Connecticut.
For all I know, constitutional conventions are a really contentious point in Connecticut politics, but I suspect not. :) Any concerns here?
Actually, funny you say that, because it was one of the more hotly contested things during last year's election. Republicans claim a constitutional convention gives more say directly to the people (i.e. referendum and initiative), while Democrats say it gives undue influence to special interest groups. That said, I'm not sure why Orangeman2 would want to omit the basic fact he supports a constitutional convention. Most CT Republicans do. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16:

  • He opposes holding special elections for U.S. Senate vacancies.
  • He voted against holding special elections for U.S. Senate vacancies, favoring maintaining Gubernatorial appointment.
This bill also lacks a summary in the cited page. Does "maintaining Gubernatorial appointment" sound accurate, 69.37.244.16?
I don't think it's really necessary since one could reasonably infer that opposing a change to the law means supporting the status quo, but I won't be heartbroken if Orangeman2's language is included. I didn't see it in the source but it's not exactly a controversial fact. Whatever you think reads better, Aleksey. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17:

  • Debicella was one of two Senators to oppose a "clean contracting" bill designed to prevent the no-bid contracts and special treatment for contractors that were prevalent in the scandals of Gov. John G. Rowland's administration.
  • Debicella was one of two Senators to oppose a "clean contracting" bill designed to prevent preferential treatment and no-bid contracts, saying it would stop privatization efforts.
I remember talking about this before. Orange, your provided cite doesn't specify what Debicella's concern with the bill was. Can you find another one? Also, 69.37.244.16, the text "a "clean contracting" bill designed to prevent the no-bid contracts and special treatment for contractors that were prevalent in the scandals of Gov. John G. Rowland's administration." is a direct quote from the cited page, which is displaying a copyright notice. This needs to be reworked.
Sorry, I wasn't sure what copyright rules were with Wikipedia. In fact, I was deliberately trying to avoid copying the source directly (see my previous version of the language). I changed it to mirror the source to prove the point that I was not using certain language as a "political attack" against Debicella. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18:

  • Debicella joined the majority in voting for reform of the state's probate court system.
  • Debicella co-sponsored a bill to reform of the state's probate court system by reducing the number of courts.
Again, the bill record doesn't have a summary, so does "by reducing the number of courts" sound accurate, 69.37.244.16?
I'm not privy to that detail of the bill. I would feel more comfortable characterizing it that way if there was a source saying as much. I'm definitely not comfortable with calling him a "co-sponsor" since the source actually seems to contradict that. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19:

  • Omit
  • Debicella also secured $2 million in bonding for downtown Shelton revitalization, which cumulated with a visit to Shelton by Governor Rell announcing the funding.
It looks like this ended up being left out of the old article. Is there a new reason for including it, Orange. Any objections, 69.37.244.16?
Just on a small grammatical note, I'm guessing "cumulated" was meant to be "culminated"? I don't have a problem including it as long as the language matches the source, which I'll have to take a look at again. I suppose this could go under "Quality of life". 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20:

  • Omit
  • In 2009, Debicella is focusing on eliminating Connecticut’s budget deficit without tax increases by reducing spending through changing how the state provides social services. Debicella has also reintroduced his proposed for tax credits to those who obtain all prescribed preventative tests.
This text still seems fine as a "looking forward" bit. Do you think this is appropriate, 69.37.244.16?
I would contend that I did not "omit" either of these assertions, just re-worked them into other sections of "my" version. The "budget deficit" part is covered in the very beginning of "Fiscal policy" and the "preventative test" bill is covered under "Quality of life". If my version were kept mostly the same I think adding this sentence would be redundant. Also, as a general policy, I'd rather not have a "looking forward" section, as it would be prone to change and require editing very often. I would rather include such items along with other items pertaining to the same issue. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21:

