Talk:Dan Debicella

Merged version
Hello. I just finished working on a merged version over in my user pages. Since it seems that only the points called out in 69.37.244.16's summary remain contentious, I'll just talk about my thoughts on those:


 * Organization of article: The current page does not include an Accomplishments section, but that is not because I'm endorsing not having one. It has been easier to work through these issues when they are all split out under their topic headings, instead of spread between two sections. If we decide we want the Accomplishments section later, we can just move the relevant text out. I think we should handle content first, then discuss this.
 * OK-- I do feel strongly on this one though. There is a real difference between things Debicella made happen vs. things Debicella just voted on.
 * I don't see what your point is. It's not like my version is written to make "accomplishments" sound as if they're votes - it's pretty clear they're accomplishments. They're just mixed in with the appropriate issue rather than broken out into their own section. It's not as if the section is called "Voting record"; it's called "State Senator", which means it covers his entire State Senate career, including votes AND accomplishments. I don't think an Accomplishments section is necessary and I think it would only lead to problems down the road. Aquaman2 (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you object to Debicella having accomplishments broken out? I do not think it is clear at all his role when they are all jumbled together, and you seem to not want to give him any credit when it is deserved-- and noted in third-party media.  (Note I am not asking to remove any of the votes that you have added to cast him in a negative light).  I feel very strongly on this one, but will abide by whatever AleksyFy decides.


 * Press releases as sources: I think 69.37.244.16 is right that press releases of any kind tend to be shaky sources and should be avoided when possible. I understand that it is probably difficult to find sources about the 2007 budget, but maybe that is a signal of its relative importance. Honestly, all of the things that Orange points out are perfectly consistent with what I would think Debicella would support just from reading the rest of the article; they aren't really ground breaking in that regard. As such, I didn't think it was worth relying on a press release. Of course, a third-party source could change all that.
 * Agreed. Aquaman2 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I will try to find a third party source, and if not we will leave it out.


 * Hearing aid bill language: I don't see a big difference between "children 13-18" and "teenagers", although I always think it sounds weird to call an 18 year-old a "child", even if they legally are. "Teenagers" is more succinct as well, so I used that.
 * I'm just going by the title of the bill which says "Children". The important distinction is that the bill expanded an existing bill, which already covered children up to 12 years old, to cover children over 12 as well. It wasn't just a stand-alone bill to cover teenagers, which I think the new ("teenagers") version somewhat reads as. Aquaman2 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with the second part of the new language on this (Debicella's alternative). First off, I don't understand what exactly he's proposing - isn't that basically the same as leaving people to get their own insurance to cover it rather than mandating coverage? I'm confused. And when I clicked the source for clarification, the bill that came up was entitled "AN ACT REQUIRING HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR WOUND CARE FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH EPIDERMOLYSIS BULLOSA". I'm not sure what, if anything, that has to do with hearing aids for children over 12. Aquaman2 (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with the AleksyFy's language. The point here is that Debicella is not against hearing aids for children, but is against mandating them.  His amendment (cited) would have forced all healthcare companies to offer hearing aid coverage (and all other mandates like hearing aids-- read his amendment), but it would be up to the individual whether they wanted to pay for it or not.  Taking that second part out makes it seem like he wants to deny children hearing aids (without the full explanation), which was a core part of Janice Andersen's smear camapign.  I strongly feel we should leave the vote in with the explanation AleksyFy has.
 * I think we should meet in the middle and say he voted against expanding mandatory insurance coverage for hearing aids for children over 12. That's more true to the content of the bill and makes it clear that he didn't just flat out vote against hearing aids for children. I think that satisfies both sides, no? I don't think saying he voted against hearing aids for teenagers is any more accurate than saying he voted against hearing aids for children - he voted against expanding coverage for children over 12. Orange, now that you explained the second part more, it makes more sense to me. I don't think the way it is currently written makes much sense. It needs to be explained more clearly that he supports mandating insurance companies to provide optional coverage for certain conditions. I think this could even be its own sentence since it doesn't apply strictly to hearing aids. Aquaman2 (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * LCV rating language: I was going back and forth on this, so I looked into the source a bit more. It turns out that Debicella doesn't have the lowest score in the legislature. He does have the lowest in the Senate, but there are several representatives with much lower scores, including one in the 30%s. Even if this were changed to being in the Senate, I think having that context would make things seem worse than they are. As such, I took that part out.
 * I still think having "lowest in the State Senate" would help contextualize an otherwise middle-of-the-road rating, but I will reluctantly acquiesce on this one. Aquaman2 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree.


 * Inclusion of filibuster of teacher bill: I added Orange's update that Debicella voted for the bill two weeks later, but I really don't like how that is sitting now, since it is quite long. If his delaying tactic really only delayed the bill for two weeks and he then supported it, I'm not sure the filibuster is worth including at all. Does anyone like how it is right now?
 * His filibuster was covered by multiple media outlets, which is more than can be said for a lot of other things in this article. I don't have a problem with treating this the same way we treated the tuition for children of immigrants bill (filibuster by Debicella, subsequent veto by Gov. Rell). In fact, I personally believe he went so far as to co-sponsor the bill and make sure it got passed because he realized how bad it looks from a P.R. perspective to be filibustering a bipartisan piece of legislation that would make a real difference in needy communities and didn't deserve to be a victim of partisan wrangling, but I wouldn't try to put that in the article as that's just my opinion. Point being, the filibuster and the subsequent co-sponsorship/passage are related and the latter doesn't erase the former, especially since the filibuster itself received more media coverage than the bill eventually passing. Aquaman2 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You certainly cast a negative light on Debicella's motivation! Surprise, surprise.  We should leave out the filibuster as AleksyFy suggested.
 * Oh, please. Politicians play games like that all the time, Republicans and Democrats. Don't act so surprised. If we need any more indication that Debicella's filibuster and the special session and vote to pass it go hand in hand, just read this article: http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/06/22/news/doc4a3f4d1996528791131971.txt. Aquaman2 (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are impressing your own political bias here. Debicella voted for the bill every time it came up-- and only talked on the bill for a few minutes (not exactly a filibuster in my book).  I would leave it out and focus on the result (as is done in every other topic in the article).


 * Description of Family Institute of Connecticut: I shortened the description to "a group opposed to same-sex marriage", which I think is neutral. I'm not convinced that a description is needed at all, since the group does have an article, and whether that article is POV or not, this stance is still clearly set out in the lead paragraph. Also, I don't think the name is charged in and of itself; the opinion that gay marriage is a threat to families isn't really a fringe viewpoint among social conservatives. However, I can't see how the shortened description hurts anything.
 * I am fine with the new version. I firmly believe a brief description is needed because one of the main objectives of an article like this is to give the reader an idea of what the subject's positions/views are. Simply saying he was endorsed by something called the "Family Institute of Connecticut" doesn't really mean anything. There's nothing in the name of the organization itself to indicate it's a group opposed to same-sex marriage and it's not a notable enough organization to expect people to know for themselves. The other organizational names in the article are pretty self-explanatory and if they weren't I would favor a short description of them as well. Aquaman2 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would be in favor of strengthening the second part to something like: "In the special legislative session that followed, Debicella subsequently signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill and voted to pass it." Aquaman2 (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am fine with AleksyFy's changes here as well.
 * But you're not OK with my proposed changes to the second sentence? If anything, I thought that would be even more true to the point you were trying to get across. Aquaman2 (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I am fine with AleksyFy's language here.


