This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Coretheapple recently made a revision on April 21 with the comment "removing wordiness, unnecessary and repetitious details and changes that were unconstructive or just plain strange."
What was not explained by Coretheapple, is that this "revision" was in reality wholesale reverts of my previous 19 edits, most of which were based on correcting or providing critical information based on citations already included in the article. This revert completely ignored and contradicted my clear explanations in the History edit comments for these 19 edits.
It reverted a previously agreed update with another user that was highlighted in previous History edit comments and ignored a previous Talk discussion that they were engaged in.
A general comment like "removing wordiness, and unnecessary and repetitious details" was inaccurate, at best. It was simply wholesale reverts of my 19 edits with relevant facts based on citations and some copy editing.
The reversions were so inconsiderate, that it got down to
Manually changing several "e-mail" back to "email", even though there have been several past edits by different editors that made sure that "e-mail" was being used consistently throughout the article.
Manually replacing an updated url, which displayed the cited article on one page, to the old url that only displayed the first page of the article, even though other editors have made similar url updates.
Manually reversing the order of placed citations, even though the displayed numbers for those citations were then shown in descending order rather than ascending order, as shown consistently throughout the article.
No one's editing is perfect or not subject to reasonable updates if compelling reasons are shown. All editors should welcome collaborative editing. I have engaged all the time in collaborative editing, which sometimes involves back and forth article editing with other editors (without any need to go to Talk) with our reasons shown in the History comments until we quickly reach a mutually agreed version.
Coretheapple previously indicated that widespread reverts (which is what Coretheapple did in this case) should not be made without addressing them in Talk.
Coretheapple needs to address in this Talk what they would like changed based on reasonable discussions. Until such time, Coretheapple's revision/revert is not acceptable.Wondering55 (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
In fact, many of Coretheapple's previous edits on April 20 involved copy editing, revising, or deleting content that I previously added. When Coretheapple provided reasonable explanations in the History edit comments for those individual edits that I found to be justifiable and that improved content and readability, I did not revise those changes. Hopefully, we can continue to work together. Wondering55 (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "unconstructive changes" is a very good header to describe the way you've mangled syntax, added unnecessary details, thrown away summary style and generally made a mess of the article. You're back to the talk page ranting. the ad hominems (have you ever heard a vague rumor that at Wikipedia we comment on the edit, not the editor?} You were just told at AN/I for the past week[1], by multiple editors, that you have to cut it out. So why don't you? Meanwhile I'll go back and spend the time necessary to reverse some of the worst damage that you've done. Coretheapple (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, let's be clear about process. When I engaged in this series of edits on 20 April[2] I wasn't reverting anybody and had no idea who was the mangler of the syntax that I unmangled. Your second post above makes clear your ownership of your original phraseology. Then, without going to the talk page, you just slapped on the revert. Coretheapple (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
We should focus on content to resolve outstanding issues, as per my original request.
It is very easy for Coretheapple to make unnecessary, denigrating comments about "mangled syntax", "thrown away summary style", "generally made a mess", "ranting", and "damage" and "you", "you", inaccurate accusations without ever addressing the requested content.
Coretheapple then ignored my request for talk to address the content, and individually revised again the cited content with their inaccurate History edit explanations. Coretheapple used History edit phrases like "fixing awkward phrasing", "too wordy", and "fixing for clarity" that in reality were simply reversion of my edits, which more accurately described the situations based on details from the cited sources, and put back inaccurate, incomplete, or unnecessary content.
As has happened so many times before, Coretheapple ignores requests to engage in constructive dialogue about content or clearer wording and ignores corrections to content based on citations. I am open to editing to make content more readable or more accurate.
My second post made it very clear that I am not involved with ownership, as I clearly stated: "No one's editing is perfect or not subject to reasonable updates if compelling reasons are shown. All editors [including myself] should welcome collaborative editing."
Let's be clear about the process. As noted above, I welcomed Coretheapple's edits of April 20 since they focused on specific items. I had no problems with their revising items that I or anyone else had added if their edits improved content and readability. I made this statement to show that I can work in a collaborative editing effort. Instead, Coretheapple puts a negative spin on my good faith perspectives and contributions.
The bottom line is that Coretheappple made an inappropriate edit on April 21 with the History edit comment "removing wordiness, unnecessary and repetitious details and changes that were unconstructive or just plain strange" that was in reality wholesale reverts of my previous 19 edits, most of which were based on correcting or providing critical information based on citations, past agreements & talk, previous edits, and incorrect formats.
Coretheapple is continuing to edit without addressing the cited content in Talk, as requested, that is in contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines, including Consensus, Etiquette, and Civility.
It is time for Coretheapple to address content issues without denigrating comments. Wondering55 (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
If you want to address the content and not the editor (which would be a change of pace for you, by the way), and cease the pontificating on process, that would be welcome. Coretheapple (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Again with the "you" inaccurate accusations and unrelated/unnecessary wikilinks and denigrating "pontificating" comments rather than just focusing on the content. I also simply responded to an inaccurate comment made about process. Can we just focus on content? Wondering55 (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Again with the "again with the"s. If you ever get around to addressing content and not contributors, operators are standing by. Coretheapple (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Getting back to content issues instead of snarky comments, as I have repeatedly requested, see various content issues in "Governor's report" below. Wondering55 (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
See "Any need for second citation for United States Ombudsman Association recommendations" below for another content issue. Wondering55 (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Star-Ledger editorial says "culture of retaliation"
Does this go into Christie's Responses (rebutting his April 24 pronouncement)? Or into (general) Reactions and Impacts? JackGavin (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I think it definitely belongs in Christie's responses. Don't you think so? It's a direct rebuttal to his response.Coretheapple (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
On March 18 (nine days before its release of the "internal investigation" report), Gibson Dunn donated $10,000 to the Republican Governors Association, reported by The Record.
Over the past several years, they have donated only to the RGA, not the DGA.
Once we get reports of reactions, this may deserve mention among criticisms of the report. JackGavin (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The statement below can be included in the "Reactions and impact" section now as a statement of fact based on the potential impact on their investigation. If reaction comments follow, we can also include them. Wondering55 (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
On March 18 (nine days before the release of its investigation report for the Governor's Office), Gibson Dunn gave $10,000 to the Republican Governors Association, which is currently headed by Christie. The firm's donations to the association for 2009 to 2012, when Christie was not its leader, was $55,000. They have not donated to the Democratic Governors Association in 2012, 2013, and 2014.
I would argue that it is not that notable, and maybe even bordering on original research. Cwobeel (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It is a statement of notable facts reported by a reliable newspaper in a front page headline about Gibson Dunn, which was producing an investigation report for Christie, donating to an organization, which was currently headed by Christie. It definitely is not original research. Wondering55 (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It is also just as notable, as the reported fact in the "Office of the Governor investigation" section that one of the lawyer's on the investigation team, that produced the report, is a close friend of Christie. Wondering55 (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not original research because The Record made the connection. The question is whether it is notable enough to belong in this article and I'm not sure. I'd like to hear other opinions. Coretheapple (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello? No other opinions? I think it's worth a sentence, as it has been widely reported. Coretheapple (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Y Article has been updated based on collaborative editing. Wondering55 (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Any need for second citation for United States Ombudsman Association recommendations
In "Christie's responses" section, a statement currently indicates that "A newspaper report noted that the United States Ombudsman Association recommends" why an independent ombudsman should be appointed outside of its jurisdiction, preferably by a legislature. It is shown since it is at variance with the way that Christie appointed an ombudsman that is noted. Even though there was only one citation for this item, the content was repeatedly changed to "Newspaper reports noted that......". It was revised back with the explanation that only one citation is needed.
Instead, another citation was added so that it could be revised again to "Newspaper reports noted that......" There were several problems with that older revision.
First and foremost, the second citation had the exact same quotes and exact same summary details from the ombudsman association's general recommendations, as per the original citation. It provided no additional value for this referenced statement. A second minor point is that the second citation is an editorial and not a newspaper report. Finally, no matter how many newspaper reports are cited, it is not going to change the association's general recommendations about an ombudsman. Unless there is some real need for a second citation about this undisputed and clear statement, a second citation is not needed. If anyone has questions or comments about why a second citation is needed, please advise. Wondering55 (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, first there are newspaper reports (plural) so it is not accurate to say "newspaper report" (singular). So please don't turn something accurate into something inaccurate, however much you may disapprove of the lack of originality of the Asbury Park Press. "Newspaper report" or "reports" in any event is not optimal phraseology and can probably just be taken out.
First, I originally edited/recommended the text as "The United States Ombudsman Association recommends" why an independent ombudsman should be appointed based on only one citation. For some reason, Coretheapple continually revised it to "Newspaper reports indicate that the United States Ombudsman Association recommends" based on only one citation, which made no reference to other newspaper reports. That is considered Original Research if there are no citations showing this fact, no matter how true it may be. I also explained in the History edit comments there was no need for a second citation about their recommendations. Secondly, most of the time a fact is reported in a Wikipedia article, along with newspaper report citation(s), without having to indicate "Newspaper report(s) indicated" since it is clear the info came from newspaper report(s). I also made that clear in the History edit comments.
