Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::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. ] (]) 15:36, 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:01, 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. ] (]) 15:39, 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Revision as of 16:01, 25 April 2014
Fort Lee lane closure scandal is currently a Politics and government good article nominee. Nominated by Coretheapple (talk) at 16:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
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.
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/
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)
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)
You can get that article and probably any others that are gone at the Wayback Machine. Not optimal, but better than nothing. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 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)
Motives for lane closures
Note: Bold highlighted items are my recommendations for compromise and resolution. Please advise if acceptable.
The disruption was apparently created for political retribution, but the precise target or motivation is unclear.
On March 31, Cwobeel removed that statement and indicated in the History comments "per talk. The last sentence in the lead already describes this". Those last two sentences eventually became part of the current third paragraph in the Lede.
On April 6, Coretheapple read through that entire discussion thread and indicated his comments below without making any objections to what Cwobeel and I agreed to.
I just read through this discussion, and I agree that for Misplaced Pages should not use the language proposed at the top of this section. ("The Fort Lee traffic jams were apparently created for retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, but the precise motivation is unclear.") Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper and is not a fact-finding tribunal, and it is not our job to distill the news sourcing to make sweeping judgments about events in the news.
On April 7, Coretheapple adds as a lead-in to the third paragraph the sentence below, which seems to ignore his own comments that "Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper and is not a fact-finding tribunal, and it is not our job to distill the news sourcing to make sweeping judgments about events in the news"
The disruption was apparently created for political reasons, although the exact motive is unclear.
As Cwobeel and I previously agreed, the two sentences that follow below in the third paragraph provide more accurate descriptions based on cited sources and do not necessarily attribute it to political reasons, which is not the only reason that has been cited by various sources. The lead-in sentence above should be deleted since it is inaccurate and tries to distill all of the news sourcing to making sweeping judgements. The two sentences below should remain.
One frequently cited theory as to why the lanes were closed was that it was for political retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, a Democrat, for not endorsing Christie, a Republican, in the 2013 gubernatorial election. Investigators are also examining other possible motives, such as whether the closures were intended to affect Sokolich's promotion of a major real estate development project that was underway at the Fort Lee bridge access point.
I removed the lead-in sentence and asked Coretheapple to address his viewpoints in the original Talk discussion and agreement that contradicted this insert.
Coretheapple simply added the statement back in.
I removed it again and asked Coretheapple to go to Talk to discuss this matter.
Coretheapple and Cwobeel then went to my Talk page and accused me of edit warring and Cwobeel put the statement back in, even though we had both agreed in the original discussion that no lead-in sentence was needed. By working together against me and sharing their reverts against me, they can also avoid being accused of 3RR, even though there have been 3 reverts. Wondering55 (talk)
Cwobeel: I have addressed your comments in the section above. It is time to provide feedback on the simple, straight-forward, bold highlighted recommendation that I originally made about content. I show it again below with some additional elaboration.
The lead-in sentence, which was just recently added back in, should be deleted since it is inaccurate and tries to distill all of the news sourcing to making sweeping judgements. It is also in contradiction to what Cwobeel and I agreed at Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Target of Fort Lee lane closures where it was agreed that no lead-in sentence was required, and it was subsequently deleted.
An editor repeatedly added this new lead-in sentence back in, even though the editor was aware of the Talk discussion in which the previous lead-in sentence was removed based on those Talk discussions. That editor also ignored repeated requests to go back to that Talk page if they wanted to advocate for adding a new lead-in sentence. Those requests were ignored and the editor simply repeated to put this sentence back in without any Talk discussion.
The disruption was apparently created for political reasons, although the exact motive is unclear.
The two sentences, which have been accepted by Cwobeel and other editors, should remain as shown below.
One frequently cited theory as to why the lanes were closed was that it was for political retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, a Democrat, for not endorsing Christie, a Republican, in the 2013 gubernatorial election. Investigators are also examining other possible motives, such as whether the closures were intended to affect Sokolich's promotion of a major real estate development project that was underway at the Fort Lee bridge access point.
There has been no justification provided that has reached consensus based on the past revert by Cwobeel, who provided no reason in the History edit comments for that revert that added back the questionable, unsupported statement. Therefore, the statement that I highlighted in my previous response needs to be removed. Wondering55 (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Uh, no. You've just been wikilawyering at length in your usual wall-o-text fashion, which is not the same as consensus. The sentence in the lead is a fair summary of the reliable sources, and is needed to provide clarity in the lead section. Coretheapple (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Coretheapple continues with personally denigrating and inflammatory comments, which are factually incorrect, with "wikilawyering at length" in "your usual wall-o-text fashion" as if that will win Coretheapple's argument.
A lead-in sentence was previously removed since the two statements that follow it make it very clear about what is still in question for readers based on Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Target of Fort Lee lane closures, in which Coretheapple participated. Furthermore, the new lead-in statement, which Coretheapple added back without any further discussion is inaccurate and contradicts the two statements that follow.