 * Mention of Governor Rowland: I understand what you are saying here, Orange, I just don't know how to make it work. I agree with 69.37.244.16 that the motivation for the bill is important, and I don't think mentioning it necessarily makes Debicella look bad. The cite says that Rell opposed the bill too, since she thought it could harm non-profits, so voting no isn't an indefensible position. I tried to come up with a way to include this possible explanation, but without something saying that that is why Debicella opposed it, it just feels like I would be connecting the dots for him. Any ideas?
 * Completely agree. Aquaman2 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC
 * I am fine with what you have here. Why not just add "Debicella joined Governor Rell in opposing..."
 * Because there's no proof of that. We can't just assume Debicella's motivations were the same as Rell's. Aquaman2 (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Emergency contraception language and Debicella quote: Honestly, I'm really pretty tired and need to think more about this. I didn't include either version for the time being, just a place holder.

That should be enough to tackle for right now. I apologize if I missed an argument that you made earlier; I've been in presentations all day today and am having a little trouble holding everything in my head at once tonight. As always, I don't intend for anything that I said above to sound like some type of edict. If you disagree or think I made a mistake, let's talk about it. AlekseyFy (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you at all, Aleksey. You're a real warrior for doing this much in the middle of what is apparently a very busy time for you. Do what you have to do; I'm sure we'll be here when you get back. Aquaman2 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

New issue: Unfunded mandate language Sorry to throw another log on the fire, but I am going to have to challenge the statement "Debicella generally votes against the creation of unfunded mandates on municipalities", as it only has one supporting vote (in-school suspensions) and in fact is contradicted later in the article by his amendment that would have required schools to notify parents when certain subject matter was being discussed. That would indeed be an unfunded mandate. I realize it says "generally" so if there are at least two additional sources supporting the statement, against only one contradicting, I am OK with leaving the language as is. Absent this, I will have to object to the claim. Also, we removed other statements of the same tone ("generally indicates"). Aquaman2 (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

AleksyFy-- I am basically fine with all of your changes, and will abide by these decisions. Three outstanding issues from my perspective:

1) Creating separate Accomplishment section

2) Emergency Contraception -- I am ok with either original compromise language, or limiting this to one sentence (like every other topic in the article). This is the make-or-break issue for me, as you can read from the repetitive debates above.
 * I firmly believe that the language currently in my version is preferable and don't understand why the inclusion of the quote so vexes this editor. I also maintain that several of the "compromises" were broken by them first, most notably disregarding the minimum threshold for notability, so to try to fall back on that strikes me as hypocritical. I will agree to take "the quote" out if Orangeman agrees to take out every single thing in the article that doesn't have a neutral media source. Aquaman2 (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

3) Additional votes -- I would like to work in the six or seven additional co-sponsored bills from the 2009 session (listed out above). These are new, as they just happened in the last few months.  I have both third-party media sources and links to prove Debicella's co-sponsorship.
 * I'm open to discussing their inclusion as soon as we've hammered out the issues with the existing article. Aquaman2 (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Great job as always. You should work for the U.N.

Aqua, I agree that we should try to remove anything lacking neutral sources. What do you consider to fall in this category? The merged version right now has three sources coming from Senate Republican press releases, namely the cites for:
 * "Debicella co-authored a bill that provides tax credits for businesses that create at least 10 new jobs in a year. The bill was passed unanimously and signed into law by Governor Jodi Rell."
 * "In March 2009, Debicella was named a "Guardian of Small Business" by the National Federation of Independent Businesses."
 * "Debicella supports referendum and initiative as well as a constitutional convention." (one of the two citations)

The citations for the endorsements and scores each come from the websites for the respective organizations, and even though those aren't neutral media sources, I don't have a problem with them. Do you? Are there any other sources you think are dubious?
 * I'm fine with all of those things staying in since they are basic, noncontroversial facts and the language in the article isn't embellished. I was more making the point that Orange himself had broken the previous "compromise" that they are so adamant about adhering to by including such things, as well as others that were re-worked with better sources. How is including a quote, which was central to the controversy in question and has media sources, more egregious than adding items based only on press releases, or just online records of votes? Aquaman2 (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because including the misquote is a continued attempt to make Debicella look like he believes rape is not a big deal. The compromise language we reached just two months ago provides both sides of the story without repeating verbatim the Andersen campaign piece.  As I have said, this is non-negotiable for me-- either we keep the original compromise or go to a neutral one-sentence description of the vote without any mention of Janice Andersen (this is not an article about her, after all!)  My vote is the original compromise (because I will stick by my word), but if you insist on changing it then I want it parallel with everything else in this article.
 * I reject the premise of your argument that it is a "misquote" and that I am trying to make it look like he "doesn't think rape is a big deal." Please stop fabricating ulterior motives of mine in spite of the fact this quote and the ensuing controversy received media coverage, unlike much of the stuff you have added to this article. Obviously the article isn't about Janice Andersen but considering she was his opponent in an election I don't think it's outlandish that she might wind up being mentioned. You don't think other articles about politicians ever mention their opponents? 64.252.250.25 (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

For the hearing aid language, does this fit better?
 * He has voted against expanding mandated insurance coverage of hearing aids for children to include teenagers, instead proposing an amendment that would require insurance companies to offer such coverage as an separately-purchased option.
 * As I said above, I think it would be much more preferable, and accurate, to break the hearing aid language and optional insurance coverage proposal language into two separate sentences. The latter applies to a wide range of health care services, not just hearing aids, and I think it would be a mischaracterization to link the two so closely. In fact, the bill Orange links to as a source for his optional insurance coverage plan is related to some obscure condition that as far as I know has nothing to do with children's hearing aids. As far as "children" vs. "teenagers" I was just going by the text of the bill which says "children" but it's not the end of the world to me if the article says "teenagers". Aquaman2 (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with AleksyFy's compromise. Keep both in-- it is clear that Debicella is not against hearing aids for teenagers, just believes in making it optional not mandatory (and this is generally applied in his amendment, not just to hearing aids).  Separating it out just makes it look like Debicella is against teenagers having hearing aids.  AleksyFy's is neutral.
 * In this case I think you are blatantly disregarding accuracy for what makes Debicella look better. He did NOT propose the optional insurance coverage specifically in regards to hearing aids for children over 12, which is how the current language in Aleksey's version reads. That amendment was a separate thing that the hearing aids may have fallen under. If you want to re-work the hearing aid bill language specifically, that's one thing, but let's not convolute things in the process. He DID vote against mandatory coverage of hearing aids for children over 12, which is explained by his general disposition against health care mandates... not sure what's inaccurate about saying that. 64.252.250.25 (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't like how the education/filibuster information is sitting right now. I read though the extra article you provided, Aqua, but I'm not sure how much of a balance to strike. Could you both provide the specific language that you would like to see? AlekseyFy (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "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. He subsequently co-sponsored and voted for the passage of the bill in a special session of the State Senate two weeks later." Something like that perhaps. Thanks again for your help, Aleksey. Sorry for my delayed reply; it's been a crazy past few days. Aquaman2 (talk)
 * Absolutely not. This makes it sound like Debicella is duplicitous (which I know is exactly what you would like).  There is no where else in this article that you talk about how a bill got passed-- only the result.  I again agree with AleksyFy's language.
 * What are you talking about?!? That is exactly what happened. You seem to refuse to accept the fact that Debicella MIGHT act like a politician sometimes or MIGHT cast votes, make comments, etc. that MAY bother some people. All of that comes with the territory of being a public official. Let's present the facts - warts and all. 64.252.250.25 (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Below are the new votes I would like to include, with even more media sources added....probably do not need them all, but I am being extra diligent! Aquaman-- any objective to including any of these? We are close to agreement on the base article I think....with the exception of my one non-negotiable issue (see above), I am willing to live with whatever AlekyFy decides. Same for the below, if you object to them:

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.”

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

“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.”

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

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.”

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

Economic Issues (healthcare paragraph):

“He co-sponsored a law to guarantee health coverage to stepchildren just as if they were natural born children.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Ok, I have edited the merged version again to bring in the discussion above. Here are the changes I made (or kept) by topic:
 * Press releases as sources: Since we all could agree here, and since Orange didn't bring forward a new source, I left this out.