YFinally, after all of the back and forth History editing and this talk discussion, Coretheapple updated the statement to read "The United States Ombudsman Association recommends" based on only one citation as per my original edit and recommendation. These facts should end this part of the talk. Wondering55 (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Another thing that can be taken out is the explicit reference in the "Office of Governor investigation" section to this being a "10-week investigation." That is not necessary for three reasons. First of all, we have when the "probe" began in the preceding paragraph. More importantly, its bona fides as an "investigation" are in dispute, both by critics and by New Jersey public opinion, as we have noted. Therefore, for us to say in Wikipedia's voice that this was a "10-week investigation" would be POV in addition to being unnecessary. We have pretty much thrown WP:SUMMARY out the window in this article, but I think in this instance we need to not include such details. Also, this is not a newspaper and we have far too much newspaper style in this article. We do not have to, and should not, replicate everything newspapers say, in their style, especially in close paraphrases. No, actually make that four reasons. The fourth is that it is just stupid to say that. What else could the report have been based on?
Lastly, as a courtesy to other editors, could you please use briefer section headers in starting talk page discussions? You seem to be a stickler for the most esoteric kind of stuff, such as ref name style points that you make up, but don't use common sense in stuff like talk page section headers. Ordinarily they are just a few words, not thirteen. Thanks in advance. Coretheapple (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Y See "Governor's report" discussion for addressing the Governor's report issues raised by Coretheapple. Wondering55 (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion unrelated to article content
Governor's report
The article is structured backwards. First we describe what the Mastro report says. Then, several inches down, under the "legal representation" section, we say that Mastro was appointed and what he's supposed to do! That's screwy. I'm going to have to untangle that. I think I did so a while back but it got reverted somehow. Coretheapple (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree with the paragraph that you relocated from "Legal representation" to Governor's report section. I also relocated a relevant item about requested interviews with key figures, who declined to be interviewed, in February 2014. Wondering55 (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Highlighted issues below should be addressed, if required.
Describing the Mastro report only once as an "investigation report" in the "Office of the Governor report" is not POV. So many cited sources in article call it an "investigation report" or a report based on an investigation. There is a debate about whether the report was biased or incomplete and critics have commented on the extent of the investigation, as noted in the article, but there is no doubt there was an investigation (based on reliable sources). To say it is not an investigation report, would be POV and contradict known facts based on reliable sources. In fact, the "Office of the Governor report" is in the "Investigation" section. To say the report was not based on an investigation, while including it in the Investigation section would not make sense. Leave the one minor reference to "investigation report". It is subsequently described only as "report", and questions by critics about its credibility and purpose are noted in the article. The Lede also describes it once as an "investigation report" based on reliable sources. If anyone has any comments on why it should not be called an "investigation report", as noted, please advise. Wondering55 (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Wisniewski indicated that April 11 deadline for submittal of interview records also included an immediate threat of a subpoena. Wisniewski did not just give a deadline date without this threat. Wisniewski asked for interview records & not "interview notes". Interview records were "part of the basis" and not "the basis" of the report. Reliable sources indicated notes were turned over April 14 to NJ committee, U.S. Attorney's office, & released to public. The reliable sources did not just state that the notes were released to the public, based on the assumption that every reader would figure out that the interview notes were also available to the US Attorney's office and the committee. Readers may also not realize that U.S. Attorney was even involved in getting this information. This article should not make such simple assumptions either. If anyone has any questions or comments about the current article statement below, please advise.
After Wisniewski gave a deadline of April 11 for providing the interview records, which were part of the basis for the report, or they would be subpoenaed, Gibson Dunn turned over on that date a list of 75 persons interviewed for the report. On April 14, the interview notes were turned over to the committee and U.S. Attorney's office, and publicly released.
Y No further comments or edits have been made to the above statement. Wondering55 (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
In the first paragraph we already describe that the firm was called in to engage in or "assist in" the inquiry, so there is no need to call it an investigative report. The "law firm's report" is more neutral and less POV. We don't have to adopt newspaper language, assuming it has been used in this case, and the same goes use of the POV word "revealed" elsewhere in the article, if we can use a less charged term. In fact, though the Record used "revealed" in the article you cite, it was not used in as sweeping a fashion as it is used in our text, and we should use a more neutral term. In fact, the word "revealed" is used multiple times and excessively in this article and that needs to be addressed. Lastly, the Bristol Myers Squibb connection to Seton Hall was noted by both the Record and the Philadelphia Inquirer in their coverage of the ombudsman hiring, which is more than sufficient to include in the article regardless of your personal opinion of the connection. Coretheapple (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Instead of waiting for any reply, content was simply reverted back to Coretheapple's suggestions about the use of "report" instead of "investigation report", even though no one had responded to their comments.
The noted duration of Gibson Dunn's "investigation", which also had a cited source, was then repeatedly deleted. The latest History edit comments indicated the reason was that "preceding paragraf indicated starting date of probe".
There is nothing in the first paragraph of this section that indicates when the investigation started. It provides an announcement date when they were hired, several of the tasks that they were hired for, and the date when their contract became official. When a company is hired and when they start their work can be completely different time frames. The word "investigation" can be used since it has been used so frequently in widespread reporting, including many citations in this article that show Gibson Dunn conducted an investigation. That is not a POV. The current statement is noted below and is supported by a referenced citation. If anyone has any questions or comments, please advise. I will respond to comments when I can. Wondering55 (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The law firm's report was based on their 10-week investigation.
Y In the "Christie's responses" section, the original article statement about Bristol Myers Squibb connection to Seton Hall, which had nothing to do with Bridgegate, was based on one citation from The Record, which did not show any details on how Christie's actions in 2005 regarding that matter were related to his appointment of Hobbs as ombudsman. There was simply not sufficient info for inclusion in the Bridgegate article. Based on Coretheapple's comments above, I found Corethepple added statements based on the addition of a citation from Philadelphia Inquirer, which provided significant coverage of the Bristol Myers event and how Hobbs was involved in defending Christie in the aftermath. This past relationship is relevant to the Bridgegate article. Subsequent to Coretheapple's comments, I updated those statements based on the Philadelphia Inquirer citation. No personal opinions. Just the facts. End of story. Wondering55 (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Another thing that can be taken out is the explicit reference in the "Office of Governor investigation" section to this being a "10-week investigation." That is not necessary for three reasons. First of all, we have when the "probe" began in the preceding paragraph. More importantly, its bona fides as an "investigation" are in dispute, both by critics and by New Jersey public opinion, as we have noted. Therefore, for us to say in Wikipedia's voice that this was a "10-week investigation" would be POV in addition to being unnecessary. We have pretty much thrown WP:SUMMARY out the window in this article, but I think in this instance we need to not include such details. Also, this is not a newspaper and we have far too much newspaper style in this article. We do not have to, and should not, replicate everything newspapers say, in their style, especially in close paraphrases. No, actually make that four reasons. The fourth is that it is just stupid to say that. What else could the report have been based on? Coretheapple (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
First, the initial paragraph does "not indicate" when the actual investigation began. It only indicates the dates it was announced that the firm was hired and when their contract was finalized. Frequently, companies don't start any work until there is a finalized contract. One cannot assume that their investigation started immediately after their announced hiring.
Second, Wikipedia articles describe items based on reliable source reporting and not what the public or critics think. Extensive reliable sources in this article describe it objectively as some type of investigation. Some may further describe it as a biased investigation, an incomplete investigation, an internal investigation, etc., but they describe it as an "investigation".
Third, based on the law firm's interviews with 75 people, review of 250,000 documents, and extensive footnoting of these sources in a report that had a lot of information that was not previously known, there is no question and no POV that there was an "investigation". The only POV is indicating that it was not an investigation.
Fourth, whether it was a reliable investigation has also been addressed in this article based on the opinions of critics, many of whom still use the word "investigation" when criticizing it, and the public.
Fifth, there is no violation of WP:Summary based on addition of seven words (i.e. "was based on their 10-week investigation") that provides a summary of reported details.
Sixth, the report could have been based on a lot of things. People/firms write reports all the time based on what they already know without doing any needed investigation, sort of like what was done for the supposed traffic study report for Bridgegate.
Seventh, none of the reporters and editors, who published all of these citations, and the firm's lawyers can be called stupid for extensively describing that this report was based on an "investigation".
Finally, Coretheapple should not have gone back into the article and delete the referenced statement about a 10-week investigation, prior to getting feedback from me and other editors, as I politely requested. Coretheapple should also not have indicated in their History edit comment that they made their change "per talk" since there was clearly no response or agreement with their above stated opinions.
It is getting time to move on and leave in the current article statement below. The facts and reliable sources, including the citation for this specific statement, support it.
The law firm's report was based on their 10-week investigation.
When a citation is assigned a reference name that also includes the date in a numerical format, it should follow a consistent format based on Wikipedia guidelines.
The numerical format should be yyyy-mm-dd. This is currently the preferred consistent format for citation reference names in this article.
It should avoid other numerical formats, (i.e. m-d, m-d-yy, m-d-yyyy, mm-dd-yyyy, yyyy-m-d, etc.).
