Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Investigations of ethics and other complaints against Chairman Samson of the Port Authority (PA)

As investigations continue into Samson's involvement in the toll lane closure scandals, there have been a series of discoveries of very significant ethical and conflict of interest violations by Samson on a whole host of totally unrelated Port Authority issues.

There was a recent addition to the Timeline section for an event related to these separate issues. While I moved this item to the "legal rep" section since it is not a key event in the toll lane scandal, I do not believe this article should be used as a platform for keeping readers up-to-date on all of these separate issues about Samson since this article has enough to cover just about the toll lane closures.

These separate Samson PA issues, which will continue to grow more extensive, would best be handled in David Samson (New Jersey)'s article, where the exact same info was recently added, and/or the PANYNJ article. If needed, we could include a general summary statement that these ethical and conflict of interest issues are coming to light and redirect readers to the other main article for this coverage.

Any thoughts would be welcomed. Wondering55 (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agree, thank you for catching this. Better to keep at David Samson (New Jersey) with a smallish mention here. Cwobeel (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I provided a brief summary in the the "legal rep" section with a main article redirect to David Samson (New Jersey)#Allegations of conflict of interest, which can cover specific details about allegations about his actions regarding other Port Authority issues that have raised additional questions about whether he should continue as chairman of the PA. Wondering55 (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Bergen Countty Freeholders (the county legislature) called for Samson and the 5 other NJ-appointed PA commissioners to step down (reported by The Record). JackGavin (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Y Added. Thank you. Cwobeel (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

. @Wondering55 - Bergen County is the most populous county in NJ and the Freeholders decision to ask for resignation of PA officials is worthy of inclusion in the timeline. I'd suggest to revert your edit. Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I am familiar with Bergen County. I don't think the votes by the freeholders, who have had no real involvement in this misadventure or its investigations, to call for these resignations will have any real significance to what is eventually decided by the PA or in the political outcomes. I thought its mention in the "Reactions and impact" section would be enough. However, if you still prefer, I can add back in a brief reference in the Timeline with the complete details, including the freeholders are the county legislature, remaining in the "Reactions and impact" section.

Please advise if you would still prefer to also have it listed in the Timeline. If yes, is the bold highlighted statement below acceptable.? Bergen County is already wikilinked in the Reactions section and at the beginning of the article so I did not add another wikilink. I would include the original citation provided by Jack Gavin from The Record.

The freeholders of Bergen County, which includes Fort Lee and surrounding communities impacted by the lane closures, called on Samson and the other five New Jersey appointed PA commissioners to resign over the scandal. Wondering55 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you. Cwobeel (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Y Done Wondering55 (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems that there are now multiple investigations and questions of conduct/conflicts of interest/ethics violations of Samson. As such, the Bridegate scandal has widened in scope. To some extent, this should be included/mentioned within this article. Here is a source: [1]. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

And then the NY subpoena was withdrawn. NJ.com. On, TV, I heard speculation that NY was punting to NJ, and that NJ would likely serve Samson with this or a similar subpoena. We'll need to keep David Samson (New Jersey)#Allegations of conflict of interest up to date, at least. Organizing the entanglements is a challenge. JackGavin (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A ha. Interesting. Thanks. I had assumed that the original story was indeed about a New Jersey subpoena, not a New York one. Thanks. Yes, we need to keep the Samson article up to date. And this article, as well. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As previously noted above, the Samson article will be used for details about investigations into multiple investigations and questions of conduct/conflicts of interest/ethics violations of Samson. The Samson article already includes details based on the citation that JackGavin referenced. Those types of details should not be duplicated in this article, which currently has a smaller section titled, "Other allegations concerning David Samson", with a Main Article wikilink redirect to the Samson article.

It would be preferable that the current section should continue to only have a very broad summary about these separate ethics and conflict of interest issues since this article is now focusing specifically on the Fort Lee lane closure events and is already getting too long. We realize that the the Fort Lee lane closure scandal will generate many tangential topics as the investigations progress. This article currently uses Wikipedia:Splitting with Main Article wikilink redirects for this tangential issue and the "Claims made by Jersey City Mayor Fulop" in order to avoid too much information in the current article.

When there is intertwining of common issues (i.e. calls for Samson resignation, Christie support of Samson, etc.) between the Bridgegate scandal and the tangential ethics and conflict of interest issues, it can then be briefly mentioned in the Samson section of this article, as is currently being done. Wondering55 (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