 * Hearing aid bill language: Aqua, I see that you were right that the previous language was misleading since reviewing the amendment. Here is the new language I tried:
 * He has voted against expanding mandated insurance coverage of hearing aids for children under 12 to include teenagers.[20] Debicella supports requiring insurance companies to offer coverage for additional conditions as an option to their customers that want to pay for it.
 * I kind of wanted an "Instead," at the start of the second sentence to make things less choppy, but didn't want to link the two ideas more since the source provided isn't directly speaking to hearing aids. How does that sound?


 * LCV rating language: Since we were able to agree here as well, I didn't change this from the last version.


 * Inclusion of filibuster of teacher bill: I had a problem with the phase "as political backlash", since this is ascribing a very specific motive, something I am reluctant to do without a good source saying basically the same thing. I don't remember if the old citation did this, Aqua, but that link is now dead. I substituted in the one that you provided in the talk page to replace it, but it uses milder language. As such, I tried to retune this part to stay close to the source, giving this:
 * In June 2009, supporters of a bill that would have attracted qualified teachers to needy districts accused Debicella of a last-minute filibuster when he explained how much he liked the bill while running out the clock to prevent a vote on it. However, when the bill came up for a vote and passed two weeks later, Debicella voted for it.[36]
 * Does that look acceptable?


 * Description of Family Institute of Connecticut: It seems like you were also fine with the description from the last revision, Aqua, and since Orange liked that one specifically, I didn't change it.


 * Mention of Governor Rowland: I still feel the same about this: with the sources we have at hand, we can't fill in Debicella's motives. I left this the same as well.


 * Unfunded mandate language: I see your point Aqua; it is hard to justify a pattern based off one positive and one contrary example. How is this?
 * Debicella voted against requiring all student suspensions to be in-school, since it would create and unfunded mandate for municipalities.
 * That leaves in the motivation for that specific vote, without asserting a broader pattern of votes.


 * Emergency contraception language and Debicella quote: First, I don't think that Orange is really trying to say that the quote in question is a misquote, as I'm sure that it was properly reported. Instead, as I said in the discussion about this before, that it seems like Debicalla misspoke, since this wasn't actually what he voted for, doesn't seem to characterize what he actually believes, and is something that he promptly clarified. This is a part of why I thought it was best not to include it before. From the old discussion, Aqua, last time you agreed at some level (reluctantly, probably) with this outcome. Of course, those choices aren't laid in cement (or print) anywhere, and there is nothing wrong with revisiting them. I know that you think Orange has shifted the inclusion threshold such that this should come in as well, and above you said you would "agree to take 'the quote' out if Orangeman agrees to take out every single thing in the article that doesn't have a neutral media source", which I take to mean strengthening that threshold. The quote aside, I think that things without neutral sources should be taken out anyway, but when I pointed out the things with possibly suspect citations that could be cut, those weren't what concerned you. Could you specific about the things you feel should not be included here that have been?

After the three topics left open above are resolved, then I think we can decide about Orange's new points as well as an Accomplishments section, which I think we can finish before the protection wears off. AlekseyFy (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

AlekseyFy-- thanks! I agree with everything you have here, with two suggestions. First, on the hearing aid bill I would use "Instead" like you originally thought. It is clear that Debicella wants optional coverage as an alternative to health care mandates. Second, on the teacher's certification bill I would say: "In June 2009, supporters of a bill that would have attracted qualified teachers to needy districts accused Debicella of a last-minute filibuster when he explained how much he liked the bill. However, when the bill came up for a vote and passed two weeks later, Debicella was a co-sponsor." I do not believe you can ascribe motivation here, and Debicella was a co-sponsor of the bill that passed.

So if Aquaman is ok with the original compromise on the emergency contraception bill, then we are all set-- just need to deal with Accomplishments structural issue and new votes from 2009 for inclusion. Thank you again for moderating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with your edits, Aleksey.

I support your current version on the insurance coverage language and oppose adding the "Instead" since it still implies that the two are directly connected somehow, which they are not. I don't think the two sentences necessarily even need to be next to each other.

"As political backlash" is based on the Hartford Courant article I cited, not my own opinion. I don't see a problem ascribing motive when it is backed up by sources. Perhaps we could tone down the language but it is very clear from watching the video I posted previously and from the comments of everyone but Debicella himself that he deliberately filibustered the bill to send a message to Senate Democrats. It was a purely political move and had nothing to do with the bill itself - I think any objective observer who looked at the evidence would agree. I don't have a problem with adding that he wound up co-sponsoring the bill but I do have a problem with characterizing his filibuster as merely "accusations" made by "supporters of the bill" - pretty much everyone but Debicella himself has admitted he was blatantly filibustering, even other Republicans.

I just find it odd altogether to refer to "a remark made by Debicella" without including the remark itself. Inclusion standards aside, I still think we made a mistake leaving out the quote in the previous version. If there's a source for Debicella claiming he misspoke, then we can include that in Debicella's response, but it was the quote itself that sparked the controversy. Just like we shouldn't be ascribing motive without supporting sources, I don't think we should be trying to read Debicella's mind as to what exactly he meant when he said the quote. Sure, maybe he misspoke, but maybe he really doesn't have much consideration for the right of rape victims to obtain the morning-after pill. Who knows. I say we just state the facts and let the reader decide.

As for sources that don't meet notability guidelines, I think every single bill that cites only CGA online records and no media sources should probably be omitted. I don't have a huge problem with their inclusion, and indeed spent a good deal of time re-working them into the article after it was clear Orangeman wasn't going to stick to the threshold, but I do think it puts this article on a slippery slope and discredits any claim of "prior agreements" to keep out "the quote" or anything else.

But again, generally I am on board with your edits and look forward to a final compromise version. I too have some more recent items to add when we get to that. I think we also still need to work out some kind of arrangement to prevent future edit wars. I fear as soon as you walk away, Aleksey, another edit war will begin when Orangeman or I adds something the other objects to. I hope it doesn't come to that but I'm being realistic based on what's happened in the past. Thanks for your help. Aquaman2 (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the Courant article that went dead, on the Courant's own blog site: http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2009/06/deluca-resurfaces-blasts-senat.html. I think this article safely puts to rest any debate over the motive and context behind Debicella's filibuster. State GOP chairman Chris Healy himself acknowledged that it was a political move. Aquaman2 (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

AleksyFy-- I think we are at the point that you should take a cut at a new article. As I have stated before, the two largest issues for me are sticking to the compromise langauge on emergency contraception (or making it a one sentence line like the rest of the article and excluding Janice Andersen's political attack) and separating out an Accomplishments section for things Debicella actually did (versus voted for)-- I actually like the last version of the article before this edit war started. Everything else I am fine with your judgement based on the arguments above (including inclusion of the new votes from the 2009 session that I listed).

I also agree with Aquaman about avoiding edit wars in the future. A waste of all of our time. Here is what I would propose-- we edit this article every six months based on new information, and do so here on the discussion page rahter than the main page. Next time would be January 2010 (just before the start of the next Connecticut legislative session-- honestly might not be that many changes at that point!) Adding in one or two things at a time is what leads to edit wars. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the article with AlekseyFy's consensus version. The only differences are that I left in the existing language regarding "the quote"/emergency contraception bill, at least until we resolve that issue. For the filibuster of the education bill I kept the existing language but took out "political backlash" and added the sentence about his co-sponsorship and vote two weeks later. Other than those two things, everything is verbatim from AlekseyFy's version. Aquaman2 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think editing every six months is a realistic solution. If something notable involving Debicella happens next week I'm not going to wait until January 2010 to add it. I think we should set some procedures in place as to HOW we edit rather than when we edit. Aquaman2 (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure health care isn't more a "quality of life" issue than an "economic" issue. To some extent, it's both, but I'm not sure we currently have the health care paragraph under the correct section. What do you guys think? Aquaman2 (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow-- I really can't believe you changed the article itself with the language YOU want without letting AleksFy finish it. You want to know how to avoid edit wars in the future-- finalize them on the discussion page before posting them to the real article. I am going to refrain from reverting the main article to one I approve of, so to give time for AleksFy to finish a final version. However, in the future we should agree to come to consensus on this page before editing the main article. That is the only way to prevent an edit war (because if we were not in mediation, my nature response is to revert the page to one I approve of). We should agree to discuss all changes here and come to consensus before changing the article.