Coretheapple needs to gain consensus on why a new lead-in statement is even necessary beyond the two statements that already follow it since there was a consensus between Cwobeel and me in the previous Talk discussions, in which Coretheapple participated, that it was not necessary. This new lead-in statement violates the very principle that Coretheapple stated earlier in this discussion, as noted below.
Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper and is not a fact-finding tribunal, and it is not our job to distill the news sourcing to make sweeping judgments about events in the news.
There has been no justification provided that has reached consensus based on the past revert by Cwobeel, who provided no reason in the History edit comments for that revert that added back the questionable, unsupported statement, which also contradicts the two statements that follow it. Therefore, the statement that I highlighted in my previous response needs to be removed. This revision would also meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines in Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Misplaced Pages:Consensus, and avoids Misplaced Pages:Edit warring since it has been addressed in this Talk discussion without any consensus for Coretheapple's bold article revision, which has yet to be supported by any presentation of reliable sources. Wondering55 (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Need for any additional details in this Bridgegate scandal article about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid
Note: Bold highlighted items below are my recommendations for compromise and resolution. Please advise if acceptable.
This matter was just addressed again recently in Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart in which Coretheapple raised the issue of whether Zimmer allegations should be included in the this article. I reminded everyone in that discussion that Zimmer allegations should be contained within the other article.
JackGavin and I came to an agreement that the only reference to Zimmer allegations should be contained in the article sentence below, which has a wikilink to the Zimmer allegations.
Coretheapple, who participated in this Talk discussion, and made no further comments, then goes to the article and revises the statement above to read:
I then go in and make a compromise edit, as noted below since we just had a Talk discussion in which Coretheapple participated where it was agreed that there did not need to be any mention of Zimmer. My preference would be to utilize the compromise sentence below, which includes some of Coretheapple's edits, so there is no mention of Zimmer, as previously agreed in Talk discussions.
I also relocated the statement below to the Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation since her comments were related directly to the results of the Mastro report that dealt with her allegation of Christie administration conduct with Sandy relief money, and not to the results of the Mastro report related to Bridgegate. I noted my reasons in the History comments section. The item below should be deleted since it is not about the Bridgegate scandal.
Zimmer said that "Randy Mastro could have written his report the day he was hired and saved the taxpayers the million dollars in fees he billed in generating this one-sided whitewash of serious misconduct by the Christie Administration."
Coretheapple and then Cwobeel go to my Talk page and falsely accuse me of edit warring and threaten that I will be reported for 3RR if I try to change their edits.
I ask them to go to Talk to address this matter.
Instead, Cwobeel reverts my edits, even though they were based on past Talk discussions, as noted above, and the most recent Talk discussion in which Coretheapple participated. Wondering55 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem with the allegation against Mastro is that it represents an opinion about a living person not directly connected to the affair. As such, it would be a problem even in an article on that person, and more of a problem in an article not specifically about that person. Collect (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course Mastro is directly connected to the affair. He is viewed by critics as simply providing a defense brief for the Christie administration, and has been repeatedly charged with conducted a "whitewash." So I see no BLP issue whatsoever in this, and it's obviously relevant to the article, as are Zimmer's allegations concerning Sandy funds. Indeed, her allegations were dealt with, and rejected, in Mastro's report. Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Zimmer's allegations and her comments on the Mastro report are related to Sandy relief aid for Hoboken, which is in no way is related to the Bridgegate scandal, and do not belong in this article. We have had repeated Talk discussions and consensus on this, which Coretheapple and Cwobeel continue to ignore and continue to add back items about Zimmer that do not belong in this article.
The most recent discussion Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart, in which Coretheapple participated, reached a consensus on the only sentence that would currently be included in this entire article that would make reference to allegations about Sandy relief aid for Hoboken. It was agreed it would not make any mention of Zimmer since it included a wikilink to the main article about Zimmer's allegations. Readers about the Bridgegate scandal are not necessarily interested in knowing anything about Mayor Zimmer, who has no direct relationship to the Bridgegate scandal. Coretheapple then went into the article and revised that very statement to:
I then go in and make my recommended compromise edit, which includes most of Coretheapple's revision, that abides by the agreement in Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart, along with a convenient wikilink for complete details, and remove Zimmer's comment related to her allegations about the Sandy relief aid for Hoboken, which has nothing to do with Bridgegate, in the Mastro report. I ask Coretheapple and Cwobeelto address any concerns in the article Talk.
