Talk:Gerry Connolly

pre-congress/Islamic Saudi Academy controversy

Should be a mention of his prominent role in the Islamic Saudi Academy controversy, where he apparently managed to diss and piss off the protestors in a major way, before rather weakly and feebly declaring that the board was throwing everything into the lap of the State Department (see [1], [2] etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It could be a part of the article; wikipedia is a collaborative resource! Please responsibly insert your edits as appropriate, and try not to "diss and piss" if you can help it. In the event you'd actually consider using the Campus Watch/Middle East Forum think tank files that you hyperlink above as a WP:RS with any modicum of credibility you might find the articles on Daniel Pipes and his father Richard Pipes an interesting fantasy. Personally, I got a kick out of this little section here - Daniel_Pipes#Arab-Israeli_conflict [3] Here's a bit of Pipes' world view - "there can be either an Israel or a Palestine, but not both... to those who ask why the Palestinians must be deprived of a state, the answer is simple: grant them one and you set in motion a chain of events that will lead either to its extinction or the extinction of Israel." -- 22:26, 18 June 2010 User:Critical Chris

This is really not the place to debate Daniel Pipes' general political views. I'm sure that there is something to be said on both sides of the Academy affair, but overall it does not seem to have added up to one of the finer moments in local government in the United States of America -- and Mr. Connolly's apparent consistent strategy throughout of refusing to consider the merits of the issue or to examine any facts does not seem to have done anything to calm the situation or resolve any issues in an amicable or timely manner. AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Your seeding of a Daniel Pipes&Co. Campus Watch piece into Connolly's talk page, can be perceived by many to suggest its use as a credible source for an edit into the body of this article. Its inclusion by anyone in this article without proper attribution and without a balanced counter source is arguably biased POV...much as Pipes is unequivocally biased on the issue. It'd behoove the article for an editor wishing to include this topic in this article to first gather some less fringe sources on the issue. CriticalChris 02:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude, the two article links I provided in my original posting are actually "reprints" from external sources ("WTOP Radio" and the "New English Review" website) -- as would have become obvious if you had subjected them to the slightest degree of calm scrutiny (as opposed to working yourself into a hysterical frenzy over an alleged connection with Daniel Pipes which must be rather indirect and tangential at best). The second link also has abundant further links, some to mainstream sources like the "Washington Post". No matter how hard you try, you can't make Daniel Pipes the main issue here, because he's not. Furthermore, your assertion in your edit summary of "22:26, 18 June 2010" that I'm an alleged "Daniel Pipes devotee"[sic] was quite unwarranted based on the evidence available to you, and is factually incorrect. I was impressed by the depth of his knowledge about a few specific subjects around five years ago (one of his remarks pointed me to the work قاعدة في زيارة بيت المقدس, which helped me improve a Wikipedia article) -- but he also said some extraordinarily silly and stupid things about the 2008 presidential election; I was never really a regular visitor to his personal website, and I haven't gone there at all for well over a year now. I'm sorry that I don't fall into the convenient stereotyped pigeonhole where you wish to place me, but life is complex sometimes, and most people learn to deal with it.