Here is what I believe is outstanding, and my position on it:

1) Emergency Contraception Language-- Either we stick to the original compromise or remove all reference to Janice Andersen and her smear campaign (which you have put back in the article). This is a deal breaker for me.

2) Accomplishments -- I still believe the article's structure is lacking. It mixed things Debicella voted on with things he actually drove.  I feel strongly on this one as well, as I do not see why Aquaman changed it (other than to remove the word "Accomplishments" from the article!)

3) New Votes -- I have six or seven new votes to include in the article (see above), all with objective media sources talking about the vote.

4) Other Edits -- AleksFy had several other questions on edits above (e.g., teachers certification, mandate reform). I am fine with whatever he decides here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I thought you would have been glad to at least have AlekseyFy's current version rather than "my" existing version from before the last edit war. AlekseyFy seems to be a very busy person and there has been some delay in their responsiveness during this most recent mediation process so I really didn't see the value in sitting around waiting for them to edit the article themselves when we had already settled 95% of it. I left the emergency contraception language as is simply because there was no emergency contraception language in AlekseyFy's version and we hadn't reached much consensus there. I made a judgment call on the teacher bill filibuster language because I did not see that as settled and felt reasonably certain that the current wording in AlekseyFy's version would not be the final wording - in fact, Orangeman, I took out the "political backlash" part and added that he was a co-sponsor, so I would imagine you think this language is at least preferable to the language in the standing article. Everything else is exactly the same as AlekseyFy's compromise version. So when you say "we should discuss all changes here and come to consensus before editing the article", I agree, and we did. And when the emergency contraception bill and filibuster of teacher's bill are settled, I would be happy to update those too, or let you or Aleksey do so.

I am strongly against an Accomplishments section. I think it is unnecessary, inherently POV, and lends itself to the kind of vanity language that this article has had problems with in the past. I have never seen a politician's article with a separate "Accomplishments" section. I am not against listing a few of Debicella's most notable accomplishments; I am against setting up an entire section of the article to read like Debicella campaign literature.

I also have new things to add and will list them here shortly. Aquaman2 (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right, Aqua, and I'm sorry for not working as quickly as last time - things have been very busy at work this last month, but I will set some time aside to try to get this finished up. We are down to very few points now, so let's try to get these taken care of:


 * I think the teacher filibuster language without the "backlash" portion that you chose, Aqua, when you moved the article is just fine. The wording in my version was very close to the cited article as I was trying to clarify who was doing the accusing, but since both you and Orange (it seems) are fine with this version, I think this works better since it is more concise.


 * Incidentally, I think Aqua is right that health care is more a quality of life topic than economic. I know I looked in the wrong place first each time while we were talking about it. Any objections to moving that, Orange?


 * Coming back to the emergency contraception, I want to clarify that my biggest problem with the quote is that it is factually inaccurate. The bill didn't allow emergency contraception to be given, it required it. That one word makes a big difference, since changing it would make the quote actually represent what the bill did and bring things in line with what Debicella seems to believe. However, you are right, Aqua, that the quote itself, accuracy aside, was contentious. Orange, is there there any way in which you could see the quote remaining if it was made more explicit that the content of the quote is actually incorrect, since that would address my main concern? Maybe something like this:


 * 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." Though this was not the meaning of his vote, since hospitals already could choose to offer emergency contraception, his 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 does support 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."


 * Since we only seem to have one outstanding point now, I think we can address the Accomplishments section. This is something that I was against when we did the first round of mediation for two reasons. First, the title itself is POV because it puts the things that Debicella was a large part of in an inherently positive light; I'm sure that his opponents might not consider some of the results to be "accomplishments". Second, the section would put the most positive aspects of Debicella's record under a first level heading, while criticisms would fall under a second level heading, which is undue weight. Since you, Orange, are concerned about the things Debicella lead on getting lost amid things he just voted on, we could remove some of the less important things. We could also state the big things in each subsection (like "Social issues", etc.) first with longer explanation, then put all the small votes in that subsection together after a paragraph break with one, short sentence each. That would create some visual separation without giving more organizational importance to positive things. Would that be fine?

AlekseyFy (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as the new votes go, it's more important what Aqua thinks. However, leaving aside links to the government vote pages, several of the media links are broken, and of the ones that work, only the equal pay one actually mentions Debicella. As such, if I were choosing, equal pay would be the only one I'd include, unless you can find fresh links to replace the broken ones.

AlekseyFy-- no need to apologize for having a life! Thanks for continuing to help us.

We are close. To address your points above:

1) I am fine with the teacher certification sentence with a minor tweak: "In June 2009, Debicella supposedly filibustered another bill that would have attracted qualified teachers to needy districts by talking for five minutes how much he liked the bill."  This sticks to the facts, and gets the point of the article across-- that he supposedly filibustered the bill.  (Most people would not say talking for five minutes is a filibuster, but he was accused of it).

2) Fine with moving healthcare issues to Quality of Life

3) Disagree with having no Accomplishment section, but will yield to AleksyFy's compromise-- let's move those items where Debicella was more influencial to the top of each section. Willing to give on this one because of the following:

4) On the emergency contraception quote, there is no room for compromise on my part. The quote is obviously not a reflection of Debicella's stance on the issue, and was inaccurate to boot as AleksyFy points out.  The only reason to include it is partisan.  But since the original compromise language is not acceptable to Aquaman, I now propose we treat this issue like every other issue in this article-- with one sentence.  "Debicella voted against a bill that would have required hospitals to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims."  This is factually correct.

Numerous reasons why this should be one setnence: a) We do not include the "other side" on any other issue in this article? Why are Janice Andersen's political attacks mentioned in this article at all?

b) Why is this the only "campaign" issue, whereas everything else is about a vote or action Debicella took? Everything else in this article is not from a campaign, but rather happened during a legislative session.  Why single out a campaign attack in an article about Debicella's record?

c) One sentence will avoid the debate over Aquaman and my motivation. I believe he is trying to keep the controversy alive in the only place he can-- in this article -- by not using Debicella's quote explaining his position, but rather using an illogical misquote.  Aquaman will say I am trying to justify a vote by Debicella and cover up a controversy.  We have argued this for a year.  The only to objectively handle it is like every other issue in this article-- as a one sentence "just the facts".

I was not happy with the original compromise either-- but if we are going to go back on our compromises, then I want this issue to be handled in a single sentence like everything else.

5) For the new quotes, I believe we just need a standard for inclusion. We can have one of three standards, and I am fine with any of them.  But we need to be consistent:

a) Only include things where Debicella is specifically mentioned in a third-party media source

b) Only include items where a third party media source discusses the issue, and Debicella voted/acted on it

c) Include anything Debicella voted on.

The article is actually only consistent with standard c right now. There are numerous citations with only Debicella's voting record (hearing aid mandate, optional mandate plan, trans-fat).

I believe we should decide on a standard and put my new votes (and any Aqua has) and all existing lines through that standard. I personally would vote for "B" above, but am open to any of the three.