I am simply calling for my recommended edited statement above and deletion of Zimmer comments, unrelated to Bridgegate, to be reinstated based on Talk discussions where consensus was reached with other editors. Coretheapple and Cwobeel are well aware of these past discussions and the content issues raised here, and have not yet addressed how their edits are not in accordance with those Talk agreements or my recommended compromise that includes most of Coretheapple's revisions to the statement that will remain in this article. Wondering55 (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
No "consensus" was reached regarding the handling of Zimmer/Bridgegate. It was barely discussed at all, and in the discussion only you are claiming it is unrelated to Bridgegate. You seem to view as "consensus" when someone says something you agree with. You seize on remarks other editors make and then enshrine them as "consensus" that is carved in granite. Instead of discussing subjects on the merits, you rant at extreme length and in an emotional tone about "consensus" being established, and wikilawyer, and engage in personal attacks. Enough of that. This is the last time I'm commenting on your disruptive behavior here or responding to your constant invocations of nonexistent "previous consensus." If you have anything to say on the merits of the Zimmer/Bridgegate, please do so. By that I refer to what the sources say, not your personal opinions. Anything else is not welcome, not pertinent and will not be responded to henceforth, at least by me. Coretheapple (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Coretheapple: Consensus was clearly reached about whether Zimmer allegations should be included in the content of this article in at least three Talk discussions that I have already cited, including one in which you participated. It was agreed that Zimmer allegations should not be included. Just because you don't agree with them, does not make any of these agreements and discussions invalid. You have continually made proposals to add Zimmer content to this Fort Lee article in various Talk discussions, including here and the most recentTalk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart. No one has supported your recommendations. It is time to move on.
Please address the content questions based on the proposed content edit below, which incorporates most of your revisions and still agrees with consensus reached at Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart and past cited talk discussion, and the removal of Zimmer comments, which belong in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation, that are focused on her allegations about Sandy aid to Hoboken, which have absolutely nothing to do with Bridgegate, based on the Mastro report.
Anyone else is also encouraged to provide support or feedback on why the proposed changes, which agree with past Talk discussions, should not be allowed. Otherwise, past article Talk discussions would allow this revision of content based on Misplaced Pages consensus and Talk page guidelines.
Please also remember that just because entities, such as NJ State legislature, federal prosecutors, and outside firms are investigating Bridgegate and other allegations, which are completely separate from Bridgegate, at the same time, it does not give editors license to start adding details about those unrelated allegations to this article. There was a series of extensive Talk discussions that finally culminated in Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/Archive 1#Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion, which I previously highlighted above, that agreed that all of these unrelated issues and allegations would be moved to Governorship of Chris Christie. Even the editors on that page eventually realized that the section heading for Sandy relief aid should not be focused on "Zimmer's allegations", but on "Hoboken relief funds investigation" since the issue is much broader than Zimmer's allegations. Wondering55 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
That language you cite ("The published report at...") is far too bare bones. It does not say who alleged what. Actually what we have now is not adequate either. We need to simply state in one or two sentences who alleged what, that it was an accusation against the lieutenant governor, and that it was rejected by her and by the report. We have no need to be mysterious or vague. Coretheapple (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Once again, who alleged what, and who accused who, and who denied what, do not have to be mentioned in this Bridgegate article since they have absolutely nothing to do with Bridgegate. They are adequately covered in allegations about withholding of Hurricane Sandy relief aid for Hoboken, which is wikilinked in this article.
Why not allow the proposed changes to content, which also includes most of your revisions to the proposed statement? These proposed changes agree with a whole variety of past Talk discussions without any consensus for not proceeding based on eliminating references to Zimmer in this article.
You can then make your case to editors about adding even more content about Zimmer's allegations in a new Talk topic and see if you gain any consensus. Wondering55 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course it has something to do with Bridgegate, as evidenced by the fact that it was investigated in the Mastro report. The language you propose makes it impossible for the reader to know what it's referring to. There is no need to be opaque. By the way, you seem to be using the language you cite ("The published report at...") as a kind of "baseline." There was never any consensus for that specific language, and your view that this has nothing to do with Bridgegate is contrary to consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind also that if Zimmer's allegations had nothing to do with Bridgegate, then they wouldn't belong in this article at all. But if we are going to mention them, we have to make them understandable. Referring to them in an opaque fashion, not even saying what was alleged, is simply absurd. Coretheapple (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh by the way, just one last point, so people understand the tiny number of words at issue here. Right now the article says "The published report, at www.gdcreport.com, also rejected allegations about withholding of Hurricane Sandy relief aid for Hoboken that had been made by Mayor Dawn Zimmer." Wondering55 wants to terminate this sentence after "Hoboken." I would like to add a sentence saying something to the effect that: "She contended that Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey Kim Guadagno and Richard Constable, director of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs had insinuated that Hurricane Sandy relief funds would be released to the city if it approved a project they favored." Coretheapple (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC
Once again, none of the information that is being proposed to be added back into this article about Zimmer's allegations has anything whatsoever to do with Bridgegate. All of that information can be found very quickly by any interested readers by clicking on allegations about withholding of Hurricane Sandy relief aid for Hoboken that is clearly not opaque at all. Repeating an opinion over and over again does not make it a fact.