Meanwhile, the reason why I haven't added anything to this article about the Academy affair has nothing to do with whether Daniel Pipes is a reliable source or not, but with the fact what's immediately available are somewhat scattered sources, which make a number of specific points clear, but don't really provide an overall narrative of the whole course of events. If I actually lived in the area (as opposed to over a thousand miles away), and had been following along from the beginning as it happened, then I would have added something to this article long ago... AnonMoos (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Dude," (if you like to throw that around in whatever circles you hang in). the New English Review piece reprinted in Pipes' Campus Watch is no less fringe of a source, in my opinion, than Campus Watch itself. Consider some of the work of its principal editor Theodore Dalrymple a.k.a Anthony Daniels who believes Islam is attractive to young westernized Muslim men for the opportunity it gives them to dominate women. Other New English Review editors include Ibn Warraq whose work University of Chicago professor Fred Donner characterizes as "anti-islamic polemic" . It seems there are also some prominent cross connections between the editorial board of New English Review and the Jihad Watch organization headed by Robert Spencer who UNC Chapel Hill Religious Studies Professor Carl W. Ernst called an "Islamophobe" who supports preconceived notions through selection bias. By the way, it's not sub links to the Washington Post articles to which I would object, rather it's the allusion without attribution to fringe sources that could be problematic. CriticalChris 03:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I used the word "Dude" because your remarks have all been rather pointless and irrelevant, since they have far more to do with to your personal Pavlovian salivating reaction to any tangential mention of Daniel Pipes (or Campus Watch) than with improvement of the Gerry Connolly article (which is the actual intended purpose of this discussion page). And of course, I never even mentioned Daniel Pipes at all in my original remarks, which were the object of your violent antipathy, but only posted some links which are extremely unlikely to have anything more than the most tenuous and indirect connection to Daniel Pipes (despite your constant efforts to obtrude him as the main topic of debate here). If the local Virginian newspapers have archived all their content in online-searchable form, and I was willing to expend a lot of effort to dig it all up and piece it together into a semi-coherent narrative, then I bet I could support everything I've said about the Saudi Academy affair on this talk page with sources which would pass your knee-jerk ideological purity litmus test. However, the work that would be involved outweighs my semi-tepid interest in the matter... Meanwhile, though Daniel Pipes is far from being my all-round favorite commentator, I would place his insightfulness (not to mention basic honesty) far above that of Juan Cole. AnonMoos (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So much for WP:civility; I'm done wasting my time with you or having any hope of working with you in a collaborative editing process. Make your edits to the article as you see appropriate within Wikipedia guidelines on credible sources. CriticalChris 02:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Too bad for you that you have absolutely no interest whatsoever in improving the Gerry Connolly article (which is the actual intended purpose of this page), but only want to natter on about your obsessive fixation with Daniel Pipes. I bet that you arrived at this page by going to Special:LinkSearch and putting "campus-watch" in the search box (or by an equivalent method), in which case I would regard your actions here as being at a level only one relatively small step removed from trolling, frankly. AnonMoos (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You can (make an) ASSume, and "bet" all you want on loser conspiracy theory horses! I take interest in this article because of your suggestion of including material on what you call the "Islamic Saudi Academy controvery." My discussions have centered around my counter-research to discredit the sources you implore other editors to include in this article. I also happen to have been born, raised, and educated in what is now Virginia's 11th congressional district. I happen to know Frank Wolf from my old church congregation down the road, have fished for largemouth on August mornings in a past life at his old farm pond and have no obsessive fixation on Pipes, or any of his neo-conservative brethren for that matter. Take a look at my contribution history and you won't find much on him, or anything campus-watch related. And please don't label me as a 'troll, that's totally unwarranted. I will admit my sentiments though that apparent fans of Campus Watch such as yourself (why else would you beg for inclusion of campus watch sources here) are one small step removed from being islamophobes frankly. It's editors like you that now inspire me want to get more involved in writing more encyclopedic articles on such topics as Pipes and Campus Watch, lest your systemic bias narrow the debate and drown out more credible and rational voices. CriticalChris 22:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, I never made the slightest suggestion that Campus-watch.org URLs be included in this article. Since Campus-watch.org is a "reprint" site, if I had edited the article (as opposed to this talk page), at a minimum I would have gone beyond the reprints to the original source articles. But in fact, I have already explained in detail above that I am not really satisfied with what I originally linked to -- not because of any concerns over reliability, but because they don't really add up to a coherent narrative. If they had added up to a coherent narrative, then I would have edited the article itself in the first place (rather than this talk page). Second, being suspicious of activities conducted under the aegis of the Saudi government is not necessarily "Islamophobic", because unfortunately the Saudi government conducts a number of rather pernicious or dubious activities. Third, I am not a "devotee" of the Campus-watch.org site, nor do I conceive it to be one of my goals to add links to Campus-watch.org from Wikipedia articles. I visit the Campus Watch site on average about 2 to 3 times per year, one way or another (generally by following links rather than by intentionally setting out to visit the site), and scan through it, but it's not one of my constant hang-outs, nor do I endorse all material on the site. If I were to add any links to Wikipedia articles as a result of my sporadic browsing of the Campus Watch site, I would go beyond the "reprints" to the original source, if at all possible. And I don't see how I can be a Daniel Pipes "devotee" either, considering that to the best of my knowledge and memory I haven't read a single word written by Daniel Pipes for about two years now...