 * For what it's worth, I think option a makes the most sense. What do you think Aqua? AlekseyFy (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that Option A is best. To keep things short and to the point, I would say I agree with all of your above proposals, Aleksey, and disagree with all of Orangeman's stipulations, for reasons I think I have already stated more than once. Briefly:
 * Just because Debicella himself won't admit it was a filibuster doesn't mean it wasn't. The political context of his "speech about how much he liked the bill", his body language during the whole thing, the media coverage of it, and how it's been characterized even by other Republicans all point to a blatant filibuster. Again, I don't think a filibuster is an inherently negative thing and since I strongly believe (with support from media sources) that that's what happened then I think it should be described that way.
 * Simply put, the emergency contraception vote/quote deserves more coverage in this article because it received more media coverage than the vast majority of the rest of the article, much of which has NO media coverage. It's also more controversial and loaded, and therefore calls for more explanation. The "one sentence" treatment may be appropriate in MOST cases, but certainly not all. Just like the amount of involvement on Debicella's part should be weighed, the amount of media coverage should also be weighed. Not all votes, accomplishments, controversies, etc. are created equal.
 * Again, Debicella's quote and Andersen's criticism of it RECEIVED MEDIA COVERAGE. Frankly, Orangeman seems to be ignoring that fact. I don't really see how whether it was a "campaign attack" or not is even really relevant at all - let's just go by the sources. If the sources being cited were Andersen campaign material or something, that would be one thing, but they're not. I think the way the article is written is a fair depiction of the controversy itself and Debicella's response to it. Perhaps Orangeman believes the controversy should have never garnered media coverage in the first place, but indeed it did, and it's not our job to editorialize.
 * Aquaman2 (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to go with Option A (which I am fine with), I really do think we need an Accomplishments section. Call it "Initiatives" or "Legislation Authored" or whatever if you believe the word Accomplishments is too biased. There will not be enough content to maintain the current four-part structure, and we should go back to "Initiatives" versus "Voting Record".

On emergency contraception, I am not going to even argue this anymore-- you can look at the 300 times we have discussed it already. Bottom line is we had a compromise, and if it is changed then I want one sentence. I will not agree to any article that contains the misquote so Aquaman can fulfill his dream of continuing on a controversy that appears no where else except in Janice Andersen campaign worker's heads. Alesksy, I have to ask you to rule on this to finalize this article-- I am fine with the original compromise, or my one sentence, whichever you believe is better for the article.

AleksyFy-- have you looked at any of the other Connecticut State Senate pages on Wikipedia? None of them contain anything from their opponents, nor are they biased in any way. Just have a look to see how out-of-whack the tone and content of Aquaman's suggestions are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I just went through the article to see what would stand up against option A. Here is the text that would be left:
 * Debicella was first elected to the Connecticut State Senate in 2006 and subsequently re-elected in 2008. He succeeded George "Doc" Gunther, the longest-serving state legislator in Connecticut history, after working as his campaign manager for several elections.


 * In the State Senate, Debicella is a Deputy Minority Leader and sits on the Appropriations (ranking member), Higher Education (ranking member), Public Health (ranking member), and Regulations Review committees.


 * He was also the lone vote against a bill that gave the town of Westport control over a shellfish bed.


 * He also voted against allowing municipal, small business, and nonprofit employees to join the state employees' health insurance pool. Debicella has proposed a bill that would allow individuals and families who receive a physical exam and all age-appropriate preventive tests to deduct out-of-pocket medical expenses from their state income tax.


 * In committee, Debicella filibustered a controversial bill, which was ultimately vetoed by Rell, that would have allowed children of illegal immigrants who graduated from a Connecticut high school to apply for in-state tuition. In June 2009, 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.


 * He voted against abolishing the death penalty in the state and supports reforms to make it "more workable."


 * In response to plans the Environmental Protection Agency had for waste deposit in Stratford, he co-sponsored a bill that prohibited individuals and government agencies from depositing more than 1,000 cubic yards of asbestos-laden soil near residential areas without approval from two-thirds of the municipality's legislative body.


 * Debicella has co-sponsored multiple bills to prohibit the expansion of Sikorsky Memorial Airport in Stratford. Debicella co-sponsored a bill that expanded Operation Fuel, a program that provides a $500 credit for Connecticut seniors 65 or older whose income is at or below the state median, to assist with their home heating costs.


 * 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.

A lot of this is from citations of the vote records or link rot among the media sources. I doubt that anyone would be happy with what is left. One way to combat the link rot is to use webarchive.org, who has agreed to archive static versions of pages cited by Wikipedia articles, since the media webpages themselves don't seem to keep these articles around for very long. Anyway, how do you guys feel after seeing the above? AlekseyFy (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there's two separate issues here: items which have media sources that at one point worked and are now dead, and items which do not and never have had media sources. I think the former is more of a logistical problem and should not lead to anything being deleted, but we should do everything we can to find current, working links, whether through WebArchive.org or some other means. A cursory search of Google News archives for some of the dead stuff has yielded unpromising results. However, all three of us at one point acknowledged those links as working and being accurately portrayed in the article, so I would be loathe to delete the information completely until alternate sources are found. On the other hand, there are some things that simply do not have, and never have had, any third party sources - just online records of the votes themselves. I think that sort of thing should be cut out as it quickly leads down a slippery slope where Orangeman or I or whoever could pick and choose what votes we want to include in the article. I think both issues are equally problematic, but should not necessarily be handled the same way. Unfortunately my time is limited right now but I'll try to get on later tonight and get into things more in-depth. Thanks, Aleksey. Aquaman2 (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Aleksey-- I am actually fine with the limited content you suggest, based on looking at other Connecticut State Senate wikipedia sites. What I am against is inconsistency in the article standards. I believe it continues to lead to the edit wars here-- Aquaman's paragraph above somehow suggesting that we allow some now-dead links to be "ok" in this article is completely unacceptable. Either we:

a) Only include things where Debicella is specifically mentioned in a third-party media source

b) Only include items where a third party media source discusses the issue, and Debicella voted/acted on it

c) Include anything Debicella voted on.

I am fine with any of these, as long as we are consistent. If you believe Options B or C are better for the article, I am fine with that. "Cherry-picking" votes is exactly what Aquaman has done throughout the long history of this article to try to portray his point of view on the subject.

The article currently posted is an "Option C" article, with several remaining issues from my perspective (emergency contraception language, rearranging topics so Debicella-driven ones appear at top of each section, teacher certification language, and additional votes to add). I am fine with a shortened article ("Option A") like other Senators or finalizing the current version ("Option C")-- whichever Aleksy decides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Orangeman. The most egregious cherry-picking began when you started including records of votes that had no media coverage after I added a few things that DID have media coverage - which seems to be your idea of "balance". It's not our job to determine what is notable or not - the media does that for us. I'm troubled by the fact that you think items should suddenly be removed from the article just because the link stops working, even after we've both recognized the validity and accuracy of the previously-working source. But of course, many of the items that have dead links are parts of the article that you would rather not see included if given the choice, so I'm not really surprised that's the stance you're taking. Once again, you've shown that portraying Debicella in the most positive light possible is more important than constructing a quality article.