  • Debicella is pro-choice but was one of three State Senators to vote against requiring health care facilities to provide emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault. While defending this vote during the 2008 campaign, Debicella stated, "On the rape bill all I voted against was a bill allowing morning-after contraception to be issued to victims." This comment was heavily criticized by Democrats, including his 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 religious beliefs, and said Andersen was "using an emotional issue for political gain."
  • 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 supports access to emergency contraception "for all women, and especially for rape victims", but opposes forcing Catholic hospitals.
69.37.244.16, I know you said you thought the inclusion of "the quote" should be revaluated since the inclusion standards for the article had evolved. Honestly, though, my thoughts are still the same, pointing toward keeping the text we agreed on last time. Of course, our articles aren't static so please rearticulate your thoughts about that quote if you think something has changed, or if you just think we made the wrong decision the last time around.
It's both. I do feel the standards for inclusion have been loosened, and I also do think we may have made the wrong decision last time around. The more I read that paragraph without "the quote", the more it seemed incomplete to me. I really do think it's central to the controversy. I think not including it would be kind of like writing a summary of World War I without mentioning the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, if you'll excuse my sloppy metaphor. They are, after all, Debicella's own words and are what caused Andersen and other Democrats to go "on the attack". I also feel I've included a fair amount of rebuttal on Debicella's part. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that was quite a bit, but I think many of those differences are probably non-controversial. I'm hoping that your responses can help us narrow our discussion from here forward. If I've left something out, please let me know. AlekseyFy (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really great stuff, Aleksey! I can tell you put a lot of hard work and though into that. Thanks so much. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, once we're done resolving the current version, I think we all need to discuss some kind of arrangement to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. Third-party mediation should not be required every time someone wants to update the article. Otherwise, it's always going to be one step forward, two steps back. I don't have any specific ideas at the moment, but I'll mull it over, and I welcome any suggestions you have, Aleksey, or Orangeman for that matter. I want the article to be fair and neutral but I also don't want it to be static.

Obviously, we should focus on the language differences at the moment, but I just wanted to at least get us thinking about some kind of long-term solution, which I think is very important. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thank you AlekseyFy for being so thorough (for a second time!) Second, I agree with the anonymous user that we should figure out a way for this not to happen in the future. Long-term locking is not generally what Wikipedia likes, but maybe updating this article once a year or something would be less painful (since honestly I think there are two people in the universe who check it). Finally, forgive me for just putting my comments down here—not sure how to do all the fancy indentation above.

On to the article. One overall comment before discussing specifics—the structure. I still strongly believe we should have Accomplishment and Voting Record sections. Not everything in this article is created equal—some of the things Debicella actually did; others he merely voted on. I believe it is a better article for separating it out. Additionally, all this language was agreed to just three months ago in the last moderation. Seems easy enough to keep it there—unless you do not like saying Debicella had any accomplishments!

The compromise version pretty much went out the window when I tried to add a couple new things to the article and you "retaliated" by adding a bunch of other old stuff, which required a substantial reorganization of the article, as well as changed the inclusion standards that were also part of the compromise (namely, third party media). 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not-- if you are not filling to live by the compromises you agreed to, and somehow say they are invalid every time this article is updated, then you are not acting in good faith. You need to live by your agreements when this article is updated. Anything else would frankly be unethical and show ulterior motivations.
Exactly my point. You "failed to live by the compromises you agreed to" when you started throwing in stuff that had no neutral media source, which we had previously agreed was not suitable for this article. That was a game-changer. You can't have it both ways where you're the only one who can make up new rules. Sorry. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The specific comments:

1)I do believe the 2007 budget calls for its own sentence, as it was the only major budget vote that Debicella has actually participated in. It is very hard to find objective media sources still online from 2007, so here is what Debicella himself said about why he voted for that budget. [1]

Again, that's a Senate GOP press release. Debicella and his friends can say whatever they want in those. It's not neutral media. They should only be used to establish basic, noncontroversial facts. That is something I won't budge on. If there is a news article characterizing the 2007 budget using language similar to that you used, Orangeman2, I would be more than happy to include it. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To your point above, we are no longer simply using third-party media. These are basic, non-controversial facts I am including. Just because they come from a press release does not mean they are wrong.
No, the language you are using is a slanted, partisan characterization of the budget that cherry-picks a few aspects (of what I'm sure was a HUGE budget) that the state GOP liked. I'm sure if a neutral and comprehensive summary of the budget were presented there would be things Debicella wouldn't want to be associated with. The fact that he voted to pass the 2007 budget is not controversial and I would be fine with including that basic fact, but I certainly do not agree with the way you've framed it, nor with the way a Senate GOP press release would frame it. It's simply not encyclopedic to use language like that. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) I am fine with AlekseyFy’s rewording.