As stated before based on the facts, just because two completely separate issues, scandals, allegations, or potential criminal violations are being investigated by the same law firm, NJ state legislature, or federal prosecutors, does not make them related. Otherwise, a pandora's box is going be opened up for this article as the NJ legislature, federal prosecutors, and other law firms start investigating other issues, such as past Port Authority toll lane hikes, that have absolutely nothing do with Bridgegate. It was previous agreed in Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/Archive 1#Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion to move all of these unrelated topics to Governorship of Chris Christie.
The only reason that even a very limited statement is included in this article is just in case a reader clicks on the link to the Mastro report and sees this completely separate investigation about a completely separate topic in regards to Zimmer's allegations that is also included in the same report about the completely separate topic of Bridgegate. That limited statement is the equivalent of a See also wikilink that is frequently provided in article sections without a need for a single reference to any additional sentences in the article on why the reader should See also.
The simple statement with ("The published report at...") was agreed to be used based on consensus at Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart where Coretheapple participated. Coretheapple made no objections to the updated approved sentence below and made similar arguments about adding more information about Zimmer allegations that was not supported by anyone.
It is getting time to accept the proposed changes that I outlined.
Anyone that wants to propose adding new information about Zimmer allegations can open up a new topic section. Just remember that any such proposal will open up a Pandora's box of other unrelated topics that would need to be mentioned in this article because they are being reviewed by some of the very same state, federal, and outside entities, and will be in contradiction to all past Talk discussions that these topics need to be addressed separately in other articles. Wondering55 (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is totally insane, and the size of this thread insane as well. I will not event attempt to go throught the long tirade. If you want my participation, be concise. Cwobeel (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that Cwobeel continues to focus on personal attacks with completely inaccurate, denigrating, and inflammatory language title words like "insane" and "long tirade" rather than the needed content updates. The above thread of comments is no different than the many long threads of Talk discussions on a variety of topics in this article.
The only statement that will currently remain in this Bridgegate article regarding allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid will be the one below in order to provide a wikilink to Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds. The statement also includes some of Coretheapple's revisions. Coretheapple raised the issue again in Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart about adding more references to Zimmer in this article. No one supported that position. An agreed statement, which had a wikilink shown below for "allegations about withholding of Hurricane Sandy relief aid for Hoboken" made no reference to Zimmer. Coretheapple made no objections.
It is getting time to move on with the changes that I outlined that were also agreed to based on past Talk discussions. Wondering55 (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
No, Cwobeel is right, this discussion is insane, and that's a statement of fact, not a "personal attack." You keep on saying over and over again that the Hoboken allegations have nothing to do with Bridgegate, just simply asserting that, when virtually every reliable source discussing the Hoboken allegations tie them to Bridgegate. That's because the land parcel in question was represented by David Samson, who is a Bridgegate figure. This is a profound example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Coretheapple (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Coretheapple repeatedly raises this issue of adding back unrelated details about Zimmer's allegations, including as recently as Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart and in this Talk discussion. No editor has supported that position. Coretheapple has been repeatedly told of past Talk agreements based on news reports that are in contradiction to his proposal and the fact that Fort Lee Bridgegate and Hoboken Sandy relief are two separate issues, regardless if they are being reviewed at the same time by various government entities or outside law firms. News reports frequently include two or more different topics in the same news report. That does not necessarily make them directly related. I and other editors have heard everything that Coretheapple has stated and it has been shown that those arguments are simply not convincing and are in contradiction to past Talk agreement. Perhaps, Coretheapple needs to abide by Misplaced Pages:I didn't hear that and stop screaming with all caps in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
Coretheapple even makes a personally denigrating comment in the History edit comments in the previous response to my comments as "blah blah/reply".
It is getting time to move on with the changes that I outlined that were also agreed to based on past Talk discussions. There has been no justification provided that has reached consensus based on the past revert by Cwobeel, who provided no reason in the History edit comments for that revert. Wondering55 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
What is your factual basis for saying that all the reliable sources are wrong in saying that the Hoboken allegations are directly related to Bridgegate? Coretheapple (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Coretheapple continues to use personally denigrating comments in the History edit comments with the latest response titled "blah blah/fix".
Coretheapple is the one advocating for adding unnecessary details and needs to be the one to first provide supporting data from reliable sources that will justify including any further details of Zimmer allegations in this articles. Past Talk discussions rejected that argument since the relationship between the two separate issues are tenuous at best. I can then respond with the counterarguments based on past Talk discussions and reliable sources.
OK, I'll repeat what I said before: as has been reported by multiple news organizations, Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer claimed that Sandy funding was conditional on Hoboken approve a project in which the legal representative was David Samson, chairman of the Port Authority. I've just addressed it on the merits. Your turn. Coretheapple (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Coretheapple responds again with personally denigrating comments in the History edit comments with the latest response titled "blah blah/reply".