 * As for your options above, I would probably prefer A, but would be OK with B too. A has been my standard all along. C seems to be your current standard and is not OK with me. Aquaman2 (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So I believe we are at a point where AleksyFy need to weigh in with some opinions. If C is not ok with Aquaman, then I am fine with A. Option A solves many disputes, including eliminating the emergency contraception issue entirely from the article. The "Option A" article would include those items listed by AleksyFy above, plus any that you or I have that meet the criteria. I should note that I am not ok with using blogs as a "reliable third party media source"-- to me that is the same as using Debicella's press release blog. An "Option A" article will look like most of the other Connecticut State Senate articles-- and I believe the votes that AleksyFy identified above are a good mix of what could be considered "positive" and "negative" views on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since we apparently disagree over what you meant by "Option A", I am throwing that term out. You are muddling things and drawing false connections. The Hartford Courant's blog is NOT the same as Senate GOP press releases at all, because the "blog", at least the entries I have linked to, are VERBATIM copies of articles from the Courant. It is not opinion or commentary - it is the exact articles that I would otherwise be linking to if the links were not dead. Also, I do not accept dead links as not being "reliable third party sources" when indeed they were confirmed to be by all parties involved at one point. You are using dead links as an excuse to remove content from the article. We should be making an effort to replace those sources with working links, since we've already decided they merited inclusion in the article. I am fine with the current article aside from the items that have ONLY CGA database entries as sources and NO media coverage, and will do my part to find more current links for media sources that are no longer working. I should say I am discouraged by the fact you seem to be using dead links as an excuse to completely gut the article. The mock-up that Aleksey posted above is incredibly ugly and it would be a great shame if this article devolved to that. Aquaman2 (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I spent some time tonight going over sources again. To be clear, the article pieces in my last post were very ugly, as Aqua noted, as they weren't meant to be a suggestion of how the article should look, just what topics would be left under the strictest culling. I reviewed the policy on dead links and I think it suggests that Aqua is right in that a link going dead is not grounds alone for removing information, although we should make every effort to find a replacement. As such I updated the version of the article in my userspace using the following process: There were a few exceptions. I left the endorsement lines, since I doubt that such things are often published in a newspaper. I couldn't find a media report about the teacher bill passing in the special session, but it didn't seem fair to report the filibuster without it, so I left it. I left the press release about the constitutional convention since there were several newspaper articles that mentioned Debicella's position, but none that were free to view, and you guys said before this was a politically important topic. It seemed better to show Debicella stating his position himself than showing readers a page asking for $2. Finally, I would normally think the "My left nutmeg" citation was unusable except that the part we cared about was all from a published letter they were reproducing. All other media sources stating that Debicella was pro-choice required payment, so I left it, but it would still be better if we could replace it. I also archived all the working media links from the new topics suggested by both of you, so that we would still have them if we decided to include them. As always, if you don't agree with the process that I used above or the exceptions that I thought were reasonable, bring it up so we can fix it. Also, if you think that I deviated from the above on some statement, it is probably just an oversight on my part - it is pretty late. How does that look? AlekseyFy (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If a statement had a citation from a media source that works and mentioned Debicella, everything is going great! To be safe, though, I used WebCite to archive the page as it stands, and changed the linking.
 * If the citation was from a media source that seems appropriate, but is now dead, I did some google news searching. In some cases, I found a new source, which I archived and substituted. If I didn't, I left it alone.
 * If the citation was from a media source but didn't mention Debicella or was just a vote record or press release, I tried to find an alternate as above, but if I couldn't I removed it.


 * Wonderful, Aleksey. That's a lot of work and it's really appreciated. Sorry I haven't been able to do more groundwork myself the past week; it's been pretty busy for me too. I actually found a working article that mentions the teacher bill passing in the special session - the New Haven Register article linked in the section below. I also agree that "My Left Nutmeg" is far from an ideal source, but as you pointed out, the part referenced is the article is reproduced from a neutral media source. I think what you have done has gone a long way at establishing standards for this article, which I think incidentally are general Wikipedia standards. I support updating the live article with your current working version. Aquaman2 (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm not sure who (it wasn't me) made the most recent edit to the article to say "claims to be pro-choice" rather than "is pro-choice" but I do think it's something that warrants a second look. The current source for the assertion that Debicella is pro-choice is a letter to the editor by an opponent (former supporter) of Debicella who in fact seems to be skeptical of Debicella's true views. So not only is the source dubious to begin with, as it is an editorial and not an article, but the author himself seems to question Debicella's "pro-choice" credentials. So perhaps it should be changed to something like "claims to be", or just removed entirely; probably the latter. Aquaman2 (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with using CGA or VoteSmart records to support items that are already established with media sources. In my eyes, that's quite different than using only such sources. It's not as if the factual accuracy of CGA and VoteSmart records is disputed; on the contrary, they're actually quite reliable. The issue is that they do not unto themselves establish notability of subject. But where we have a media source establishing notability, I think it is appropriate to strengthen with reliable non-media sources. For example, I don't see a problem with saying he voted against raising the minimum wage on multiple occasions, as there is already a source covering his vote against raising the minimum wage, and then a reliable non-media source showing at least one more similar vote. On the other hand, I agree the vote on the transgendered nondiscrimination bill should be taken out, as it cites only a VoteSmart record and no media source. These are just examples; there are a few instances where I think CGA or VoteSmart records could be put back in to working version on Aleksey's user page, to support items already established with a media source. Aquaman2 (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Alesky,

Thank you for taking another cut at it. I am fine with the standard you laid forward, including broken links. But there are several items from previous versions that were removed based on the standard that the link would have to be active (e.g., Debicella wrote a jobs creation tax credit for companies that created 10 jobs or more in 2007). I will come up with a list of these for you in the next few days that I would like to see re-included.

However, we do have two outstanding issues we need to deal with:

1) Emergency Contraception -- I am not ok with how this reads, and will not consent to any article that contains the misquote from Debicella. Afraid I am going to have to insist we go to one-sentence description of the vote itself (excluding Janice Andersen from the article).  This was not a major news event, has no active links, and was only used in Andersen's political campaign.  I am holding out editing the article itself out of respect for this process-- and am open to creative suggestions-- but do not want this article used for political purposes.

2) Accomplishments first in each section -- As I said before, I am ok with not having and Accomplishment section as long as we move the things that Debicella authored himself to the front of each section. It makes more sense that the things he was responsible for are more important than the thing he merely voted for.


 * Orange, I'm pretty sure the job creation bill was removed because the source for it was a GOP press release, not because the link was dead. We would need neutral media coverage of that bill in order to re-include it. What other items do you feel were erroneously removed?


 * Debicella's comments prompted a rally that received media coverage. What else has he done that has garnered that kind of notoriety? Whether you think the criticisms of Debicella were fair or not is one thing, but they were covered by media, and therefore warrant inclusion in the article. And just as the media thought it was fair to include Debicella's response to the criticism, I think it is fair to include his response in the article. Restricting that subject to one sentence seems unnecessarily restrictive as it does not provide enough room to describe the controversy itself and Debicella's response. In fact, we have had a versions in the past that described the rally itself more in-depth, mentioning Deborah Heinrich, "herself a rape victim", but I opted to keep that out for the sake of brevity and balance. The current language is what I see as a bare bones depiction of the whole controversy.


 * Currently, the way things are organized is by subject. Within each section is a paragraph for a major issue category (i.e. Business, Education, the Environment, etc.). I don't have a problem with re-ordering things within each paragraph based on Debicella's role, but I'd rather not move things out of their current paragraph. I think doing so would probably make the article feel disjointed and difficult to read.
 * Aquaman2 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

New items
I think it makes sense to have a separate section for discussing the addition of new items to the article. Let's try to keep any disputes over the current article out of this section...

The short shelf life of online articles is extremely frustrating. Many links just from the past month are already dead, mostly from the Connecticut Post. Here's a few items, some working, some not:
 * An article covering the passage of the education bill that Debicella previously filibustered, which is currently sourced using only CGA records. Source: http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/06/22/news/doc4a3f4d1996528791131971.txt. The article has fairly substantial coverage of Debicella - his filibuster, defense of his actions, and praise for the bill being passed.
 * Debicella criticized a $22.2 million bailout of the University of Connecticut Health Center as "a little bit of unreality" due to the state's budget deficit, but ultimately voted in favor of it. Source: http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2009/06/lawmakers-bail-out-uconn-healt.html. Would probably go under "economic issues" since it seems to be more about funding than the nature of the health center itself.
 * Dead source: http://www.connpost.com/ci_12648973. Title was "Dems huddle on budget as deadline looms" and included the sentence "Dan Debicella, R-Shelton, attempted to split the jobs legislation out of the overall bill, but his effort failed along party lines." Not sure what the full context was though. I really hope WebArchive has CT Post articles, because they seem to go dead within days, making it difficult to research new items for the article and resulting in the kind of dead link soup we have right now. Very annoying. If included, this could be added after the sentence about the 2009 budget.
 * Another dead source: http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-state-budget-capitol-watch-sl,0,5249112.storylink Title was "Senate Narrowly Approves Income, Cigarette, Estate Tax Hikes" and Debicella seemed to be opposed to it, specifically the hikes on cigarette taxes. Will try to find working article... Would probably go into first paragraph of "Economic issues" along with the other tax stuff.
 * Yet another dead CT Post article - http://www.connpost.com/ci_12772207 - that discusses Debicella's involvement in a group that is charged with streamlining government.
 * Wow! A CT Post article that's actually still working - http://www.connpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12876006 - get it while it's hot! This one reiterates Debicella's opposition to the SustiNet program and quotes him as saying it would bring the state "one step closer to a Canadian-style healthcare plan".
 * Debicella was strongly critical of a bill that would have essentially given the state comptroller the tie-breaking vote in the event the governor's budget office and the legislature's fiscal office did not agree on the size of the state budget deficit, calling it "cumbersome", "political", and an "an unnecessary institutionalization of political conflict." Source: http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2009/07/state-senate-starts-veto-overr.html. I think this would fall under "Governance issues".