If you want to prove that you're motivated by improving the "Gerry Connolly" article, rather than by an obsessive fixation with Daniel Pipes, then you might start by finally discussing in some manner, way, shape, or form my original proposition -- namely, that it was not one of the finer moments in United States local government when Mr. Connolly first seemed to be rather dismissive of the idea that the opponents of the academy could have any legitimate concerns, and then (when it suddenly appeared that they might possibly have some legitimate concerns) disclaiming all responsibility or jurisdiction and throwing everything into the lap of the State Department; and that consequently it might be nice to add something about this to the article, if a somewhat reliable source could be found which placed this in context of an overall narrative... AnonMoos (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure if I started editing this article with the same enthusiasm as my edits to the Keith Fimian article, In addition to being accused of being a WP:SPU, I'd have more WP:COI allegations thrown my way by other editors here. Sometimes, it seems, living in an area so close to ground zero for the intelligence-industrial complex, or just living in this brave new republic, it's hard to stay out of the line of fire of bullshit conspiracy theories that it seems many editors have here. CriticalChris 15:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you kind of hate your life right now, then you have minor degree of muted remote sympathy from me, but I'm not entirely sure how that's relevant to the current discussion or improving the "Gerry Connolly" article... AnonMoos (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

References

congress

I'll be working on the Gerry Connolly article over the next couple weeks adding more information to it (contrast how sparse his article, as an actual House of Representatives member, is as opposed to his current congressional opponent. I welcome debate on the additions I will make as I'll try to have them abide by Wiki's rules as well as the line of thought in the edits of other Virginia political figures. I added a healthcare section because of the majority of his 'congressional' section is dominated by it and in general needs to be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.224.99 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Health Care

The following was added to Gerry Connolly#Health_care by an anonymous user [4]. I am moving it to it's appropriate home over here. Arbor832466 (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check the actual report and the CBO report. The conclusions are oversimplified here. Just because USA Today says something, that doesn't make it accurate.

Connolly's Fiscal Voting Record

It has been brought to my attention that, after a long and laborious research process in which I carefully investigated Congressman Connolly's voting record for the purposes of contributing substantively to his Wikipedia page, the changes I made to the "Economics" subsection were removed by user Arbor832466 in less than 24 hours for being "POV."

I strongly object to this characterization of the edits I made. Before my edits, that section read as follows:

"Connolly voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.[3] However, he has repeatedly voted against other large spending bills, including opposing the release of $350 billion in bank bailout funds[4] and a $154 billion spending bill[5] because of concerns they would add to the federal deficit.[6]

He was a cosponsor of pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget legislation that was signed into law in February 2010.[7]"

This wording is not only heavily slanted but inaccurate. As I demonstrated for Arbor832466 by turning her 4 citations into 17, Congressman Connolly's record of "repeatedly vot[ing] against other large spending bills" is a mis-characterization of his voting record that demonstrates either ignorance of his record or willful deception. I responded to Arbor832466's misconstruction of Congressman Connolly's record by including several citations to his voting record (in one instance, a string of 6) demonstrating that the supposed facts of the section were inaccurate.

After my edits, the section read as follows:

"As of December, 2010, Connolly has a score of "F" from the National Taxpayers Union[3] and a lifetime score of 3% from Citizens Against Government Waste.[4] Connolly has voted for the $900 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009[5], the $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009[6], the $106 billion supplemental appropriations bill that established Cash for Clunkers[7], and the $2 billion Cash for Clunkers Extension.[8] Additionally, he voted for all of the 2010 governmental appropriations bills,[9][10][11][12][13][14] and he voted for the Continuing Appropriations Act for 2011.[15] However, he has voted against some large spending bills, including opposing the release of $350 billion in bank bailout funds[16] and a $154 billion spending bill[17] because of concerns these would add to the federal deficit.[18]