If anyone has an alternate suggestion or comments, please advise. Wondering55 (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, my "alternate advice" is that you not clutter up the talk page of this article with this kind of pedantic trivia. What "Wikipedia guidelines" are you taking about? WP:REFNAME contains no such requirement. Given the density of the writing in this article, the style of reference names in the "ref name" field of citations strikes me as an absurdly low priority at this stage even if there was an actual style guideline on such things. If there isn't, then you are just wasting people's time again over absolutely nothing. Coretheapple (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I would not have to clutter up this page with "pedantic trivia" if Coretheapple simply heeded my repeated recommendations in the History edit comments to use yyyy-mm-dd format when dates are used in the citation reference name. This date format and the consistency for its use in the article text and citation details is in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Date formats. Coretheapple continues to use date formats, which are shown to be "unacceptable" based on that Wikipedia guideline. In fact, Coretheapple went so far as to revert an edit that corrected their wrong date formats back to their original wrong date formats.
Every other editor seems to now be following this date format advice in the citation reference name. It would be helpful if Coretheapple did the same for such a minor point, which never should have had to been raised in this talk, so that this article does not need to be extensively picked apart by many good Wikipedia editors, besides me, who are sticklers for this "pedantic trivia". Wondering55 (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
We don't need to use dates at all in the "ref name" field. In fact, for the sake of clarity, it may be more desirable to not do so. See WP:REFNAME. "The actual name used can be most anything, but it is recommended that it have a connection to the citation or note." That's it. Enough. No more talk page space wasted on this, please.Coretheapple (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
No one said that dates need to be used in the "ref name" field. When they are used, they should follow yyyy-mm-dd as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Date formats. In fact, the Refname guideline referenced by Coretheapple also encourages the use of dates as part of the ref name. Right now, there is only one editor out of the close to 200 editors for this article, that is arguing against, and doing the exact opposite, of this most simple and easily observed request. Wondering55 (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, enough. Please stop. You're talking about stuff that does not even appear visible to the reader. It is purely for internal Wikipedia use. The guidelines on ref names is clear, and people can and should use whatever name they desire to identify the citation, and any or no date format. We use talk pages to discuss the contents of the article, not utter rubbish like this, so I really do think it's imperative that you not do this again. Coretheapple (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
If Coretheapple would refrain from denigrating comments about my actions, that would be helpful. Every other editor seems to be following the suggested date format on this most minor of issues. It also would look good when presenting this article for Good Article status that even the hidden article items had a uniform presentation. There have been a lot of hidden article items that have been corrected many times by many previous editors without any objections. It just creates a lot of extra work for others if editors simply do their own thing. This article should be edited based on a collaborative effort. As they say, "You can lead a horse to water,...." Feel free to do your own thing. Others will have to decide if it is the right thing. I have tried to be proactive in my advice in History edit comments to make sure the article is well presented. It should never have had to reach this Talk discussion if there was cooperation. Wondering55 (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
You were just told by User: Imzadi1979 that even if the citations themselves, visible to the reader, were inconsistent it would have no impact on a GA review. Why are you putting things that you know are false in this talk page? Why are you continuing to waste everybody's time, being disruptive, and driving away editors with crazy article talk page rants about absolutely nothing? Coretheapple (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Once again, Coretheapple continues with false disruptive accusations and inappropriate denigrating and inaccurate comments ("driving editors away", "crazy article talk page rants", "about absolutely nothing") rather than focus on content. As Imzadi indicated, and which I encouraged: "The MOS would still say the article was sloppy and non-compliant [if inconsistent numerical date formatting was used in the citation reference names], but GAs only have a limited subset of the MOS required. I encourage editors to make an attempt at some consistency in [citation reference name's numerical date] formatting, because a Good Article (formal status) should still look like a good article (opinion)."
This unnecessary debate should be over. Coretheapple can do whatever they want. Hopefully, other editors will heed the advice of Imzadi, who is a well-known administrator that pays particular attention to formatting issues in articles, and use Wikipedia's acceptable date formatting of yyyy-mm-dd. Imzadi even came to this article in the past to make very good extensive changes to internal/external formatting of citations. Wondering55 (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Having an inconsistent style would be sloppy for citations visible to the reader. However, it has been pointed out to you repeatedly by Imzadi1979 and myself that ref name styles are irrelevant and meaningless. They can be all over the lot and it doesn't matter, it would not count against the article in a GA review or anything. Why do you keep saying things that you know are not true? You do realize that doing so is tendentious? Why do you keep commencing talk page topics about absolute rubbish? Coretheapple (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Coretheapple apparently does not understand what Imzadi clearly stated in the quoted item above that supports what I have been stating is true and is in contradiction to what they are stating. Imazadi has not stated that ref name style is irrelevant and meaningless. Citing Wikipedia guidelines, which do not apply, only weakens Coretheapple's position. Coretheapple continues with the inappropriate denigrating and inaccurate comments ("absolute rubbish"). It is time to end this debate. It is not adding any value to continue discussions. I am not stopping Coretheapple from doing what they want. Wondering55 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Just to make something clear, I am not an administrator, but I have written 22 Featured Articles and had over 200 listed as Good Articles (which includes all of my FAs). A "Good Article" (status) might be allowed to have inconsistent formatting, but that doesn't make it a "good article". GA is supposed to be relatively easy to achieve compared to a Featured Article, but easy to manage consistency just helps.
Look at County Road 595 (Marquette County, Michigan) to see how many times an article by John Pepin from The Mining Journal was used; trying to remember if I used 2014-04-26 or 04-26-2014 in the ref name to disambiguate one reference from another gets old. So on that point, Wondering55 has my moral support, but not to the point of edit warring. As for Coretheapple, sometimes it is easier to let someone else be "in charge" of those picky details so you can concentrate on curating the content. Just roll with it, and the article will turn out better. Imzadi 1979→ 00:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Sexist treatment of Bridget Kelly
I believe that the article should give a little more copy to the report's sexist treatment of Bridget Kelly. [3] Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandydancer (talk • contribs)
Sure, but I'd suggest that it might be helpful, while you're at it, to break up that particular section into subsections ("reaction" perhaps, etc.) for readability. Coretheapple (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that any significant additional copy is warranted beyond the two sentences already included in the article based on that NY Times citation, which is already in the article, and two other citations. There should not be any subsection about this secondary issue of sexism. Wondering55 (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I think a subsection on the reaction would be useful, and in that context a greater treatment of the sexism of the remarks may be warranted. Let's see how others feel. Coretheapple (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)"
Well, I added a few words. Coretheapple, why don't you break that section up--you've been working with this article a lot longer than I have. In closing, I strongly encourage watching this very funny Jon Stewart show section where he refers to the report's handling of the Bridget Kelly remarks. [4] :) Gandydancer (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I added a "reaction" section to break up the text. I think your addition was good, as it briefly included consequential stuff that has received a great deal of attention. Coretheapple (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Brevity Please
This is the worst case of not being to the point I have ever seen in a talk page. Get to the point and stop. I nearly delted the whole page but figured some one would just restore this non-sense. Sincerely172.56.11.195 (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, feel free to contribute to the article. You may want to register a user name too. All help is welcome. Coretheapple (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I found a nice quiet bridge to jump off after reading all this. Be careful of the cactus though on the way down. A picture is worth a thousand words. LOL Historic bridge over the Gila River172.56.11.195 (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Good post 172. Humor is always a good thing. Hmmm...I've been thinking, little did her parents know when they named their daughter "Bridget"... :) Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree, although I would suggest to 172 that he or she exercise a bit more restraint when it comes to posting this kind of thing on user talk pages (well-warranted as it may be). This talk page is definitely a shambles, but the article itself is pretty bad too: wordy and overly detailed. I'm hoping the exposure this article got on AN/I will bring new eyes to the page, so let's cross our fingers. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
A (edit conflict) I'm sure you are right Coretheapple, but I couldn't resist. One of the editors here has so many long drawn out posts that it is very difficult for new editors like myself to attempt to get a grasp of what's going on here. It is very hard for a new editor to break into an article and make intelligent posts, at least for me it is--and I am above average intelligence. 172's post was short and to the point, and IMO a good break from the business at hand. Gandydancer (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is a big problem. It was actually the subject of that topic on AN/I that I mentioned[5], ironically commenced by the editor who engages in such posts. It's a vicious circle, and disruptive. We used to have that same problem in Talk:BP as you may recall. I really hope you stay and 172, that goes for you too, whoever you are. Coretheapple (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh and Gandy, you mentioned earlier adding some stuff re the sexist concerns. Feel free to add. There is no need to post to the talk page before adding anyway. Coretheapple (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have put a lot of thought into that issue (I am a woman). In fact, since my earlier post I even read (groan) the gov's report to get my own take on what was said, and I'm not so sure that I entirely agree with the critical remarks I have read about the treatment of Kelly. I need to think about it some more. Gandydancer (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Sure, think about it and please be bold and add if you feel it requires more text. Editors here sometimes post stuff on the talk page in lieu of putting in the article directly. Same as at BP a few months ago. Not a good thing. Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, that Coretheapple feels the need to continually post unnecessary denigrating comments about my actions rather than objective comments about content and not thanking me for so many of the value added contributions to improve the accuracy of this article since its very beginning. Most editors work with me through back and forth editing of the article based on the facts and common sense, or heed advice based on Wikipedia guidelines without ever having to go to Talk discussions to resolve issues. Most editors agree with or heed the basics of my initially presented positions in Talk so that there is no need to present more extensive facts to validate what is being advocated, or we quickly come to a mutual agreement based their positions, or my positions, or some compromise positions based on quick back and forth discussions.