Aquaman2 (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

--

AleksyFy-- Aquaman is editing the article's main page to his liking, rather than waiting for you to mediate on the outstanding issues (e.g., emergency contraception). He is making changes no one has discussed (e.g., putting Quality of Life as the first section rather than economic issues). Can you weigh in on the outstanding issues above, and post a version of the article YOU believe is neutral. I would rather you weigh in here rather than starting an edit war again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I put Quality of Life ahead of Economic because it had grown to be considerably longer due to more extensive media coverage. If the length of the sections is more or less a function of the amount of media coverage given to that group of issues, then I think it is appropriate to order the sections according to length. I would be happy to hear if and why you would like to keep Economic first, and discuss which way we should go.


 * Also, if you have any new items to include in the article, please list them here. Aquaman2 (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am actually traveling (again) in Utah for the next week, but I am all settled in now and have some time to look at this. Just wanted to let you know that I was working on the above right now. Also, it would be best to agree on a full sandbox version before editing the main article even though we aren't under article protection this time around. AlekseyFy (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just finished the last round of updating the sandbox article. I reorganized the sentences within their sections to pull things that Debicella wrote/co-sponsored to the front. If you think things need to be moved around some more, just let me know. I also brought in the new topics suggested by both of you where they met the guidelines I used before. While I left the existing dead links alone, because we do all know that they worked at one time, I didn't include new content that was supported only by dead links. Did I miss anything there?
 * Also, so you know, you can edit the sandbox version yourself even though it is in my userspace. Making small changes to the main article creates a second fork that will be harder to merge back in later after the sandbox version is moved to the main version. If you could make those changes over there, it will eliminate extra work later, since I think we are very close to committing it. AlekseyFy (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just placed your sandbox version with the current version of the live article, and then reverted back, just so I could have a differential to compare the two versions. Here are the differences:
 * I moved "Quality of life" above "Economic" because it got significantly longer due to more media coverage. But then again "Quality of life" is kind of an umbrella category for an array of issues. I don't really mind either way, I was just going based on length.
 * I moved the 2009 budget paragraph to the end of "Economic" and updated it with language that I think more accurately described the position of Debicella and Senate Republicans, which has evolved over the past few months as buget negotiations have dragged on, and is a reflection of the new sources I cited.
 * I added the "Guardian of Small Business" award back into the live article, but you still kept it out of the sandbox version. I think this is open to discussion. On one hand, I think it could be seen as in the same vein as organizational endorsements/ratings. On the other hand, it's questionable as to whether the National Federation of Independent Businesses is a notable enough organization to mention them giving an award to Debicella in the absence of any media coverage.
 * You re-ordered the miscellaneous economic votes, which is fine with me and makes sense.
 * I changed the language for the first sentence of the health care paragraph from "provide autism diagnosis and treatment" to "require insurance companies to cover autism diagnosis and treatment". I think this is a more accurate description of what the bill actually did. If the bill provided for state funding of autism diagnosis and treatment then I would be OK with saying "provide".
 * I put SustiNet back in as there is a new source that specifically mentions Debicella and his specific oppositions to it. Not sure why you left that out Aleksey?
 * What happened to the health insurance pool vote? And I think the source for the HUSKY vote covers the overall Republican position, of which Debicella was party to, to a sufficient enough extent that it could be used to support the description of his inurance-related voting record.
 * In the second paragraph I spelled out Governor Jodi Rell and linked it to the article about her. This was needed due to the previous first instance of her being mentioned having been deleted.
 * I put "as political backlash against Senate Democrats" back in for a very specific reason. Without that, or some similar language, it reads as if Debicella was filibustering the bill on the basis of the content of the bill itself. This is not the case. He filibustered it to send a political message to the Senate Democrats. I think that needs to be made clear somehow. I actually think not including such language is more unfair to Debicella than including it, and less accurate.
 * I think those were all the differences but I may have missed one or two... Aquaman2 (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I do think "pro-choice" should be taken out for the reasons I stated above. Aquaman2 (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

-

AlekseyFy-- thanks again. We are very close. I am fine with your sandbox article, and am actually fine (I think) with everything Aquaman said immediately above.

Only problem is the emergency contraception language. I have changed your sandbox article to a one-line explanation of the vote, with the only source still active. Even this is unacceptable to me, because it is a link to a left-wing blog that has been critical of Debicella-- not a credible news source. But I am willing to leave this in as a source as a sign of good faith.

I have made many compromises in this article, but cannot accept the misquote or inclusion or Janice Andersen's political attacks. The only reason to include the misquote (which AleksFy has already said does not accurately represent Debicella's views) is political. The links are all broken (because Janice Andersen's attacks were not a significant story, but just a one-day campaign stunt).