He was a cosponsor of pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget legislation that was signed into law in February 2010.[19]"

Being that the Congressman was just only reelected for his second term, all of these votes are fair game and none have yet aged to the point of mootness. Furthermore, I retained Arbor832466's contribution because it demonstrates that the Congressman has, in fact, voted in favor of fiscal responsibility on more than one occasion. The purpose of my contribution was not to libel the Congressman, but to create a more accurate, well-rounded portrayal of his voting record. In comparing the initial language ("he has repeatedly voted against other large spending bills...because of concerns they would add to the federal deficit") to my revised language ("However, he has voted against some large spending bills... because of concerns that these would add to the federal deficit"), it becomes clear that it is Arbor832466's depiction of the Congressman's record that is "POV." Two votes against spending bills does not establish a pattern or habit of "repeatedly" voting against spending bills.

If Arbor832466 has a problem with the Congressman's voting record, she should call him up and complain instead of trying to suppress it. Alternatively, she may respond to my heavy use of facts and authority with her own use of facts and authority and let the reader draw his or her own conclusions.

I will be restoring the edits I made, but I do not wish to get into an edit war. If Arbor832466 has a problem with my refusal to stand for her partisan-driven censorship, she should feel free to escalate this to a Wikipedia Administrator as soon as possible. If she removes my contribution again, I will do so myself. --BillJLipsky (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the section could use some work, but leading it off with two negative rankings from conservative think tanks isn't appropriate either, just as we wouldn't lead a pro-life member's policy section with "Rep. Jones has received a score of "F" from Planned Parenthood and has a lifetime score of 3% from NARAL." Your arguments above framing certain votes as "in favor of fiscal responsibility" also show clear bias. It's not up to you, me, or any other editor to decide what is "fiscally responsible." That's just partisan posturing.

I also strongly object to the above user's characterization that I am "trying to suppress" Congressman Connolly's voting record. Let's keep this about the content and not attack one another, ok?

For the time being, I am going to move the ratings from partisan orgs (NTU and Citizens Against Government Waste, no matter how neutral-sounding their names are certainly partisan political organizations) to the bottom of the section, although I maintain that they should be removed entirely. Additionally, I would welcome having another editor take a look at this section -- I can't imagine any NPOV editor would see the recent additions as "balanced." Arbor832466 (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the structural revisions you made are sound and logical, and I won't contest any of them. The organization makes far more sense this way. Though, I'm not sure it is appropriate to retain the numerical costs in your contributions when you say that the numbers from mine are inappropriate. However, I will not engage in retaliatory editing to fulfill some misplaced sense of fairness. For the moment, I will leave the section as it is, and I defer to you or any other editors to remove those numbers if you or they believe it is prudent.

Additionally, you are right that this process should be content-based and not personal (if you'll allow me, I'm going to attribute this to my lack of editorial experience on the site...); therefore, I apologize for the personal attacks.

I do disagree, though, with your characterization of of NTU and CAGW as "partisan". the fact that they lobby for fiscally conservative policy does not necessarily render them beholden to either political party. I maintain that the scores should remain, but I welcome any scores that you find from other interest groups to create a more accurate, eclectic depiction of the Congressman's voting record. --BillJLipsky (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I also added in the word "the" before "supplemental appropriations" and deleted a space that was left over from the editing process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillJLipsky (talk • contribs) 22:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Guns

Hello, Arbor8! It's wonderful to see you again! I see you changed your name. I like it! Much simpler.

I'd like to talk to you about the edits you made to the section I recently created entitled "Gun Rights."

First, I'd like to begin by addressing your take on the name of the section as I created it. Every time I have seen firearms discussed in the public sphere, I have heard the issue addressed as "Gun Rights". You took issue with the naming construction because, in your words, "guns don't have rights." Indeed, that's a good point and I completely agree with it. I merely named it according to how I had heard the topic addressed. Recently, you reversed an edit that somebody made to the "Gay Rights" section (which I created and named, by the way) in which someone renamed it "Gay Issues". Your reason for the reversal was that "'gay rights' is pretty standard terminology." I would contend that "Gun Rights" is also pretty standard terminology. Even so, I am also willing to admit that it may have a potential slant to it. I don't really like the title "Guns", because it's not guns that are being discussed, but rather gun laws. So, I propose renaming the section "Gun Laws" or "Firearm Laws". What do you think?