Coretheapple just made the case based on presented facts that Zimmer allegations are not related to Bridgegate. There is nothing in that presentation of facts that relates Hoboken issues to Fort Lee Bridgegate issues. We are not here to play six degrees of separation, or even 1 degree of separation, that just because the same person is involved in two separate issues that there is a direct link between the issues. Wondering55 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Coretheapple responds again with personally denigrating comments in the History edit comments with the latest response titled "blah blah/reply".
There is not a single word in Coretheapple's claim below that Coretheapple keeps repeating that even mentions anything about Bridgegate or the George Washington Bridge scandal or the Fort Lee scandal. There can be no direct relationship if it is not even suggested. To make matters even more confusing, Coretheapple's statement below is simply Coretheapple's opinion and not from a reliable source as Coretheapple keeps repeating. I have listened very carefully and addressed the specifics of Coretheapple's claim. It has not been substantiated. Coretheapple continues to make unsubstantiated claims against me of just won't listen rather than address the content issues and contradiction of Coretheapple's claims with all previous talk discussions, including this one and Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart in which Coretheapple participated.
I'll repeat what I said before: as has been reported by multiple news organizations, Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer claimed that Sandy funding was conditional on Hoboken approve a project in which the legal representative was David Samson, chairman of the Port Authority. I've just addressed it on the merits.
It is getting time to move on and put the Misplaced Pages article back to the way it was with a link to the Hoboken relief funds article based on the statement below that incorporates several of Coretheapple's previous revisions. There would be no other references to Zimmer or her allegations in the article for now. This would reflect what was in the article before Cwobeel reverted an edit without any reason in the History edit comment.
In a spirit of cooperation, I updated article to show the statement below, which incorporates all of Corethepple's revisions with a brief mention of Zimmer (even though these revisions were not discussed at Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart where Coretheapple participated). Zimmer's quote about Mastro's report on her allegations about Sandy aid to Hoboken was removed since those details belong in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation as per past talk discussions and no consensus here for that "Bold" addition or any other details about Hoboken Sandy relief aid. My History edit comment summarized these reasons.
Coretheapple then goes back in and reinserts Zimmer's quote about Mastro's report on her allegations about Sandy aid to Hoboken under the claim that it is appropriate since the article already has details about Zimmer allegations (that Coretheapple just edited in)
More wall-o-text rantings about a few words of needed text? The fact that there is another article that goes into this is utterly beside the point. We're talking a 15 additional words needed to make this sentence understandable. By the way, that is less than the 18-word length of the section header you slapped at the top of this insane discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I did not reinstate the language concerning Zimmer's response to the report, as they were collateral with others, though I do think they would be useful if briefly stated. I see that you're revert-warring over this again. If you want to engage in a discussion of the merits of adding 15 words to the text I'll talk about it with you. But if it's more personal attacks on me, more wall-o-text wikilawyering and boldface ranting and hooting and hollering, then I'm not going to waste my time. Coretheapple (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Coretheapple continues with more personal attacks and denigrating comments with "wall-o-text", "rantings", "insane", "utterly beside the point", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting" and "hooting and hollering", as well as "blah blah/ comment" and "blah blah/reply" in their History of edit comments, that are in violation of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks rather than address the content issues.
Coretheapple has kept advocating for adding details about Zimmer allegations in multiple Talk discussion and has not achieved any consensus. Coretheapple's arguments have been previously addressed in this Talk and previous Talk discussions. All previous editors agreed that Zimmer details belong in Governorship of Chris Christie, and not in this article.
Rather than discuss this issue based on my previous response, my request in History edit comment, and any merits of Coretheapple's arguments, Coretheapple went back into the article and made additional edits with more details about Zimmer allegations, all of which should be in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation. Coretheapple keeps trying to take advantage of one brief mention of a wikilink to Zimmer allegations, which should be sufficient, to claim that is reason to add "collateral" information.
When I reverted Coretheapple's edits again since they were not made with any Talk discussions, and requested again in my History edit comments for Corethapple to make their case in Talk, Coretheapple ignored that request and reverted my edit.