Aleksey, let me know if you are ok with this. If you are, then this article is done from my perspective. Aquaman will no doubt restate the 50 reasons he thinks Debicella's misquote should be in there, but just like we did in the first compromise version, we should not include these partisan attacks in the article. A one-line description will suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, I'm very glad that we've made so much headway on the overall article and that this one issue now seems to be the only real sticking point. The fact that the sources do not work has nothing to do with the story itself - it's because they were from the Stratford Bard and Connecticut Post, two publications that we have discovered do not keep their articles active for long unfortunately. Luckily Aleksey has discovered a work-around to avoid this problem in the future. That said, we have all acknowledged those sources as legitimate neutral media sources and as far as I know there has never been an issue with the accuracy of the information pulled from those articles, either in my version or Orange's. The issue has been how the controversy on the whole should be portrayed in the article. Frankly, I think Orangeman's own political interests are blinding them to the fact that this controversy received legitimate media coverage. The way they just edited the sandbox version only mentions his vote on the bill and completely ignores the comment he made defending that vote and the ensuing controversy. This is totally unacceptable to me. Debicella made a poorly worded comment that to some demonstrated a flippancy towards women's issues, this was criticized by his opponent Janice Andersen and other Democrats, and Debicella responded by defending his position and criticizing Andersen for "using an emotional issue for political gain." All of this is/was reflected in the sources (and then some) and all of this should be reflected in the article. To include any less, or nothing at all, would be negligent in my view. Aquaman2 (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and in the current live version I added a new section (Political future) with a sentence covering the recent widespread speculation that Debicella may run for Congress in 2010. Just want to make sure you both saw that and are OK with it. I think the way I did it is consistent with the way such things are handled on other politician's articles. Aquaman2 (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again; I'm back from Utah now. Responding to Aqua's comments above, I did still have the SustiNet and insurance pool information in the merged version, they were just moved down in the paragraph. I did remove the HUSKY vote since the provided source did not mention Debicella.
 * Since it seems like the contraception language is the last sticking point, I moved the sandbox version into the live version while merging in the new changes made to the live version. This will make it so we don't have to maintain two forks, so we should no longer use the sandbox from here on. If I missed a change (the diffs got a little complicated because of reordering) just let me know. I left the contraception language that was already in the live version since I didn't want to change something still under discussion without consensus, not because I necessarily support it.
 * Looking again at that issue, I could see four possible treatments:
 * The language that we have right now. As I've stated before, I'm concerned about this option because the content of the quote itself is factually inaccurate.
 * Keeping the quote in the article, but making that inaccuracy explicit. I proposed language back on the 22nd that I think did a balanced job of this, but I know that you don't want the quote included in any context, Orange.
 * Leaving the quote out, while saying that Debicella's opponents criticized his positions and specific comments, with a link to the article. This is similar to how the last compromise version looked. The problem is that now that article is in their archive, so reader's couldn't see exactly what was said without paying.
 * An abbreviated description like Orange included in the sandbox version. I agree with Aqua that this is probably too little description of something that did generate media coverage.
 * The quote only seems to be preserved in a freely-viewable form by us (the first result on Google), some forum comments and another "My Left Nutmeg" article, which reproduces the relevant part of the Connecticut Post article. Personally, I think either approach 2 or 3 would yield an acceptable article. As such, are you convinced, Aqua, that language without the quote itself but which mentions it and provides citation links, perhaps both to the archived Post article and to the excerpt from "My Left Nutmeg", couldn't work for you? Similarly, are you convinced, Orange, that there is no qualifying context that could be included around the quote to make it acceptable to you? I know it was some time ago now, Aqua, but you did once say that you could "agree to take 'the quote' out if Orangeman agrees to take out every single thing in the article that doesn't have a neutral media source". I think we have done a pretty thorough job of that over the last few weeks. Is that off the table now? Of course, if either of you see another way of handling this, please put that forward as well. AlekseyFy (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Aleksey, thank you. Hope you had a nice trip. A few things:
 * Can you please explain why you decided to cut the health care paragraph in half and stick the other half in the last paragraph alongside crime issues? This just seems disjointed to me.
 * What do you think of my most revision to the same-sex marriage bill amendments language? The sources cited are focused on Debicella's amendments to the bill, not his vote on the bill itself. I feel "my" version is more in keeping with the stricter notability standards we've adopted.
 * I don't see the factual accuracy of Debicella's quote as being all that important because a) they were still his own words either way; and b) the controversy was due more to the attitude behind what he said, not so much what he said. In the eyes of his opponent and others, his comment demonstrated an insensitivity, or at the very least indifference, towards women's issues. If there's a source with Debicella or someone else defending him saying he simply misspoke, then I'm fine with including it, but otherwise I don't think we should be editorializing about what he may or may not have meant by it - let's just stick to the sources. It seems odd to make that kind of exception in just this one case.
 * I simply think we should do whatever is best for the article, not necessarily what makes everybody happy. It's pretty clear where Orange and I stand and if you're on the fence Aleksey, perhaps we could ask another admin what they think. One of the problems I find with Wikipedia is that sometimes it goes a little overboard with consensus to the point that the article itself suffers. I would rather just be told I'm wrong than be appeased by some half-baked version. Of the four options you listed above, I would strongly prefer #1, with #3 being a distant second. Neither #2 nor 4 sit right with me.
 * Thanks again, Aquaman2 (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response Aqua. Utah in the summer was much hotter than I expected. :)
 * I had moved the health care things around as part of trying to put things that Debicella lead/co-sponsered at the top of the section and grouping together the things he just voted on at the bottom. Would you rather put in a break after the health insurance pool part, to separate it from the crime votes?
 * The updated language for the same-sex marriage vote is something that got lost in the diffs. Looking again, I thought the sentence was a bit choppy, so I reworded it a bit and restored it in the live version. Does what I wrote still express the emphasis you were looking for?
 * Finally, I don't think anyone would just say that you are straight-up wrong about the quote, Aqua, because I don't think you are. Your arguments for including it make sense. Honestly, I think we could have a fine article with or without it. That said, I would personally go with an option 3 style treatment. Since you said above that the controversy was more to do with a perceived attitude than with specifically what he said, I think that we can portray that without reproducing the quote and simply providing a citation link. In the end though, I think that the best thing for the article is to reach a consensus in the hopes of not repeating this process a third time, but you are right that that isn't always possible. I still think we can reach a good solution here, but if you think it would help, we can certainly see what other people think. Since getting a forth opinion through third opinion is a bit outside their process, we could list a request for comment. Let me know what you think. AlekseyFy (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would rather see all of the health care stuff together, in order of how much of a role Debicella played. I think we need to decide either to order paragraphs by issue or by amount of involvement on Debicella's part. I would strongly prefer the former just for the sake of readability, but certainly am fine with re-organizing within each paragraph based on involvement.
 * I'm fine with your re-wording of the same-sex marriage bill language.
 * I think the "equal pay for women" bill is more of an Economic/Business vote. I see what you're saying in that it's also a social issue to some extent, but I think moreso it's an economic issue, kind of like healthcare which we decided was more Quality of Life than Economic. But if it stays under Social issues, I think it should go below the same-sex marriage bill since co-sponsorship is less notable than introducing amendments.
 * I think a request for comment on the quote issue may be a good idea. While I think option #3 as you outlined above isn't a terrible option, and I could live with it if that's the final result, I do still think it makes more sense to keep the quote in. I just think it's odd to talk about a controversy surrounding a comment and not include the comment. If we get another opinion from someone who has absolutely no interest in the subject of the article and they think the quote should be omitted then I will abide by that. My feeling is there wouldn't be much of an issue with including the quote if Orangeman2 weren't so vehemently against it, but perhaps I'm wrong. Aquaman2 (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the CGA source for the equal pay bill does not list Debicella as a co-sponsor, and I've never heard of the "Valley Inquirer", which appears to be someone's personal blog. Is that an article copied from a reputable source? Aquaman2 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with Option #3 as well. I would say we just go with that and call it a day. I think we are consensus on everything else. (FYI-- Valley Inquirer is an online newspaper, and a reputable source). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What does "online newspaper" even mean? Reputable according to whom? It certainly looks like a blog to me... I think that vote should be taken out unless we find a better source, especially since the CGA record that is linked to does not include Debicella on the list of cosponsors. I still don't see why the quote itself should not be included in the paragraph, other than to guard against the senator being cast in a negative light. I see it as being a core element of the controversy and think requests for an outside comment or two may be the most prudent course of action. Aquaman2 (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How much longer would you like to let the RfC run? AlekseyFy (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of a quote
Referring to the following passage in the current version of the article:

Debicella was one of three State Senators to vote against requiring health care facilities to provide emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault.[41] 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."[42] 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."[43]

Should the quote "On the rape bill all I voted against was a bill allowing morning-after contraception to be issued to victims" be included and how should it be treated? Discussion has arrived at 4 possible ways forward:


 * 1) Leave the passage as above.
 * 2) Keep a passage similar to above, but explicitly clarify that the quote is not factually correct, since the vote was about requiring, not allowing, emergency contraception.
 * 3) Keep a passage similar to above, but remove the quote and mention that Debicella's position and comments were contentious with a citation link to a source that reproduces the quote.
 * 4) Shorten the entire passage to one or two sentences, without the quote.

Which is the most appropriate choice? AlekseyFy (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

--

AlekseyFy-- Given that a month has passed without comment, I would ask that you just rule on this one and we all abide by it. My opinion is clear (preference for #4, but #3 original compromise language is also acceptable). But I accept whatever your decision is so we can be done editing this article until someone starts another edit war.

It is a shame that no one answered...it is a large discussion to wade through. In that case, is option 3 fine with you still, Aqua. If so, I'll make the change and we can consider this finished. AlekseyFy (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Barring further comment, you should just go ahead and make the choice you feel is right. I am sure Aquaman and I will both stand by your judgment. Thanks again for mediating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)