We need to at least mention the front page New York Times article that described in detail Samson's alleged conflicts, with such conflicts being directly related to the so-called Bridgegate scandal. The Samson article itself can have a longer description of the actual conflicts, but here I think there's no question that it needs to be mentioned in order for the article to be any use to readers. Right now I think it tends to fob off too much onto separate articles. Coretheapple (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The lede statement in the Samson subsection has been updated to provide a more focused summary based on the New York Times article, including its citation, which covers a wide range of these related issues. Details from the New York Times article, other media articles, and other investigations about the separate allegations about ethical violations and conflicts of interest should continue to be presented in the David Samson article, as is currently being done. Wondering55 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I think the general thrust of the wording right now is fine. May require the usual little tweaking, but definitely it's about the amount of emphasis. We want to be sure that readers get a sense of how wide-ranging this has become, and really all tied in to the lane closures in some fashion. You're right that any extensive details belong elsewhere, but we do have to cover the main points of the various "spinoff" stories as they come to the fore. Coretheapple (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I would still generally caution against even providing the main points of "spinoff" stories, since someone's "spinoff" can simply be further ensuing details (which should be presented in the Samson article) related to the main points outlined in the summary statement. We have to remember that we need to be somewhat restrictive in the Samson section since the Fort Lee lane closure scandal article is already too long. Thanks for working with me to find a reasonable compromise. Wondering55 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well you know, it's a pretty sprawling scandal. The article is actually well-organized, and broken up with graphics, so its length is less of a burden than otherwise. Given the way this thing has mushroomed, and the various offshoots and such that have taken place, I'd not worry too much about length. I'd go for comprehensiveness. I agree that one mustn't dwell on the offshoots and side-scandals, but they do need to be mentioned ("flicked at"). Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Samson Allegations

This source is being used to support the following 3 claims in this article:

1) Samson, his law firm, and their clients profited from dealings with the PA [Port Authority] and projects with New Jersey government financing or tax incentives,

2) Christie benefited politically [from Samson's actions], and

3) His [Christie's] allies benefited financially during Samson's term as chairman.

Is the 3rd claim above supported by the source provided? Please support your response with specific text from the source. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'll check, but I wanted to point out that RfCs are ordinarily reserved for situations in which there has been protracted discussion and back and forth, and that people are at loggerheads. It is not the first step in resolving issues concerning text. As a matter of fact, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no discussion of the single clause that is the subject of this RfC, and no disagreement over whether the third bit should or should not be in the article. I suggest that you close out this RfC, initiate a discussion, and then see if there is a difference of opinion that is so protracted that an RfC is necessary. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Given the history of posts being deleted from this Talk page by the editors that own the article, it seemed necessary to broaden the discussion immediately.CFredkin (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

What? People are deleting posts? That is unacceptable. A better course of action is to initiate a discussion, and then be vigilant about such activity. If indeed posts are being deleted, what makes you think that these won't be either? Coretheapple (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The only history of actual posted comments being deleted that I am aware of is by CFredkin when CFredkin reverted my same new edit twice, when I added a new comment to "Web difficulties at NorthJersey.com (The Record)". I thought I had adequately explained this update twice in each Edit summary. Apparently, CFredkin did not seem to understand what I did since I did not delete anyone's posted comments, but simply transferred all comments from "Incorrect sources" to "Web difficulties at NorthJersey.com (The Record)" since they covered the exact same topic. I will try to address this issue on CFredkin's Talk page. If CFredkin is aware of any other instances where posted comments were deleted, please let us know.

I agree with Coretheapple that CFredkin should close out the RfC since it is not applicable based on Wikipedia:Requests for comment, which states "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it always helps to first discuss the matter with the other parties on the related talk page".

The current posting for this Talk issue has just been raised for the first time and has not been subject to any debate. Once the RfC is removed, we can then debate CFredkin's concerns. I will be more than happy to provide my perspectives on how the 3rd claim is substantiated. The article statement can be updated, if required, after we calmly address the issues. Wondering55 (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Mobile-friendly tables

On a mobile device's web page display, horizontal space is precious.

This post suggests a format change to the Key People and Legal representation for key people and organizations "People" tables, but not to the Timeline.

The two People tables each have 4 columns. Column 1 is a grouping identifier (PA, Office of the Governor, etc), with each such cell spanning vertically to bracket the several rows that it comprises.

This means that Column 1 always contains a whole lot of white space, yet demands a significant width, thus horizontally scrunching the other 3 columns, especially column 4 (Notes). When scrolling down into the lower rows for the group on a mobile device, Column 1 appears fully blank (because the grouping identifier, top-justified in mobile, has scrolled off the top).

I suggest that a better use of the horizontal space for the two People tables (and probably a net decrease in vertical demand, since Notes will wrap less) would be to convert the Column 1 grouping identifier into a special row (one cell horizontally spanning the 3 remaining columns, with appropriate highlighting), as we formerly had for Legal representation. JackGavin (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Even without problems faced on mobile devices, I thought the revised format with a first column to only show the name of the entities was wasting a lot of blank space. Can you take care of revising the format for both tables. Wondering55 (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait a bit, to allow objections, and then I'll do the edits. JackGavin (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with tweaking the format. Coretheapple (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

...and the reformated table is much improved, even for us desktop types. Nice job. Coretheapple (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

YDone. JackGavin (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Christie's poll numbers

Christie's poll numbers and his approval ratings continue to drop. Here is one source: Chris Christie's Approval Rating Continues To Fall In New Jersey. This information should be added into the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