Welcome to Gandydancer. I look forward to working with you and thank you for your initial edits and issues that you have raised. I hope that you will consider me to be a fair listener to issues that you raise and a reasonable considerate editor. Since a Talk discussion has been opened up about what should be included in this article about sexist treatment of Kelly, without any clear resolution, it would be appreciated if you can elaborate in that talk on what you are contemplating after you have a chance to think about it. Wondering55 (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
@Gandydancer:, I was a little bewildered to see you refer to yourself as a new editor, since I've seen you around a good deal. Your statement was picked up by Coretheapple, who linked to it in the ANI thread as an example of newbies being scared off by this talkpage. I quite agree that anybody could be scared off by the many lengthy and repetitive posts here, but haven't you been editing since 2006? Bishonen | talk 14:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC).
I assume Gandydancer meant what I meant, which is new to the page, not new to the project. I felt the same way when I came to this page, and I wasn't a new (to the project) editor either. Coretheapple (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Bishonen, sorry about my misleading wording. I did not mean to suggest that I am new to WP, but merely new to this article. Yes, I've been here since 2006--long enough to have run into similar problems a few times. As often as not, there's no getting around it: It's really hard to break into an article that has been hotly contested for a long time, even if the talk page is, ahh, "WP guidelines approved". I can't speak for others, but for me, for one thing, it is that I don't want to sound stupid right off the bat, if you know what I mean? I try to go through the talk pages to provide myself with a baseline for my first post. When the talk page contains article-length posts, this is next to impossible.Gandydancer (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Well hopefully that's going to be much less of a problem going forward. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Web difficulties at NorthJersey.com (The Record)
I have noted some problems today at the website NorthJersey.com (The Record).
Their overall Bridgegate page, which had lacked recent updates to its timeline area, now is no longer at http://www.northjersey.com/news/governor_christie_nj_gwb.html (#1)
(that now gets redirected to some random letter to the editor, or to a 404 page).
Apparently they are doing some maintenance there, so be warned. We'll want to audit our links into NorthJersey.com when things settle down.
In the meantime, please postpone any edits based on "wacky cite does not support assertion", when NorthJersey.com is involved.JackGavin (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I noticed similar problems earlier today when I was using Firefox browser. However, when I just recently closed and reopened my Firefox, the problems went away. When I also just recently checked the URL's with Internet Explorer, there were no problems.
Thanks for the heads up on these problems. It's nice to know that things were not just going wacky on my end.
Check it out and let me know. I was also curious which browser you were using when you encountered these problems. Wondering55 (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not your browser, it's NorthJersey.com. I discovered the problem while in IE. Right now, none of the 3 URLs gives joy. #1 and #3 give 404, #2 is redirected to general news link http://www.northjersey.com/news/
I'll keep an eye on them. I posted on The Record's Talk page, so we may get some visitors bearing insight. JackGavin (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
NorthJersey.com appears to be back to normal. The old links (#1 to Bridgegate page now with improved timeline, and #2 to article) are now functioning. The apparently temporary link (#3) gives 404, but no matter. I have changed the cite URL from #3 back to #2 on our page. I will continue to monitor behavior of NorthJersey.com links. JackGavin (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
NorthJersey.com is (again, still) having problems. The overall Bridgegate page URL (#1) goes seemingly to the correct page, but it's just a shell. #2 is OK. The Ex-Blogger story URL gives 404. Still waiting for NorthJersey.com to settle down. JackGavin (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The overall Bridgegate link (#1) seems relatively OK now, no longer a shell. However, the timeline section seems to have some "missing" dates. Link #2 is (still) OK, but the Ex-Blogger URL still gives 404. JackGavin (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I have contacted NorthJersey.com, begging stability and restoration of "old" URLs. JackGavin (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Based on my follow-up with Northjersey.com, I updated the external link for their Bridgegate page to www.northjersey.com/gwb, which is their recommended shorthand version for the much longer link address. They have been in the process of moving all of their files and links to a new system. Older files, like the ex-blogger link will take a while longer to move over, probably within the next two weeks. Wondering55 (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The Ex-Blogger link (old, from 2012) still gives 404 (I'll keep my eye on it), but a quick spot-check of the newer links is satisfactory. JackGavin (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
You can get that article and probably any others that are gone at the Wayback Machine.[6] Not optimal, but better than nothing. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
That's an excellent interim solution. Thanks for updating the link in the article. JackGavin (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The interim solution for Ex-Blogger may remain the permanent solution, as that old direct link still gives 404. The other "classic" style links (eg #2) now forward to the corresponding new-fangled links (#3). We might wish to update our URLs to go directly to the new ones, eventually. The NorthJersey.com GWB page is still suffering from spotty updates. JackGavin (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The "page=all" qualifier on an old URL is lost when NorthJersey.com forwards it to a new URL. This is another reason to convert old URLS to new (with "page=all"). Ex-Blogger link still gives 404, so I'm resigned to the interim solution being permanent. JackGavin (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
John Degnan to succeed David Samson
Former NJ Atty General John J. Degnan, a Democrat, has been nominated by Christie to succeed David Samson as Chairman of the PA.
Procedurally, the New Jersey Senate would vote to place him on the PA Board of Commissioners, and then the Board itself would approve him as Chairman.
Republican members of the legislative joint special committee are feeling shut out of decision making, and are talking about withdrawing from the committee.
We'll see what develops. JackGavin (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
They remain unhappy, now asking for more Republican members and "equal access" to Reid Schar, as reported by the Star-Ledger. JackGavin (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Well you know, these kinds of little updates can just be added. We don't need to discuss them on the talk page first, necessarily. I guess the only thing that we need to do is to be brief. There's really a lot of condensing that needs to be done I believe. Coretheapple (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, often I do update the article based on news, without a post in Talk. When I post a news item in Talk without simultaneously updating the article, it could be for a variety of reasons, among them:
the news is not immediately essential, but here is heads-up that it might be expected to develop thus (eg DuHaime), and when it does, some background has been collected here, or
I'm genuinely unsure whether the news is worthy (this case), or
the news is worthy, but I'm unsure where within the article to position it (soliciting comment or a bold editor), or
the news is worthy, but I'm not immediately available to construct a quality insertion (implicitly inviting another to do so, which you have sometimes graciously done).
I do try to be succinct, and I support the ongoing effort to tighten the text. JackGavin (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Early media coverage section
I was wondering whether we really needed it. The article is long, and this stands out like a sore thumb in the middle of sections describing the substantive aspects of the scandal. Outside of media circles would it really matter? Also I have to say, it's really OR from top to bottom. Coretheapple (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
For better or worse, part of the story is the media handling of the story. It arguably almost did not see the light of day, so I think that the manner in which it first came to light is worthy of mention, but that is not to preclude editing this down some, or repositioning it within the article. The other aspect (which is actually more visible in the Timeline than in the section) is that it was a media inquiry by John Cichowski that triggered the re-opening and critical email by Foye, simultaneous with the first publication. The New York Times cite (from the Timeline) talks about the importance of Cichowski's coverage in the sequence of events, so I'm not sure what is OR here. JackGavin (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the first two paragraphs definitely are, as they are sourced to the articles themselves. If the articles are mentioned by others as being noteworthy, etc., it's another natter. Also it's framed narrowly, perhaps "media coverage," not just early, would be better, mentioning how the coverage itself has become part of the story. MSNBC's coverage, I'm pretty sure, has been noted by other media, as has its ratings boost. This would also help non-U.S. readers understand why it is such a big thing. Anyway, I would like to move it a bit lower in the article, which I assume would not be objectionable so I'll do that now. Feel free to revert if you think it belongs where it is now. Coretheapple (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
In fact, come to think of it, we really need to move "possible motives" higher in the article. It's way down at the bottom, totally out of place. Maybe I should swap? Coretheapple (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Moving both is fine with me. JackGavin (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah it seems more logical that way. Now the sections following the "possible motives" section are easier to understand, and the media is given less prominence. Coretheapple (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that section could use something like this about MSNBC[7], not necessarily on Maher (and Mediaite is questionable RS status) but along those lines. I'm quite sure there was an article in the Times on the coverage. Coretheapple (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that this will be an improvement. Say Core, I can't figure out what you mean when you say "it's really OR from top to bottom." It seems to me it's not OR on our part, which is the only one that matters...or perhaps I'm missing something? Gandydancer (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
That was a bit of hyperbole on my part. It was really the first two paragraphs that bothered me as they were sourced just to the articles themselves. But I see that Jack added a reference from the Times. Coretheapple (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Drewniak when?
The current last paragraph in the Special Committee section contains:
After a subpoena on April 29 calling Matt Mowers (former campaign staffer who reportedly asked Sokolich for an endorsement,
and who has been cooperating with the committee),[156] and some schedule adjustments, testimony was set for May 6 (Genovese Renna),
May 13 (Drewniak), May 20 (Mowers), and June 3 (Foye and Schuber).[158]
Drewniak was "expected to testify" on May 13 according to [158] the Record (Boburg) story of May 1 (updated May 2).