3) Agreed with taking off “indicating a record…”

4) Ditto

5) I like my version better here—the reason Debicella won the award was his support of small business. Up to you AlekseyFy which version to choose, not a big deal overall.

6) I really like my first sentence as summarizing the paragraph better—Debicella’s record is against government-run healthcare, not just healthcare mandates. Read the text of the bill on hearing aids, and you will see it applied to those between 13-18 (hence why the teenager….don’t worry anonymous user, Janice Andersen made the same mistake in her attacks on Debicella during the 2008 campaign). I am fine with cleaning up my last sentence, which is a little confusing. How about, “Instead, Debicella proposed an amendment that would allow people to choose such coverage rather than have it mandated.”

I did read the text of the bill, and the language I chose - "hearing aids for children" - was FROM the text of the bill, not Andersen campaign literature. However, I did slightly misunderstand the bill, in that I thought it lowered the age of coverage from 18 to 13, but in fact it was doing the opposite and raising it from 13 to 18. Still, people under the age of 18 in the state of Connecticut are legally minors. I would be OK with changing "children" to "children 13-18 years old" in my version. The bill, after all, is entitled "An Act Expanding Expanding Insurance Coverage for Hearing Aids for Children". 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, why do you insist on wording that matches the Andersen campaigns negative attacks? I am not saying take is out, I am saying word it like the bill clearly intends-- "hearing aids for teenagers". You seem to want to use very convoluted logic to get your language in there.
Conversely, why do you insist on tying every word choice of mine to the Andersen campaign? In this case, it's a particularly ridiculous accusation since the very name of the bill is "An Act Concerning the Expansion of Insurance Coverage for Hearing Aids for CHILDREN". Are you going to blame me or the Andersen campaign for naming the bill that too?? 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7) I believe “government-run healthcare” is the accurate description of the bill. “Limited healthcare coverage” is not what the bill proposed—it was a universal healthcare bill for Connecticut (as proponents intent…search the Internet for SustiNet if you want validation)

Again, I don't know a whole lot about SustiNet. The "universal" part is covered in my version where I say "coverage for all Conneticut" residents. However, I was under the impression that the coverage itself is "limited". Would SustiNet simply expand the state's insurance pool to include the uninsured and underinsured, like was done for non-profit and small business employees? Or would it create a whole new, separate pool? 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SustiNet would create a universal, government-run healthcare system. That is the clear goal of the proponents, and they would admit that. Please do a Google search.
That's not what I'm asking. I'm not disputing that it's universal coverage; that's why I said "coverage for all Connecticut residents" in my version. And I said above that I was OK with adding the phrase "government-run". I am asking for clarification as to the nature of the coverage itself, e.g. whether it is "limited" or not. And would SustiNet tap into the same pool as state employees, or would it be a separate entity? I guess I'll have to find out for myself since you seem not to know. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8) I feel that this is verbatim negative attack from the Andersen campaign, where she had pictures of children on campaign literature against Debicella with these exact words. The phrase “to cover more children” implies that somehow Debicella is against healthcare for children, whereas the vote was actually part of a larger failed Democratic budget. In fact to be accurate it should read, “Debicella voted against a Democratic budget that raised taxes to expand Connecticut’s HUSKY plan.”

No, that's just an attempt on your part to rationalize Debicella's vote. That doesn't change the basic fact he voted against expanding HUSKY coverage. If you have a source where Debicella explains WHY he voted against expanding coverage, then I would be OK with including that IN ADDITION TO the fact he voted No. Look at the source provided for it. The measure passed the Senate and the House, and while it mentions it being passed at the same time a budget was being negotiated, it was not "part of" the budget. That said, I am willing to take off "to cover more children" so it simply says he voted against expanding HUSKY coverage. If people don't know what HUSKY is they can look it up. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with this compromise of taking off "to cover more children", although I believe the context is helpful.

9) I am fine either including this or not.

10) I disagree with putting “lowest in the state legislature” as we removed it last time as a verbatim negative attack from the Andersen campaign.

Again, you are seemingly more familiar with the Andersen campaign than I. I don't remember anything ever being said about Debicella's LCV rating. I only discovered that myself when doing research for this article. As Aleksey said, it's difficult to interpret a 58% rating without any context. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and you both agreed to not putting this in the last compromise version.