But that was mere nitpicking. Now, I have some more substantive things I would like to address.

First, I take issue with your recharacterization of the "Gun Show Loophole." I don't know how much you know about the aim of the law, but I have done great research into it and I am sorry to say that I believe your explanation that it "requir[es] weapons vendors at gun shows to adhere to the same background check and reporting requirements as traditional firearms dealers" is simply incorrect. Registered vendors at gun shows are already engaging in the Federal Background checks process (and in some States they even do a second background check using State databases). The purpose of the Federal law was to tap private transactions that were happening away from gun tables in States that don't require gun registration, because in those States once a person buys a firearm, undergoing a background check and all, he is then free to turn around and sell it to the guy standing behind him, who did not have to undergo a background check. It is this conduct that "Gun Show Loophole" legislation is aimed at curbing. Keeping that goal in mind, I have changed the language to read "by requiring that private sellers of firearms at gun shows engage in the same background check and reporting requirements as registered firearms dealers." This language better reflects the legislative intent.

My second issue is with your explanation of the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act. You explained the bill as "exempt[ing] non-residents of states that prohibit concealed weapons from those restrictions." I believe this explanation is somewhat slanted and doesn't really go toward the purpose of the bill, which is to allow individuals with valid concealed carry permits to carry their weapons across state lines. Stated differently and more directly, the bill would require states to honor the concealed carry permits issued in other states. Your wording conjures images of a federal law that creates a legislative loophole in state laws. Perhaps I am nitpicking a bit (as you noticed, I didn't even edit the section. I wanted to discuss it first). Your explanation is adequate, but it seems like a loopedy-loop, negative-language way of explaining the purpose of the bill. I think an affirmative explanation like the one I listed above would be better for the section.

--BillJLipsky (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello there! "Gun laws" or "firearm laws" both sound fine to me. My thinking is that we should try to only use "rights" in reference to the people who have them. So, "gun-owner rights" would work, although I find it a bit clunky.

In regard to reciprocity, I see where you're coming from -- but I do think it's notable that the reciprocity law would supersede states' ability to universally prohibit concealed carry by requiring them to honor other states' permits within their own borders. Is there a way we can do both? Arbor8 (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gerry Connolly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706151706/http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/pro-choice-voter-guide/race/va-11.html to http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/pro-choice-voter-guide/race/va-11.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101103082230/http://waysandmeans.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=11185 to http://waysandmeans.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=11185
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101102041018/http://www.house.gov:80/inslee/SEEC/members.html to http://www.house.gov/inslee/SEEC/members.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120811022238/http://www.zimbio.com:80/Gerry+Connolly/articles/2/House+candidates+diverge+gay+issues+Va to http://www.zimbio.com/Gerry+Connolly/articles/2/House+candidates+diverge+gay+issues+Va
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150212191248/http://bluevirginia.us/showDiary.do?diaryId=4951 to http://bluevirginia.us/showDiary.do?diaryId=4951

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gerry Connolly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.house.gov/inslee/SEEC/members.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zimbio.com/Gerry+Connolly/articles/2/House+candidates+diverge+gay+issues+Va
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100407053723/http://www.aolnews.com/politics/article/rep-gerry-connolly-in-trouble-after-health-care-vote/19423395 to http://www.aolnews.com/politics/article/rep-gerry-connolly-in-trouble-after-health-care-vote/19423395
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211195320/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-VA-11 to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-VA-11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gerry Connolly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522104201/http://www.fcnp.com/410/nn.htm to http://www.fcnp.com/410/nn.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928150013/http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=320400&paper=61&cat=104 to http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=320400&paper=61&cat=104
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928150047/http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=320638&paper=63&cat=104 to http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=320638&paper=63&cat=104

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)