I suspect a simple typo by Isherwood, since May 16 is a Friday, and regular meetings of the committee (including the dates now in our text) are on Tuesdays. I could not find any committee press release or other definitive cite. I would not change the text unless/until we get something clearer. Just something to keep an eye on. JackGavin (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
YNever mind. The Wall Street Journal (Haddon) story on May 6 says "Tuesday", so I'm satisfied that the committee is not scheduling a stealth exceptional session on a Friday. JackGavin (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Michael DuHaime now on radar
Michael DuHaime, according to the report by Steve Kornacki on MSNBC based on Gibson Dunn memos, heard from David Wildstein that he (Wildstein) was "100% certain" that Bridget Kelly knew in advance about the lane closures, and he had emails to prove it. This conversation was shortly before Cristie's news conference on December 13 announcing that nobody in his office was involved. There is no evidence that DuHaime told Christie about this, but DuHaime was in a position to do so, as he was a top political advisor who was "constantly in contact" with Christie. DuHaime is connected to Stepien, Baroni, and Wildstein at least as far back as Bob Franks' 2000 campaign for US Senate. A legislative subpoena of DuHaime is anticipated. JackGavin (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Is his interview with Wisniewski online? He was about to ask W. if he was going to subpoena DuHaime. Otherwise, I think this would warrant a mention but it's a bit complex. I had trouble following it, to be quite frank about it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Wisniewski did not directly say whether DuHaime would be subpoenaed. That video is here. JackGavin (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't believe I've ever sourced something to a broadcast but I see no reason why it can't be used. Coretheapple (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
We have already cited into video in this article, where Heather Haddon stands by her story of Christie-Cuomo conversation:
<ref>{{cite web|title=Are the police involved in ‘bridgegate’?
|url=http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/are-the-police-involved-in-bridgegate-157543491772
|publisher=MSNBC|accessdate=February 24, 2014
|date=February 17, 2014}}(see 7:25 of video. other related discussions with Haddon start at 3:33 and 7:00 of video.)</ref>
which renders as
227. "Are the police involved in ‘bridgegate’?". MSNBC. February 17, 2014. Retrieved February 24, 2014.(see 7:25 of
video. other related discussions with Haddon start at 3:33 and 7:00 of video.)
Still, we might just rather wait until the subpoenas drop, and write up DuHaime once with a print-media report of that. JackGavin (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
That might be best. I'd wager that subpoenas are likely. The article at the moment is just a tad unwieldy, though I think that's as much a product of clunky writing as anything else. I just attempted to address that and was reverted. I hope we're not back to that again. Coretheapple (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The MSNBC reporting has been summarized by FireDogLake, but FireDogLake says "Christie knew" when that is not proven by DuHaime knowing. JackGavin (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not right. Is FDL considered an RS source? I'm not familiar with it. MSNBC certainly is, and in fact (and this is an odd twist from the usual pattern) is actually beating the print media on this story in many aspects. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
You know, come to think of it, FDL might be considered a "tertiary source," and thus not as usable as MSNBC. I think that what it has reported re DuHaime is certainly notable and I can't see anyone objecting to your inserting an appropriate reference to it in the article, or we can wait until the subpoenas come out. Coretheapple (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Based on "Christie knew" alone, I would not want to cite FDL in the article, but it's ok as background reading. I'll wait for subpoena news before putting DuHaime into article. Yes, MSNBC is often leading on Bridgegate and Hoboken. JackGavin (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The statement "So Christie knew about the traffic study well before he made his official denial according to one of his closest advisors" is somewhat true, although badly written, based on the MSNBC video. In the video (go to 6:30), Kornacki reported, from the Gibson Dunn interview notes, that DuHaime told Christie on or about December 11 that Wildstein told him that Stepien and Kelly knew about the plans for the traffic study before it was implemented. Yet, Christie held a press conference on December 13 in which he denied that any of his staff had any advance knowledge about this traffic study.
Based on the interview notes, Kornacki explains that DuHaime followed up with Wildstein, who told him there were e-mails that confirmed that Kelly knew about the traffic study plans in advance. DuHaime had multiple conversations with Christie, after DuHaime found out about these e-mails, on the day before and on the day of Christie's press conference. The notes do not indicate whether DuHaime told Christie about these Kelly e-mails. Kornacki said it would be hard to believe that DuHaime, who was closely and frequently advising Christie, would not have also mentioned this new information about the e-mails to Christie, particularly knowing that Christie was about to hold a Dec 13 press conference in which Christie would deny that his staff had any involvement or knowledge about the traffic study.
The actual interview notes for DuHaime and the Kornacki video interview can be considered as good reliable sources. Wondering55 (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
While I agree with the "hard to believe" sentiment, I'm not willing to state as fact "Christie knew of his office's involvement when he denied it on Dec. 13." unless and until we have something stronger than "it stands to reason that DuHaime told Christie." JackGavin (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that there doesn't seem to be enough sourcing to support making that statement in Wikipedia's voice. Coretheapple (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
A subpoena for DuHaime documents has been announced. Re-listening to the MSNBC report from April 19, I now note that Kornacki does quote Gibson Dunn memo saying DuHaime told Christie "on or about Dec. 11" that Wildstein and Kelly knew beforehand, ie, Christie was told before the Dec. 13 news conference in which he denied involvement by his office. (This means that FDL's assertion "Christie knew" has legs, after all.) I have updated the article in the legislative investigation section. JackGavin (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Timeline location
It's all the way at the bottom of the article, just above "See also." Shouldn't it be moved up, maybe to just beneath "Christie's responses"? The "legal representation of key people" graphic is higher up. Something seems out of whack here. Coretheapple (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Pulaski Skyway
I have reverted the deletion[8] of the material related to this probe. if there is an objection to its inclusion, please discuss here. One possibility would be to create a new article on this subject, or to move the content to Governorship of Chris Christie, keeping a short summary here. - Cwobeel(talk) 19:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This content is not related to this subject. In addition it is already referenced in the Governorship article.CFredkin (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, the sources seem to indicate that it is related. - Cwobeel(talk) 23:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
How is it related, specifically?CFredkin (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Read the sources. - Cwobeel(talk) 02:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I did. That's why I'm saying they aren't related.CFredkin (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The New York Times made that linkage in a front-page article. We can't ignore it here. Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The fact that the Times article on an investigation into Pulaski Highway funding mentions the Fort Lee Lance Closure investigation doesn't necessarily mean that the Pulaski Highway investigation should be mentioned in this article. You still haven't explained why it's relevant.CFredkin (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The Times made that connection at the very top of its page-one article[9]: "Investigations into the Christie administration and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have zeroed in on possible securities law violations stemming from a $1.8 billion road repair agreement in 2011, according to people briefed on the matter. While the inquiries were prompted by the apparently politically motivated lane closings at the George Washington Bridge last year, these investigations center on another crossing: the Pulaski Skyway..." Coretheapple (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe a parenthetical reference at the beginning of a sentence is sufficient to justify inclusion in and of itself. This article is already arguably too long, and this is probably the least relevant content currently included. I would argue that it should be omitted.CFredkin (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Well it's anything but parenthetical, though you're right that the article is too long. We can be comprehensive without excessive length, but at this point it's in proportion. Coretheapple (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Other Probes
Responding to the request at WP:ANRFC. While the question is whether this specific content should be included, based on the discussion it seems more useful to separate this into two separate issues: whether this material (information on the investigations of the Pulaski Skyway) should be included in the article, and if so how much WP:WEIGHT to give it. On the first point, there is a consensus that at least a summary of this material should be included in the article. Only one editor argues that it should be excluded completely, on the basis that the two investigations are unrelated, but this is unpersuasive given that (as pointed out) the connection is made in reliable sources. There is no consensus on the second point, since the editors who !voted "create a separate article and summarize here" are presumably not in favor of including the entire proposal.
For moving forward, I would recommend editing the article to include a summary for now - which one editor has already done, although of course, the exact content of the summary can be discussed further, as can whether more content should be included. (However, note that it is not correct to say "this is not a BLP, so we need consensus to remove the material, not the opposite." In general, a lack of consensus returns the article to the last undisputed version.) In the meantime, the extra material can be used in any other article where there is consensus to do so. Sunrise(talk) 01:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following content be included in this article?