11) This is now out-of-date. The State Senate actually passed this bill on June 19, and Debicella is a co-sponsor. It should properly read: “Debicella co-sponsored a bill that promotes attracting more teachers to needy districts.” [2] There will likely be press on this in the next few days on this bill, and I will try to get another source.

OK, I'm sorry, but how am I supposed to believe you don't work for the Senator when you post ON JUNE 19th that a bill passed on June 19th. It didn't even have a full day to go to the papers or anything. I don't think mere "supporters" of politicians always know what they did that very day, especially on a Friday. This is just another little piece of evidence that it is more than likely a conflict of interest for you to be editing the article and you are who I believe you to be. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm fine with adding that the bill was eventually passed, but that doesn't change the fact that Debicella originally filibustered it as political backlash. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. Debicella is obviously a supporter and co-sponsor of this bill. And you need to stop accusing me of having a conflict and of trying to accuse me of someone I am not. I can play the same game to, as I know exactly who you are and your affiliation with the Andersen campaign. But let's not go there and stick to the facts-- there is no need to include intermediate facts about a bill in this article, because each and everyone of them have a story behind them. WE should simply put in the outcome, as we have for other bills.
Really? Who am I? Go ahead and say, I don't care. I guarantee that you don't since I had almost nothing to do with the Andersen campaign, other than support her. The fact that you clearly work for Debicella is not something that I'm willing to just ignore. It has tainted your involvement with this article before I started working on it and it's an intrinsic part of the conflict at hand. If I had spent all this time negotiating with someone who was honestly just a Debicella supporter and didn't have more at stake, I'm sure things would be much further along than they are in my dealings with you. Debicella's filibuster received media coverage and the fact that he voted to pass the bill two weeks later does not erase the past. You have no problem with including Debicella's filibuster of the scholarships for children of immigrants, which is just as "intermediate". Like I said, I don't have a problem with adding that he subsequently signed on as a co-sponsor to the bill and voted for its passage two weeks later. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12) Only concern is that it is a verbatim attack from the Andersen campaign. But I suppose you could include it, as it is the title of the bill.

Just a general comment: Just because the Andersen campaign criticized a particular vote, comment, etc. does not mean any criticism of it by anyone is inherently baseless. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it speaks to the neutrality of the language.

13) Only better source I have is a Debicella press release from 2007—again, tough to find articles from that time period (as local news websites tend not to have archives) [3]

If there's isn't a better source other than a Republican press release, then I think this should be left out. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fully disagree (see #1 above)
I will not budge on allowing press releases to dictate subjective material. I think any Wikipedia admin would back me up on that. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14) Definitely need to remove the charged language here. Again, this is the Andersen campaign language. I would be strongly opposed to saying Debicella is endorsed by an “anti-gay marriage outfit”

Orangeman2, how would you succinctly describe what the Family Institute of Connecticut is? 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to describe it here. Simply provide the link to the Wikipedia article that does-- that is the beauty of Wikipedia. We do not need to define every term in an article.
Since the "Family Institute of Connecticut" is a vague name for the organization, I would contend a brief description of its nature is appropriate. For example, "PETA, an animal rights organization". Would about "The Family Institute of Connecticut, a group opposed to same-sex marriage" as opposed to "anti-gay marriage outfit". Also, the FIC article, last I checked, was poorly written and seemed to be mostly POV spin from a FIC staffer. Perhaps I need to get into a nine month edit war over there too. (Joking) 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15) I actually am ok with including constitutional convention point, but I would separate it into two sentences (as they are not really related). Debicella has proposed referendum and initiative each year in office, and supported the constitutional convention once (in 2008)

Well, the Constitutional Convention only goes up to a vote every 20 years or something, so I'm not sure this distinction is really necessary. I would be OK with changing it to ", as well as a constitutional convention" rather than ", including a". 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16) Agreed, whatever reads better. But by voting no Debicella kept the system of Gubernatorial appointment, which currently exists in CT.

Yeah, I think it's safe to assume that the status quo would be gubernatorial appointment, since that's how most states work. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17) I am fine with a shortened version of my sentence, but Governor Rowland was out of office for two years when this bill was passed. It is not related to him.