Interesting articles in The New Yorker. Here is one: . Here is another: . This second one, in particular, is fascinating. We may want to add some info from these New Yorker articles into the Misplaced Pages article? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It is a pure opinion piece -- unless you feel " I bet you’ll find yourself asking the same question I did: How could we ever have taken this bully seriously as a Presidential candidate? qualifies as a secondary reliable source for a BLP. It’s a dark, Nixonian character who plots and rages, who ruthlessly exploits his office for political ends, who intimidates opponents and colleagues alike, who publicly trashes his former aides when he deems it necessary, and who even double-crosses his oldest allies. is not,IMO, a statement of fact as much as it is a screed against a public person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not a pure op-ed piece. It (the second article cited in my original post) contains many, many facts about the scandal (most of which, I was unaware). It's eleven pages long. Did you even read it? Or did you just decide to extract a quote from one of the first paragraphs of the first article? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you should look at the timestamp of my post ... I had written it, in fact, before you added the second "source" at 00:21 without re-time stamping your post. Cheers -- and next time you alter your post, please add a second time stamp. Collect (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. No, I certainly do not look at time stamps when I read posts. If I recall correctly, I added in the second article within 1 or 2 minutes of the first article. So, perhaps you did reply to the original post, before it was revised. But, if you did so, it was in that very brief gap of time between my first and second post. The time being so brief, it did not occur to me to check time stamps. I guess I had assumed that no one could get in there "that fast". I guess I was wrong. My apologies about that. All that being said, even the first article is not purely op-ed (as others below have opined, as well). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
More like 8 minutes later per the Misplaced Pages history. I got "edit conflict" so it took about a minute for me to post after my original attempt, so I did not address your second source. And the first article is absolutely editorial in nature, as anyone reading even the first paragraph should be aware. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
That's right. My comment below is really about the Cassidy piece. The other one is extremely long and factual, and yes, certainly usable. Coretheapple (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that to be used, they the Cassidy piece would have to be utilized with caution, and only in the appropriate section (dealing with reaction to the scandal). The question is whether these two articles say anything new. Cassidy, for instance, seems to be just piling on behind Joy Behar. Now, on the other hand, if this was a prominent Republican or conservative commentator turning on Christie because of Bridgegate, I think it would be much more useful. Coretheapple (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the Cassidy piece has useful factual information regarding feedback from a prominent former New Jersey Republican Governor Tom Kean on unanswered questions about the scandal, Christie's involvement, and the bullying type of atmosphere that Christie created that could have allowed others in his office to think it was OK to do what they did with the lane closures. This is very significant as the article indicated that Kean was "Christie’s former friend and sponsor—a man who has known him since he was a teen-ager, who gave him his start in politics, and who wrote to President George W. Bush to support his 2002 appointment as the United States Attorney for New Jersey". The second article also has very good details of covering this particular facet of Kean's reactions. We should include these details and citations in the Reactions section.
The second article also has a treasure trove of miscellaneous details about what happened in the aftermath of the lane closures through January of this year that could be included in the article. A lot of it is simply more details about individual events and key figures in the scandal, and its investigation, that would enhance many of the general statements in this article about what took place in the aftermath. The bigger question is how much of this extra detailed information should be put into this article, which is getting very long? Wondering55 (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The Cassidy article has a reference to Kean's interview on MSNBC regarding if Christie is to be believed and questions on how Christie aides and appointees did what they did, but should not have done. That is not in the Lizza article. In analyzing Kean's interview comments, Cassidy then used information from the Lizza article to address why Christie appointees and aides thought that it was OK to do what they did.
The Cassidy article also provides a link to that addressed Kean's MSNBC interview in more detail. That linked citation should be included (in the Reaction section), along with Lizza's report regarding Kean's relationship with Christie and his feedback on the scandal.
The Cassidy article is also filled with many other facts and and relevant analysis about events that have transpired from the time the lanes closed until last week's grand jury interview of Drewniak. All of this fact based information is further supported by the many Internet links to reliable news reports about various cited events. The majority of Cassidy's report reads like a short synopsis of Misplaced Pages's article on this scandal, along with poignant analysis. It would be beneficial reading for anyone that did not want to wade through the entire Misplaced Pages article. Since the Bridgegate article adequately covers the referenced items in more detail, there is no need to cite the Cassidy report in this article.
The bigger question still remains on how much of the extensive detailed information from the Lizza report, which goes well beyond the current Misplaced Pages article details should be put into this article, which is getting very long? While the Lizza report generally follows the context and timeline of events of this Bridgegate scandal article, it does fill in a lot gaps or additional details related to events already summarized in this article. The Bridgegate article is not intended as a repository of every single discovered item. However, the Lizza reports needs to be cited in some fashion in the fact based section of this article.