Probes sparked by the lane closures are probing funding of the Pulaski Skyway
The lane-closure scandal also sparked inquiries by the Manhattan District Attorney's office and the U,S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC and Manhattan DA probes are focusing on the Pulaski Skyway, an elevated highway linking Newark and Jersey City. On June 23, 2014, The New York Times reported that the inquiries are focusing on possible securities law violations caused by Christie's use of Port Authority funds to pay for repairs to the Skyway in 2010 and 2011, using money that was to be used on a new Hudson River rail tunnel that Christie canceled in October 2010. The Times reported that use of the funds for the Skyway was opposed by Port Authority lawyers, and that investigators are focusing on possible mischaracterization of the Skyway project in Port Authority bond documents. Investigators are examining possible criminal violations of New York's Martin Act, as well as civil violations of the Act and federal securities laws. [1]
The Times reported that Jeffrey Chiesa, a close friend of Christie's and former New Jersey attorney general, was among the people who had been subpoenaed by the Manhattan District Attorney, but that he is not a target of the investigation. He was Christie's chief of staff when the bond documents were changed to include questionable language referring to the Skyway.[1]
Christie has expressed confidence that the SEC would find no wrongdoing in the financing of the Skyway project.[2]
Keep. The New York Times made the connection in its front page article[10]2nd Bridge Inquiry Said to Be Linked to Christie: "Investigations into the Christie administration and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have zeroed in on possible securities law violations stemming from a $1.8 billion road repair agreement in 2011, according to people briefed on the matter. While the inquiries were prompted by the apparently politically motivated lane closings at the George Washington Bridge last year..." The Star-Ledger[11] said: "This investigation was a spinoff of the ongoing George Washington Bridge probe." Given what multiple sources are saying, and the gravity of this probe, it is clearly worth a sub-section. Coretheapple (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Omit. This is a separate investigation and is not related to the Fort Lee Lane Closure (other than the fact that they started from the same inquiry). This article is already too long, and this content is already included at Governorship of Chris Christie. CFredkin (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep as a related controversy, per sources. Alternatively, create a new article just for this controversy and summarize here per WP:SUMMARY. Also, this is not a BLP, so we need consensus to remove the material, not the opposite. - Cwobeel(talk) 22:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Create a separate article and summarize here. Red Slash 02:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment- I think the question the comes to mind for me is about weight. It seems some of this is related so it would be worth a mention but how much mention?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am happy to be review this - it's been on the pile for a while.
I see two obvious problems.
The first is related to stability - since the GA nomination was created in April, there's been an RFC over content. In all fairness, I haven't spotted any blatantly continuous problematic edit warring, though reverts like theseones don't fill me with confidence that the article is stable. I see several major players in the article, including Coretheapple, JackGavin and Cwobeel, and I think they will all need to be aware the review is going on, as they will probably want to comment.
The second problem, peripherally related to the first, is that the article is just too long. 77K of prose really is on the outer limit of what a typical reader can digest in one sitting. I suspect what may have happened here is that editors had differing views as to what information to include, and consensus was to put in all of it. Perhaps for a broad and major topic such as Middle Ages or History of Ireland that span multiple centuries, that size is acceptable, but for an event like this, I'm not sure every single facet will be considered important in 10, 20, 50, 100 years' time? In particular, I think the entire "Timeline" section can simply go - Wikipedia isn't the place for a list of day by day events as they unfold. That really belongs in Wikisource, Wikinews or some other project, not in a general purpose encyclopedia.
Thanks very much for agreeing to take this on. I agree with you on the points below, especially length. The reason I nominated this originally was because I was concerned about the length and the writing; there was some problematic editing going on, as well as edit warring, but that has long since ceased. So while I understand your concern about stability, I think that the article is stable at this time and the editing atmosphere isn't bad. I think we can all work together to get this in shape, though my own participation will be limited as I will be flitting on and off wiki for the next few weeks. Coretheapple (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Lead
The lead is just too long. A complete outsider should be able to come to this article and in a few minutes have a good cursory understanding of the subject just from reading the lead. I would probably split things up into three paragraphs as follows, which should be enough:
Paragraph 1 - Basic definition of the scandal and its relationship with Christie
Paragraph 2 - Dates, source of the gridlock, related problems such as emergency service access
Paragraph 3 - Public reaction to Christie, staff resignations and a brief summary of how it affected his political career
"...is a U.S. political scandal" - suggest "was a political scandal in the United States". Regarding "is" vs "was", the aftermath of the scandal may be ongoing, but the traffic problems have gone (as best as can be expected under normal circumstances) and those responsible have either quit or been fired, so I think the main event is now over.
"...collaborated to create traffic jams in Fort Lee, New Jersey" - don't need "New Jersey" here, the earlier mention of Christie makes it clear what the context is
worth mentioning that the George Washington Bridge is the world's busiest bridge for motor vehicles in the opening paragraph, so a reader unfamiliar with NY will understand why it's vitally important to keep it running smoothly
"The resulting massive back-ups and gridlock on local streets" - don't need "massive"
"Several of Christie's appointees and aides either resigned or were forced out" - "forced out" sounds like an euphemism, wouldn't "fired" be simpler?
More later. This may take a few days to finish the review, but I'll go as quickly as circumstances allow. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the above, except that I think that "forced out" might be more precise than "fired." I'll have to check but I believe that was the dominant characterization in the sources. Coretheapple (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Background
"spread among three toll plazas" - do you really need three inline citations to verify this?
"for the past 30 years or longer" - the source says "about 30 years", so it's possible it could be 29.5 years, for example. I'd simply repeat what the source says, you can't plagiarise three words.
It is not obvious where the "highways" wikilink goes until you click on it. Per WP:EASTER, this should be changed or removed
"There are other Fort Lee street entrances, which do not have dedicated toll lanes, to the lower and upper levels of the bridge." - this sentence is unsourced
The article mentions the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, but does not explain what it is. This needs a simple definition before explaining its management and operational structure
Key people
As I suggested above, this section is problematic. In general, lists should be avoided and represented as prose wherever possible. The list also mixes up the timeframe, showing their role and subsequent aftermath. The manual of style criteria for embedded lists is one of the few guidelines that is enforced for good articles. The simplest solution, which would solve both this and the size issue would be to split this section (and, indeed, lists further down the article), would be to create a spinoff article, List of people involved in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, move the content here, and summarise it as prose in this article.
The image captions needed to be expanded to show their relevance. Just saying that Chris Christie is the NJ governor doesn't really mean much for this article - say something like "New Jersey governor Chris Christie denied any involvement with the scandal, but was widely criticised after being cleared of any charges"
Events
"During the week of August 4, 2013" - this date doesn't appear to be in the Tentonian source given
The second sentence in the first paragraph is too long and needs to be broken up into sections
"did not endorse Christie for re-election" .... "won re-election". To avoid repetition, could one of these "re-elections" be reworded?
"to the upper level of the GW Bridge" - just "the bridge" should suffice here
The second and third paragraphs can probably be combined
""urgent matter of public safety in Fort Lee" - this direct quotation does not appear in the next citation, which is this article in The Hill
"That email noted two specific incidents: a missing child (later found) and a cardiac arrest" - as we've already mentioned the cardiac arrest incident above, might it be worth moving the missing child incident above to fit with that and delete this?
" to Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich" - this is the first mention of Sokolich in the body, so should be linked here
"Radio silence. His name comes right after Mayor Fulop [of Jersey City]." - I don't understand what this means
"a Christie childhood friend" - "a childhood friend of Christie" sounds better
"Presently we have four very busy traffic lanes merging into only one toll booth" - this quotation does not appear to be in the New York Times source given, and elsewhere in the article I got the impression that only three lanes were used for traffic (and hence being merged into one)
"Also on Tuesday," - this paragraph can be merged with the preceding one, which makes this obsolete
"Sokolich wrote to Baroni" - this paragraph can be merged with the previous one.
Re-opening and immediate aftermath
"On Friday, September 13, 2013" - don't need "2013", we know what the context is from earlier sections
""how Christie loyalists inside the PA worked to orchestrate a cover-up after traffic mayhem" - is there any particular reason this quotation can't simply be re-paraphrased as prose?
"the GW Bridge problems" - suggest "the traffic problems", the bridge itself wasn't an issue per se
This paragraph seems to be a lot of "'x' said 'y', and emailed 'z' who said 'a,b,c'" - I think quite a bit of this can be cut down a bit without losing too much important information. The salient point is that the bridge was re-opened, foul play was suspected, and despite a cover-up, the truth leaked out. That's the key message this section should bring through, without necessarily focusing specifics of who said what where and when.
David Samson allegations
"In February 2014, Christie stood firmly behind his support of Samson as PA chairman" - I think we could remove this sentence without losing any important information. We can infer that he was being supported by Christie as he resigned rather than was pushed out.
"One widely held theory" - generally it's better to say who proposed the theory specifically, particularly in this case as it points fingers towards political scandals
"he was asked for an endorsement once, in the spring of 2013" - I can't seem to find the specific point in the sources given that prove this is correct, can you find it?
The second paragraph feels a bit like too much off-topic detail about Sokolich and Christie - I wonder if we could trim it down a bit.
The third paragraph (re: "tough November for this little Serbian") has already been mentioned earlier, so doesn't need to be repeated here
the "Radio silence" quotation has already been mentioned earlier
Investigations
This citation at the end of the first paragraph is a dead link (tagged as such).
Having got to this point, I started going through the individual accounts through January and February, and I think I'm going to have to conclude that there is too much work to do at this time to the article in the short term to get it to GA status. The lists definitely need to go, and the remainder of the prose needs to be worked down and summarised. The key issues I think come down to WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, which cause the article to be unfocused - and that unfortunately is a deal-breaker for GAs. Looking for something with a comparable subject matter, I read through United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal, which was a major national scandal played out over several months with far more people than the Fort Lee scandal, and controversial enough to be extensively sourced - yet it's only 27k, despite being a pretty comprehensive account of the events.