Again, please read the source. The bill is absolutely related to the Rowland scandals and the description used in this article is very similar (currently identical) to the description used in the source. It's not about tying Debicella to Rowland; it's about describing the bill. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not-- it is clearly about tying Debicella to Rowland. The sentence works just as well by not mentioning the disgraced former Governor. Inclusion is simply an attempt to make the Senator look bad.
I'm sorry if you don't like the way the source article is written. I'll let Aleksey make the executive decision here. I don't know what more to say other than "Read the source." 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18) Check again—Debicella is a co-sponsor of the bill [4]

OK, I had a different source, which did not list him as a co-sponsor. I'm OK with something like "Debicella co-sponsored a bipartisan bill that called for reforms to the state's probate court system." 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19) Fine with including in Accomplishments section

This doesn't even have a source in Orangeman2's version, which is why I left it out of mine. Against including until a neutral source (not a press release) is provided. This is the perfect example of the kind of rosy promotional language that I could see easily taking over any kind of "Accomplishments" section. It's quite a bold statement to make to say Debicella himself secured $2 M is funding. I'm not saying it's not true, but an assertion like that better as heck have a solid source backing it up. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20) I would keep this language, and keep it in the Accomplishments section.

I think in this instance it's more a dispute of presentation rather than content. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21) My number one issue here—this misquote was the centerpiece of Andersen’s campaign, and there is an attempt to propagate it here in this article. Debicella clearly retracted this and stated his position clearly. The anti-Debicella partisan agreed to take this out three months ago, and now seeks to put it back in to make Debicella look bad. Debicella’s later quotes (included in the compromise language from last time) more clearly explain his position….unless you honestly believe anyone would think rape is not a big deal. I am afraid this is the one issue here I will not compromise on, as we have already reached a compromise I would like to stick to.

You keep saying it's a "misquote" but are they not Debicella's own words? Did the quote, whether you like it or not, not spark criticisms by Democrats and the subsequent media coverage? I think Debicella's side of the story is accurately presented in my version. He doesn't think Catholic hospitals should be forced to give out contraception and thinks Andersen was exploiting the emotional nature of the issue. How is that not fair? 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a misquote, and we have gone back and forth on this enough. If we are using the compromise language, fine. If we are not, then I request we eliminate all mention of Janice Andersen from this article. Every other issue is handled in one sentence, and we should include the emergency contraception vote with one neutral sentence as well: "In a controversial vote, Debicella opposed emergency contraception for rape victims, saying he did not want to force Catholic hospitals to violate their beliefs by being forced to distribute it." This would treat this issue like every other in the article, not as including Janice Andersen's smear campaign. Again, I am willing to stick with the compromise language-- but if we are going to start going back on agreements then I will insist on this change.
The neutral media entities that covered Debicella's quote and the Democratic response to it would probably resent being referred to as part of a "Janice Andersen smear campaign." 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, my only real problems are when language from Andersen campaign literature is put here. I beleive my edits are more neutral, but even those can be cleaned up to make more objective. AleksyFy-- maybe the next step should be you re-writing the article based on the areas of agreement and your best judgment as to where we disagree. We can then comment more and hopefully reach consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I would argue that you're using Andersen campaign "literature" and "smear campaigns" as a straw man for discrediting valid parts of the article. However, I would agree that I think we have both made our respective arguments plainly clear and I trust Aleksey to come up with a good starting point for consensus. It seems like maybe only 4 or 5 things that we are in complete disagreement on. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a general comment: While it's true that some of these issues were raised by the Andersen campaign during the 2008 election, nothing in my version was deliberately "lifted from campaign material" or anything like that. Ironically, Orangeman2 seems to be more familiar with Andersen's campaign than I am. While there is some cross-over between the votes covered in the article and votes "attacked" by the Andersen campaign, I tried to be as neutral and true to the sources as possible. I just felt I needed to make that clear, since Orangeman2 seemed to be implying that I was trying to rehash Andersen campaign attacks, as they have asserted before. This is not the case; I just want Debicella's FULL record covered. As for responses to specific items, I will wait until tomorrow and/or until Aleksey has a chance to respond. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the full record being covered here; I have included everything you did, but worded it differently. I leave it to AleksyFy to determine which is more neutral. However, I continue to mention it because your language exactly matches the campaign's and does not rise to the level of neutrality desired in Wikipedia articles. I again ask that we stick with all agreements already decided upon just a few months ago as a sign of good faith that you are NOT trying to just get language from the Andersen campaign in here.
Again, using the 2008 election (which is now seven months past) as a straw man does not serve the article well. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of disputes

[edit]

In an effort to streamline the moderation process, I will attempt to summarize the main areas of contention as they stand now. Hopefully this makes your job easier, Aleksey. If anyone feels I left something out, feel free to add it.