Thanks to Joseph A. Spadaro for referring both of these articles, which have a treasure trove of useful, fact-based information and poignant analysis that is further supported by links to reliable sources. Wondering55 (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and I am glad that you are coming around to the position that the article requires context, so that the reader can understand the underlying issues, political dynamics and related controversies - not in any great detail, but with enough facts so as to avoid opacity. Coretheapple (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both Wondering55 and Coretheapple for your insights and input. Your comments are very helpful, and I agree with their tenor. One of the most important things that I got out of these New Yorker articles is the extent to which Senator Weinberg really got the "ball rolling" on this whole scandal, while she persisted in looking into matters. Ditto with Wisniewski. I think many of these details are very significant, yet are lacking in the Misplaced Pages article. Also, I agree with the comment above about context. That is an important component to consider. There are also some significant details about Baroni's false testimony about the "traffic study" to the investigating committee. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Citations for Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker and Politico, which was referenced in the previously noted New Yorker article, have been added to the article in the "Reactions and impact" section with former NJ Governor's Tom Kean's reactions and questions about Christie and the lane closure scandal. Thanks again to Joseph A. Spadaro for providing the two well-researched New Yorker articles. Wondering55 (talk)
Um -- the use of "affair" when talking about a grand jury investigating "the affair" is not really much of a big deal -- many times the words are used fairly interchangeably, and the basic news sources use both terms. The grand jury is investigating something - but that something is not labelled a "scandal" or even given a specific name. Meanwhile, count the number of times the word "scandal" is on the page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It's definitely "scandal." If you put "Christie" and "affair" in Google News, you wind up with stuff about Julie Christie and Dr. Zhivago, virtually nothing about Bridgegate. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Lead
The lead misses the most relevant aspect of this scandal: Its impact on Christie's viability as a 2016 nominee. I though we had that in the lead before, but it seems to have disappeared from there. We need one short sentence describing this impact. Cwobeel (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
This poll reference in the lead still seems excessive. If it stays in, then we should add more regarding the efforts of the legal firm conducting the investigation for balance (e.g. the fact that they reviewed 250K documents).CFredkin (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The poll reference has been edited to reduce its weight/mention in the Lede.
The Lede should avoid trying to highlight the merits of each side's arguments since there are so many arguments by each side. The fact that they reviewed 250K documents, without describing the relevance of all those documents, should not be shown in the Lede. In addition, they have not identified, nor turned over to the state committee, all of these documents. Wondering55 (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
"Indicated"
I hate to be a schoolmarm about this, but we need to be careful about use of the word "indicated." I just changed several dozen "indicateds" into "saids." "Indicated" means "point out; show" and
"suggest as a desirable or necessary course of action." That's not neutral, so we shouldn't use it. See WP:SAID. "Stated" is neutral but it's a bit pompous I think, and it's also used a bit too much in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
"Indicate", which is neutral and not "pompous" as described in a recent History edit comment, also means "to state or express" in a general way about something. It is totally appropriate to use that word when summarizing a news report, which is also summarizing what someone said. To use the word "said" without quotation marks about any following statements, begins to imply that a person or document stated it in the exact manner being described in the Misplaced Pages article. If an editor wants to use the word "said", there not going to be any schoolmarms rebuking that practice. It is just not as accurate as using "noted", indicated", "expressed", etc.
It would also be acceptable, and not pompous, to indicate that a document, written communication, or report stated, rather than "said". People normally can say or state, documents/reports normally state something. There is nothing wrong with that. If an editor wants to indicate that a written communication or document/report "said" something rather than "reported", "noted", "indicated", "stated", etc. (all of which are acceptable), there are not going to be any schoolmarms rebuking that practice.
Rather than discuss first and edit based on consensus, all of the "indicated" were removed and replaced with "said". "Indicated" remains acceptable. Think about it. If Christie "expressed" something, then Christie clearly "indicated" something. They are synonyms that are interchangeable. Wondering55 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The previous version had 34 uses of the word "indicated" (in Misplaced Pages's voice) vs. 28 "saids" (ditto). That and the prolific use of "stated" is not only very poor writing, it comes off as downright peculiar. Sort of like a high school paper. And the dictionary is quite clear that "indicated" has a connotation that the MOS frowns upon.Coretheapple (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
One of the common dictionary definitions for "indicate" is to "to state or express". That is not a connotation that MOS frowns upon. There is also nothing in the dictionary that indicates that it is a "pompous" word, which was noted reason in the History edit comments on why it was removed.
This article has been edited by close to 200 editors, including many wordsmiths who have frequently changed wording because it was incorrectly used. There has not been a single editing change before this to show that "indicated" was improperly used.
The article now has 95 uses of the word "said", one use of the word "indicated", and no use of the word "stated". At least, before these changes were made, these words were used in a somewhat more balanced manner. It seems as if the changes made the article quality worse and not better. Wondering55 (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Use of the word "anxious" to describe David Wildstein
The Mastro investigation report used the word "anxious" to describe David Wildstein at his December 4 dinner with Michael Drewniak in which Wildstein told Drewniak about his involvement in this scandal and his discussions with Christie about the lane closures and supposed "traffic study" during a September 11 memorial event.
Critics pointed out that "anxious" and other biased emotional words to describe Wildstein was an effort to discredit him and should never have been used. Rather than remain focused on what Wildstein stated, "anxious" has been included in this article, and then added back after it was removed since it appeared to violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP guidelines. Rather than accept that explanation, "anxious" was reinserted to describe Wildstein, along with an explanation that it can be included, just because it has been widely reported.