I'm sorry to say that I have to agree with you on all points. The lists have bothered me for a long time. Why do we need a list of the lawyers of key personnel, for example? And yes, it is unfocused. I hope that your suggestions can become the starting off point for fixing this article and doing the major editing that's needed. Thanks very much for weighing in and helping. Coretheapple (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll close the review for now. There are certainly plenty of action points to get on with that will make the article better, so it's not all bad. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully this will be a wakeup call for the regular editors on the page. Thanks again. Coretheapple (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
GA review input
As we can see from the GA review, the article was unable to meet even threshold GA guidelines (such that the reviewer felt it was fruitless to continue) out of a view that the article had two major structure flaws: that it was unfocused and too lengthy. The lists, for example, he felt were unnecessary. He also cited WP:NOTNEWS. I happen to agree, and I think we can do a lot to fix this article but it will require major cutting. Discuss? Coretheapple (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I pinged a project that I thought would help, but they're more interested in edit warring over the tag. Sorry. I can start cutting out stuff myself, but I'm concerned it will have all the subtlety of a 14lb lump hammer and incur the wrath of some editors, so I'd rather get opinions from many people as possible. Certainly the spinout List of people involved in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal would go some way towards resolving issues. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that little tiff over a rather obvious project designation. A little unsubtle editing might do us some good, so please feel free. I agree about the list article. We have so few new eyes on the article, so any assistance would be appreciated. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I added a tag to WikiProject Bridges, as I think it's suitable. I don't see the problem with Wikiproject Roads either. I'm sorry about the edit-warring, as it's a poor way to welcome a new editor to an article that needs new editors. Coretheapple (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah well, I can only do what I can do ... in the meantime, the list article is now up which has chopped 15k off the article and made it a bit less of a mouthful. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a major improvement! Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Folks, WP:WikiProject U.S. Roads (USRD) specifically says: "With some exceptions, we do not maintain: ... Bridges, which are maintained by WP:Bridges...."I give Ritchie333 the benefit of the doubt for not knowing that USRD has that exception to its scope, but it wasn't edit warring for me, as an active project member who knows about that exception to remove it. That doesn't mean USRD members may not be interested in helping, just that the project itself won't be including the article in its statistics. Imzadi 1979→ 17:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
A project page is not a policy or a guideline, and nobody else is required to have the same opinions as you. Now, meanwhile, what are we going to do about that huge timeline section? Should that go into the list article, does it require another breakout article (hopefully getting the prose down to below 50K), or should we just nuke it into orbit? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 08:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I honestly don't think the timeline is needed. Coretheapple (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Wildstein pleads guilty
USA Today says David Wildstein has pled guilty to conspiracy and admitted that the closure was in fact payback against the mayor of Fort Lee. We have to work this new info in, obviously, but I haven't decided where/how. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Obviously this is lede material. The rest of the article is based around hypothetical explanations of what might be considered wrongdoing. A guilty plea now substantiates that there is merit to the entire investigation. Trackinfo (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Definitely warrants inclusion in the lead and elsewhere in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Article too long?
This article doesn't have to be very long to show notability of the topic. The introduction has six paragraphs. Reading further, is there a single article about scandals or affairs involving bridge closures? Sections about reactions, including "Christie's responses", seem too long to me. Details should be skimmed down, but I don't know which else besides "Christie's responses". --George Ho (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
You're right, it is too long. That's actually been noted before. Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
But nothing's been done about the article's length, right? There must be irrelevant details; let's first focus on which is irrelevant enough to be removed. --George Ho (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Well I tried once to cut and, if I recall correctly, I was reverted. It is a monster of an article. Far too much detail. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that with the indictments, there is far less need for the article to meander through various theories about what happened. Here was have criminal charges, crystallizing everything, and they are buried in the middle of this massive wall of text and excessive detail. It's ridiculous. The article needs to be reduced in size. This is Wikipedia, not the Warren Report. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
To bring in people, I must start an RFC. However, the post should be neutral. My OP isn't; I don't want to modify. You or I can create one below for RFC. Otherwise, how can we convince others to remove unnecessary detail? And is "Christie's response" overly detailed to readers? --George Ho (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Make subpages of a mere temporary bridge closure influenced by bribery, coverups, corruption, et alia? No thank you. --George Ho (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, then which part of this article should we split into a proposed article? By the way, the proposed article should not violate existing policies and guidelines. --George Ho (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
As you are the one raising the issue of too long, you can get started if you want. I'd take the longest section, and spin it, using the WP:SUMMARY guidelines. But I will strongly oppose any deletion of well sourced content that has been worked on by a multitude of editors over a considerable period of time. Any such deletion will require establishing a priori consensus. - Cwobeel(talk) 02:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The "Investigations" section and the "Gibson Dunn report" sections could be prime candidates. - Cwobeel(talk) 02:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see either subtopic as independently notable, and even US sources are not enough. What about international sources? --George Ho (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe there needs to be a split, as there are no logical candidates for spinoffs at the moment, nor an RfC. That's only if there is an intractable dispute and I'm not seeing that at the moment. Given the new revelations in the indictments yesterday, the subject of massive coverage, my feeling is that the material from the indictment and its aftermath needs to be given far more emphasis in the article, and that other earlier material can be greatly reduced. Just shrinking and expanding, really. Certainly what we have now, a kind of an investigative report so to speak, is far too detailed. I'm going to start cutting back stuff that seems especially egregious, such as the "pull quotes" that are found at one location, and the list of attorneys. Coretheapple (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Neutrality
Hey @Coretheapple: thanks for updating the article with news of the indictment, and general cleanup of this lengthy article. However, I noticed some of your changes seemed to allege Christie's statements or actions as being dishonest and otherwise failing WP:NPOV, so I reverted those changes to the long-standing version. If you wish to argue for these changes, please discuss in this section. ―Padenton|✉ 17:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm updating the article. There is no neutrality issue. What is your objection to updating the article with material from the indictment, the subject of massive press coverage today? Do you think that doesn't deserve to be in the article? Please explain. Some of your edits are frankly bizarre. Coretheapple (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I have no objection to adding material from the indictment, as I said above when I thanked you for adding it. However, WP:BLPCRIME states "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." and your edit here is undue. ―Padenton|✉ 17:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Huh? That's what I meant by "bizarre." The passage in question says that Christie was not named in the indictment, so BLPCRIME is totally inappliable. As for "undue": are you serious? This is a lengthy (overlengthy, actually) section on political impact, and you don't want a sentence on the political impact of this indictment? How is one sentence, taken from a New York Times article, "undue emphasis" in this context? Coretheapple (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
He was not named in the indictment, and speculation that he should have been indicted does not belong in the article. I'm not talking about a sentence, but a paragraph. What legitimate encyclopedic purpose does speculating his involvement provide? It's completely normal for prosecutors to not comment on those unindicted. It protects them from slander lawsuits. Why emphasize it here in the case of Christie? ―Padenton|✉ 17:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
That's just nonsense piled upon nonsesne. The political impact on Christie is an essential part of the coverage. It was the subject of an entire article in The New York Times, which is the source here. Fishman's refusing to answer questions about Christie was also the subject of an entire article in the Times. Are you saying it doesn't matter what the reliable sources are saying here? That just goes out the window because you don't like it? 17:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't include every little thing that reliable sources print. Again, per WP:UNDUE. The political impact is already covered in the article, quite heavily. It doesn't need to be talked about all throughout the article. ―Padenton|✉ 18:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The indictment and its aftermath are the subject of two full pages in the New York Times, including a page one story, and the one paragraph that you are referring to is the subject of two articles in the Times. It's just utter nonsense to call that "every little thing." Coretheapple (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
While you're mulling that over, perhaps you can also explain your rationale for your edits here which removed updates of the article with some of the absolute tidal wave of new material that came out today and yesterday from the indictments. This article currently is outdated and reads like it was written a year agom, which much of it was. What do you have against updating it? And please just don't throw around words like "undue" and "BLPCRIME." Please explain what it was about the material you reverted that is contrary to policy. Coretheapple (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
As I have now said twice, I have no issue with you updating it. I have an issue with you injecting WP:W2W. What updates were removed in that diff? ―Padenton|✉ 17:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
What "words to watch"? What in heaven's name are you talking about? You just clicked the revert button and rolled back edits en massse, including my updates to two sections - look at the diff above - and you also reinstated pull quotes that I had removed. What did you have against shortening of the pull quotes? Your behavior here, your explanations that patently make no sense, is frankly starting to cross the border into being disruptive. Coretheapple (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
You just clicked the revert button and rolled back edits en massseI did no such thing and the evidence proves it. If your claim was true, this diff would be empty. That would've been much easier, but you did have some changes that were fine, so I kept those and reverted others. You also don't own the article, and other editors like myself are allowed to make our own changes. Claiming explanations don't make sense and are disruptive because you don't like them doesn't make it true. For starters, this diff here: [12] You claim your edits are trying to shorten the article, but a lot of them seem to be about expanding criticism of Chris Christie. What does this new version in this diff provide over the previous one? The source is nice (and was kept) but the rest is redundant. Then there's this edit [13] Why did you introduce the word of doubt (WP:W2W) here? "(...) Christie, who contended (...)" is there some disputing of whether or not she was forthcoming? Provide a source. [14] "as had long been theorized" is redundant. The motive is unproven while the case is in progress. [15] Again, "from the beginning" is unimportant, and also false. Investigators considered multiple motives, as proven by the sources. I have no issue with removing the text message transcript. [16] This is not a better name for the section, keep the old name or call it an internal probe, that's what it is. We don't need to imply it's false by saying "Christie-commissioned report" when internal probes are quite common. ―Padenton|✉ 18:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
If you had no problem with removal of the pull quotes, why did you reinstate them? I've asked you that twice. The sense I get is that you made these edits without quite understanding what you were doing. Likewise you didn't seem to understand that you were removing material that was updating the lead, and sections relating to motives, to reflect the indictments. Yes, we do need to cut the article, quite a bit I think, but at the same time we need to update it with material from the indictment, not with "criticism of Christie." You removed a paragraph that wasn't "critical of Christie," it was a paragraph on the political impact of the indictments, which you bizarrely shrugged off as trivial. We have an entire section on the political impact on Christie. How does a single paragraph based on two New York Times articles (I haven't even checked the NJ papers but I'll bet they've got reams upon reams of stuff) - how does that violate WP:UNDUE in a section set aside to discuss the political impact on Christie? As for the stuff about "words to watch," ("contended") as phrased previously, it was unfair to Kelly as it stated flat-out that she wasn't forthcoming. That was Christie's allegation. If you had wanted to change "contended" to "said" that's fine, and ditto adding a source. That's the procedure - change the word and ask for a source, not hitting the rollback button. (As for the "Gibson Dunn" vs. "Christie appointed" stuff - I'm not too concerned with that.) Now that I can grasp you're problem with "contended" I'll go back and change it. Please do not edit war over stuff like this, and please be more aware of the impact of your edits as frankly I am not sure you are. Coretheapple (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
In going back and looking at this, I see that "not forthcoming" was a euphemism employed by a Wikipedia editor, in Wikipedia's voice, and I'm surprised it lasted so long in the article. Christie claimed Kelly "lied" and I changed it to read that, and to say that it was stated by Christie. Actually "contended" or "claimed" is fine in such an instance. W2W is just that, a list of words to watch, not a list of words to avoid completely. However "said" is just fine. Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If you had no problem with removal of the pull quotes, why did you reinstate them? I've asked you that twice.that was a revert. I would've put it back myself after you asked about it, but I was typing my responses in this talk section and then you beat me to doing so.