  • Organization of article: 69.37 supports combining votes and accomplishments according to issue. Orange supports having separate "Accomplishments" and "Voting record" sections.
  • Press releases as sources: Orange supports using Senate GOP press releases as sources, particularly for the characterization of the 2007 budget vote. 69.37 opposes using such press releases as sources other than to establish basic, noncontroversial facts.
  • Hearing aid bill language: 69.37 favors using the word "children" in describing the bill, as it is how the title of the bill is phrased. Orange favors changing the word to "teenagers" since the bill cited only expanded coverage to children over 12.
  • LCV rating language: 69.37 believes the phrase "lowest in the state legislature" should be included in order to contextualize an otherwise ambiguous 58% rating. Orange does not believe this characterization should be included.
  • Inclusion of filibuster of teacher bill: 69.37 favors including the fact that Debicella filibustered an education bill as a political move, as well as his subsequent co-sponsorship and vote to pass the bill. Orange believes the filibuster should be omitted as it is "intermediate" and "out of date".
  • Description of Family Institute of Connecticut: 69.37 believes a brief description of the organization should be included to clarify the signifigance of its endorsement. Orange does not believe a description is necessary.
  • Mention of Governor Rowland: 69.37 believes that including the reference to Rowland clarifies an otherwise nebulous bill and matches the source article. Orange does not believe such a description is necessary and sees any mention of Rowland as an attempt to make Debicella look bad.
  • Emergency contraception language and Debicella quote: Orange favors simply stating that Debicella voted against the bill and his reasons for doing so. 69.37 supports including the quote Debicella made about the bill, and the subsequent criticism by Democrats, citing media coverage, as well as Debicella's response. 69.37 sees the quote and controversy as a significant part of the issue while Orange sees it as a political attack.

I think that's pretty much it. Eight things. Hopefully we can work through them one by one and come to some kind of consensus. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the areas where I am probably most likely to bend at all would be the organization of the article and the hearing aid bill language. Perhaps we could get the ball rolling by tackling those two first. I have a feeling the other six will be harder nuts to crack (in other words, I don't see myself budging much on them) and may wind up requiring an executive decision by Aleksey. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as indicated earlier, I am willing to compromise on HOW the Family Institute of Connecticut is characterized, but not on the fact that some kind of description should be included. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I would argue that the name itself - Family Institute of Connecticut - is offensive to many people, as it seems to imply that gay people are a "threat" to families, or can't have loving families of their own. The very name of the organization itself is extremely loaded and calls for a basic clarification. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have included more thoughts below, including a list of additional votes I would like to include. However, you have to hit "edit" to see them.

Thanks for summarizing differences, although I am sure AleksyFy will look at the more detailed conversation above as well. For my part, there are only two that are critical—the two that we already agreed to. I am glad to hear you are ok with the “Accomplishments” section as that is something we already agreed upon. The other is obviously the emergency contraception bill—you cannot go back to your preferred version after agreeing to the compromise language just two months ago. If you do, I insist on removing everything to do with Janice Andersen from this article, and have one sentence on the topic (like every other topic in this article). For all other differences, I am willing to let AleksyFy decide and will abide by his decision.

I have also done additional research on more topics for this article. Debicella co-sponsored a number of bills that actually passed and have gotten attention in the media.[5] I would suggest adding the following sentences to the article in the following sentences. I have included links to both Debciella’s vote/co-sponsorship and the media sources covering the bill.