Use of the "anxious" for describing Wildstein in the Mastro report was based on their interview with Michael Drewniak, Christie's chief spokesman. who has been repeatedly shown to have a biased viewpoint in this scandal. There appears to be no transcripts of that interview, which was not made under oath.
The word "anxious" to describe Wildstein should be removed from this article since it is impossible to verify and is simply hearsay. It provided a biased, unsubstantiated viewpoint of whether Wildstein's statement is credible.
An alternate is to describe it as Drewniak's unsubstantiated and supposed claim, since there is no interview transcript, and then indicate what critics have said about use of that word, "anxious", and many other emotional words to try and discredit Wildstein. I would not recommend this approach since it would take up too much of the article on an unsubstantiated comment about emotions rather than the facts about what Wildstein stated. Wondering55 (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
You are badly mistaken in your interpretation of NPOV. We are here to report what reliable sources say about a subject. Thus, if a source describes a person to be anxious, we report that while attributing that assessment to the source that made it. That is NPOV 101 Cwobeel (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Except, that the Mastro report is the only investigation source to use this word. As per Misplaced Pages, if reported information from a study or investigation cannot be verified from more than one source, it should not be shown in Misplaced Pages. The report cannot produce any evidence to verify that Wildstein was "anxious". In fact, even the report's description of what Drewniak said is suspect since his testimony was not taken under oath and there appears to be no recordings or transcripts of his exact statements.
Legal experts have also indicated that "anxious" and other biased emotional words, none of which that can be verified and are hearsay at best, in the Mastro report deviate from acceptable type of legal investigative reporting that needs to remain neutral and verifiable. Misplaced Pages does not allow the use of of unverifiable hearsay in their articles.
In the meantime, I updated the article with a more accurate, neutral point of view, description based on how the cited news report described the Mastro report's use of the word "anxious". The citation attributed the use of "anxious" directly to Drewniak, who supposedly indicated that Wildstein "appeared" that way. Previously, the Misplaced Pages article inaccurately showed that the report noted that an "anxious" Wildstein had dinner with Drewniak, as if that was a stated fact. Wondering55 (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You got it wrong again. if reported information from a study or investigation cannot be verified from more than one source, it should not be shown in Misplaced Pages -- where did you get that idea from? In any case, your edit was good and proper. I just copyedited that sentence a bit to make it easier to follow. Cwobeel (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Updated revision to clarify again that the statements about what Wildstein mentioned were according to what Drewniak stated in the Mastro report. The citation did not indicate that the Mastro report itself made these conclusions. Wondering55 (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Gibson Dunn donation to RGA
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.
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.
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)
Republican members of the legislative joint special committee are feeling shut out of decision making, and are talking about withdrawing from the committee.
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)
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)
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)
Unconstructive changes
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 Misplaced Pages we comment on the edit, not the editor?} You were just told at AN/I for the past week, 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages guidelines, including Consensus, Etiquette, and Civility.
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)
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.
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.
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 Misplaced Pages'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, Misplaced Pages 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.
As reported by The Star-Ledger, the legislative committee has issued subpoenas for testimony to "Patrick Foye, executive director of the authority; Christina Genovese Renna, Gov. Chris Christie’s former director of intergovernmental affairs; William Schuber, a Port Authority commissioner; and Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for the governor."
Renna and Schuber for May 6, Drewniak and Foye for May 13. Renna's lawyer says that she will testify.
The committee is considering (re-)issuing narrowed subpoenas for Stepien and Kelly. Nothing (yet) for Michael DuHaime. JackGavin (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I suspect the legislature had these four already in progress, and will carefully craft DuHaime's subpoena, to avoid the problems we saw with Stepien and Kelly. JackGavin (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and these are the first testimony subpoenas, according to CNN. That needs to be added. This has received quite a bit of coverage I see. Coretheapple (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Good article nomination
I'm nominating this as a Good Article. The process is very helpful in improving articles, and hopefully will have that impact on this one. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I went through the GA process once before and it was very tough and exacting. But I think that this article would benefit from it. I think that it meets most of the criteria, but that outside input on the writing would be useful. Who knows? Maybe it will fly through without serious issues. One caveat is that there is an immense backlog so it may take months before someone comes by and reviews it. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, re instability: that's right. However, as I said, very often it takes a while for a GA reviewer to show up. I'm hoping the "instability problem" will be rectified prior to that point. Coretheapple (talk) 17:43, 23 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. 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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.
Finally, 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 Misplaced Pages'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)
Numerical date format in citation reference names
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 Misplaced Pages 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.).
Yes, my "alternate advice" is that you not clutter up the talk page of this article with this kind of pedantic trivia. What "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Date formats. Coretheapple continues to use date formats, which are shown to be "unacceptable" based on that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)
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)