The sense I get is that you made these edits without quite understanding what you were doing. I'm plenty aware of what I'm doing, as I explained above, and I grow tired of your attempts to shrug off my legitimate concerns about these edits as 'bizarre' and 'doesn't make sense' which were applied fairly, and are clearly backed by the policies I mentioned.
Likewise you didn't seem to understand that you were removing material that was updating the lead, and sections relating to motives, to reflect the indictments. I am aware, that's why I kept most of it and thanked you for updating the article when I started this talk section, which you've attempted to ignore 3 times now.
You removed a paragraph that wasn't "critical of Christie," it was a paragraph on the political impact of the indictments, which you bizarrely shrugged off as trivial. It's redundant, and attempted to imply that Christie should have been indicted.
As for the stuff about "words to watch," ("contended") as phrased previously, it was unfair to Kelly as it stated flat-out that she wasn't forthcoming It's Christie's actual reason for her termination, it's not stated as fact.
(As for the "Gibson Dunn" vs. "Christie appointed" stuff - I'm not too concerned with that.) k, glad we can agree on something.
Please do not edit war over stuff like this This was not an edit war. You made a bold change while updating, I disagreed with a few of the changes and undid them and began a discussion about it. Perfectly normal example of WP:BRD. ―Padenton|✉ 19:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's right you reverted when you should have not reverted. The solution: don't revert stuff that shouldn't be reverted. And you had plenty of time to reinstate my edit removing the pull quotes, so no I find it hard to accept your explanation that you were aware that you removed the wrong stuff and didn't get around to reinstating it.
It's Christie's actual reason for her termination, it's not stated as fact. It was his stated reason - an accusation that she was dishonest. That's absolutely impermissible in Wikipedia's voice, especially when it is a charge that was made in a news conference. By the reasoning that you're employing here, every time the subject of an article is fired, we state the reason in Wikipedia's voice, no matter how defamatory it might be. That's ridiculous. Such inflammatory allegations absolutely must be attributed to the person making them. It is a very important principle and one that you need to be aware of. Your removal of the "contend" on bogus "W2W" grounds is a serious matter and it should not be repeated.
It's redundant, and attempted to imply that Christie should have been indicted. It's not "redundant" at all, but is nothing more than an update of that section, which you purport to favor. The "implication" you claim is utter nonsense. It says and "implies" nothing of the kind, and on the contrary says the exact opposite. This kind of misreading of text is WP:TENDENTIOUS and needs to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
If you want to accuse me of bad faith editing, take it to ANI and provide your evidence, I'm tired of taking this crap from you. Also, please be careful not to remove my comments when you are making your response.[17]
It's not in Wikipedia's voice, it's prefaced by "Christie said". It doesn't say the exact opposite, it says he wasn't indicted.
Finally, your repeated attempts to call this an edit war and disruptive editing and tendentious are bullshit and frankly I'm tired of it. Go to WP:ANI or leave me alone. You do not own this article, and believe it or not, other editors are allowed to disagree with your edits. Don't like it? Start a blog. ―Padenton|✉ 19:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not in Wikipedia's voice, it's prefaced by "Christie said". No, in this edit you changed "She was fired by Christie, who contended she was not forthcoming with him about her involvement" back to "She was fired by Christie, for not being forthcoming with him about her involvement." We can't say in Wikipedia's voice that she "wasn't forthcoming" (i.e., honest, forthright). Where's the "Christie said" in that sentence? Ain't there. I'm disturbed you're still defending that change, after we've gone over it again and again. Coretheapple (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm talking about the current version, which has long since changed since that diff. So what you're saying is you're still arguing about an old version of the sentence, one which has been completely rewritten by both of us (to our mutual agreement) since? Are you serious? You changed it yourself here [18] over an hour before your last comment, and I agreed with it here, [19]. ―Padenton|✉ 20:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Uh no, I'm just trying to make sense of what you are saying. If you agree with the current version of the article, you are not being especially clear in communicating that fact. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Then what were you talking about when you said It's not in Wikipedia's voice, it's prefaced by "Christie said". You said that after those edits were made. What passage were you referring to? What was your point? I'm just trying to make sense of this conversation, if possible. Coretheapple (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a request for a WP:3O, but it isn't entirely clear what the specific question is about whether something should be included in the article. I would suggest that, if there is a question about the appropriateness of inclusion of material, a Request for Comments would be better than edit-warring, but only if the RFC is worded neutrally and is clear. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This is the first time I've ever seen a third opinion requested by a third editor. In any event, it seems a bit early for either a 3O or an RfC. As for BLPCRIME, that was raised by an editor pertaining to the political impact on the governor of New Jersey, not on anyone actually accused of crime, so I'm not sure that's being seriously pursued. Coretheapple (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I was asked on my talk page whether I will intervene once more. Intervene to do what? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
You were asked 4 hours ago, don't worry about it. It's over now, let's move on. ―Padenton|✉ 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Local traffic was "diverted"?
The lede now has "Traffic from Fort Lee was forced to divert to major roadways." That sentence was formerly phrased as "forced to divert to state and interstate expressways."
I put {{cn}} (Citation Needed) on the older text back in May, and restored {{cn}} onto the new text today.
To me, "divert," and especially "forced to divert," mean that some authority is actively detouring traffic (involving cones, signs, waving officers, or something tangible), not merely that commuters look at Google Maps and choose an alternate route, and certainly not merely that there was gridlock.
The closest thing that I have seen to "diverted" anywhere is in "Port Authority cop offered to reroute GWB traffic" (formerly cited in the Timeline) where PAPD Lt. Thomas "Chip" Michaels suggested to Fort Lee Police Chief Keith Bendul that he "send" traffic to the Center Avenue entrance.
This suggestion was rebuffed (Bendul asked for the regular lanes to be restored), so no "diverting" happened here. Even if this had been done, the Center Avenue entrance is still so close to the toll booths that the traffic would have entered the portion of the (one) "main line" under the jurisdiction of the PA (marked blue on the NJDOT map), for which "roadways" (plural) would be a poor description. But again, that suggestion was rejected by Bendul, so no "divert" happened on that account.
Does anybody else have a cite for any actual accomplished "divert" onto alternate roadway(s) of any description? JackGavin (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll take that as a "no," and remove the line.JackGavin (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted Text Messages
This article mentions nothing about the deleted text messages between Christie and his chief of staff, Regina Egea, sent during a hearing of testimony related to the scandal. This subject has been covered by numerous important sources and remains unresolved.96.234.63.174 (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I agree that it should be mentioned, but not at great length. Coretheapple (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Fort Lee lane closure scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.
Even after reading this in some detail, I can't see why they wanted to close the traffic lanes. What was the point of it? Equinox◑ 17:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Article has been updated based on collaborative editing. Wondering55 (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Done Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Never mind. The Wall Street Journal (Haddon) story on May 6 says "Tuesday", so I'm satisfied that the committee is not scheduling a stealth exceptional session on a Friday. JackGavin (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