I did not say, or intend to say, that I am "OK" with adding an "Accomplishments" section. All I said was that the organization of the article is one of the areas I MAY be willing to compromise on. Aquaman2 (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even going to look at the new stuff below until we resolve the current article. That's a whole new headache that I just don't feel like getting into right now. Are we just going to include every single bill Debicella has ever co-sponsored in his legislative career? "Co-sponsor" doesn't even really mean much usually - just that the person supports the legislation. Bills often have literally dozens of co-sponsors. This is exactly why we set the inclusion standard to "neutral media with a clear link between the subject of the article and Debicella". It should have stayed that way. Aquaman2 (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I am afraid we have another difference. Since we are updating the article with moderation now, I would like all these votes included (rather than fight about them later-- I would rather agree to be done with this article for a prolonged length of time after this moderation). All have media sources and Debicella co-sponsorship sources.
Please type out the URLs to the sources rather than referencing them the way you have. That doesn't work on Talk pages. Thank you. Aquaman2 (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am not opposed to reviewing these articles for inclusion as part of this mediation process, but I think we should resolve the existing article first. We have enough on our plate as it is. Aquaman2 (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of Life Issues: “Senator Debicella co-sponsored a bill to ban Bisphenol-A (BPA), a potentially cancer-causing substance, in children’s product and food products.” [6][7]

“Debicella co-sponsored a law on the Public Health Committee that gives doctors more flexibility in treating Lyme disease.”[8][9]

“Debicella authored a new law that requires cars to move over when approaching an accident scene, rather than staying in the lane of the accident and causing traffic.”[10][11]

“Debicella co-sponsored a new law prohibiting anyone under 16 from using machine guns.” [12][13]

Social Issues: “Debicella co-sponsored a bipartisan bill to enforce equal pay for equal work laws for women, which strengthened penalties for companies discriminating pay levels based on gender.”[14][15]

“Debicella co-sponsored a law to ban the commercial use of ultrasound equipment to protect women’s health.”[16][17]

Economic Issues (healthcare paragraph):

“He co-sponsored a law to guarantee health coverage to stepchildren just as if they were natural born children.”[18]

If there are any other votes from the 2009 session that you believe are important to include, let me know. If my language is biased in any way, more than glad to revise. But I believe they rise to the anti-Debicella partisan’s standard of being covered in the neutral media and having co-sponsorship from Debicella. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out what was wrong with the talk page. There were a number of malformed ref tags above written like this <\ ref> instead of this </ ref> (without the extra space). That was suppressing everything below them from appearing. It should all be fixed now. I also removed my now quadruple-posted message about my travel. It said this:

I had to fly to Miami on business on Saturday, and will be here until Thursday. I tried to post this from my phone a few times, but it wouldn't go through, although I guess I'm not the only one having trouble. My internet connectivity has not been what I hoped, but I have read over the new discussion and will have some time to work on it more tonight, assuming I am able to post over there. AlekseyFy (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to work on that now, but it is already pretty late here, so I probably won't finish until tomorrow. AlekseyFy (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.senaterepublicans.ct.gov/press/debicella/2007/071007_stratford.htm
  2. ^ http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=6901&which_year=2009
  3. ^ http://www.senaterepublicans.ct.gov/press/debicella/2007/052207.htm
  4. ^ http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/CGAbillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB6385
  5. ^ http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/CGAMemberBills.asp?dist_code='S21'&dist_name=S21%20-%20Debicella,%20Dan%20
  6. ^ http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/CGAbillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB6572
  7. ^ http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Connecticut--Bans-BPA.html
  8. ^ http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/CGAbillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB6200
  9. ^ http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30799:governor-signs-bill-shielding-doctors-in-treatment-of-lyme-disease&catid=46:rfd-local&Itemid=778
  10. ^ http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/CGAbillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB5894
  11. ^ http://www.stamfordplus.com/stm/information/nws1/publish/News_1/Governor-Rell-signs-move-over-bill-into-law5289.shtml
  12. ^ http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/CGAbillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB358
  13. ^ http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2009/06/04/notable_bills_of_the_2009_session/
  14. ^ http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/CGAbillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB6185
  15. ^ http://www.newbritainherald.com/articles/2009/06/17/opinion/doc4a3994c64cde1912199467.txt
  16. ^ http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/CGAbillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB5635
  17. ^ http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30799:governor-signs-bill-shielding-doctors-in-treatment-of-lyme-disease&catid=46:rfd-local&Itemid=778
  18. ^ http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/CGAbillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB5433
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Debicella/Archive_4&oldid=303510471"