YPoll details regarding his job approval rating and his involvement related to the Bridgegate scandal have been included in "Polls" sub-section of "Reactions and impact". Wondering55 (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This is no longer relevant to current developments and information regarding the incident that we know. Poll numbers from a month ago is irrelevant. Poll numbers asking about his involvement or impact are designed to tarnish this man's name and have no legitimate purpose on Wikipedia. Is this an encyclopedia or a tabloid? This is another example of how the page violates neutrality. Thetruthspeaker09 (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I would not mind the Polls section being whittled down. But are you suggesting that Christie's 2016 viability (as measured by polls) bears no mention whatsoever, as an impact? JackGavin (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Polls taken by reputable nationally recognized, neutral polling companies cannot be compared in any way to a tabloid. The dramatic change in peoples', including New Jersey residents, perceptions of Christie have had a dramatic impact on how Christie and his administration are conducting their business and a clear direct impact on Christie's chances for the most important job in the world, President of the United States. The polls from a month ago reflect the reality of Christie and his administration that are directly related to what has happened with Bridgegate. They are fully relevant as encyclopedic coverage in this article. If anything, his poll numbers have gotten worse. I seriously doubt that anyone from CPAC read this Wikipedia article before they voted Christie fourth in their poll after Christie had established a commanding lead prior to Bridgegate's national exposure.

This Wikipedia article is acting as an encyclopedia of real events, and independent, neutral assessments of how it has dramatically impacted Christie, his administration, and his future political ambitions.

So far, I have seen a very small amount of unsupported claims from Thetruthspeaker09 in this section and the media neutrality section based on opinions and not facts. I also have to wonder why Thetruthspeaker09 feels a need to post so many overwhelming public template notices, here and in the article, based on claims (unsupported so far) questioning neutrality and the quality of this article, even before discussing these issues in a measured manner, as has been politely requested. We continue to ask for specific fact-based examples and justifications. We will see how we can then reach some sort of accommodating consensus. Wondering55 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Investigations

Created a new section for the internal investigation. Please add there more material as it gets reported. Cwobeel (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Report size

AFAICT, the report is 360 PDF pges, and the appendices and exhibits come to more than three thousand pages -- the reports contains a huge number of transcripts etc and we can not aver it is not inclusive. Collect (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not delved into the exhibits much. Do they include the transcripts of all of the interviews? JackGavin (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

They do not, which in fact was a subject of press coverage yesterday. Coretheapple (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

They comprise over three thousand pages, including scads of pages of government transcripts. I did not wade through all the pages looking for any interviews, but clearly we can not imply that there are not substantive appendices and transcripts. All the "evidence" of emails and other correspondence is there, as are the statements made to the state legislature by the persons involved. I doubt whether the interviews per se qualify as "evidence" of much other than what the report says they indicate. Collect (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why we're having this conversation. Is there some particular language in the article that is disputed? Coretheapple (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Collect, exact interview transcripts would provide defense against cherry-picked statements. Just because the exhibits are large does not make them "all-inclusive" or "comprehensive". They might be merely "bloated". JackGavin (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The claim had been made that the report did not have any evidence attached -- which was clearly an errant position. The wording in this BLP article was " and provided only brief excerpts or summaries from those documents" which appeared to encompass all the "documents" mentioned in the report. That wording was changed, as it ought, and that claim was not re-inserted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

There was ample evidence attached. By the way, David Samson just resigned. Given the way news is breaking we may want to put back the "current event" template onto this article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Complaints about media coverage & Neutrality

I agree with Mattnad, who indicated that, "This article is long enough. Complaints about media coverage, with coatracking of unrelated political events can safely be removed", when the content below was removed from "Reactions and impact". While the original reasons for inserting these media opinions were addressed in "Reliable sources" Talk section, CFredkin reinserted the content below without addressing Mattnad's stated reasons.

Michael Reagan compared the media coverage of the lane closure scandal, which resulted in four days of traffic jams, with the coverage of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, which resulted in four American deaths. He expressed his opinion that there was disproportionate media coverage of the scandal in New Jersey that reflects a media bias towards events involving Republicans instead of Democrats.(See Christie Coverage Reflects Media Bias) NewsBusters, a website for countering the alleged liberal media news bias, reported on January 10, 2014 that the networks had spent 88 minutes reporting on the lane closure scandal in less than 48 hours (after the scandal broke in full on January 8 due to subpoenaed communications implicating Christie's appointees and advisers), as compared to two minutes devoted to the 2013 IRS scandal in the previous six months.(See NBC Nightly News Stays with Christie Scandal)

Mattnad left in the item about syndicated columnist Ruben Navarette's opinion that there are some who are trying to exploit the scandal to "clear the way for likely Democratic presidential nominee - Hillary Clinton". It is related to Christie's presidential aspirations, which is part of the focus of "Reactions and impact".

This article is getting long and we should not be going off on tangents. Just because a media article about the Bridgegate scandal may reference a related topic or another article, it does not necessarily mean it should be included in this Bridgegate article. If we followed this line of reasoning, some could then start putting in media opinions, which do not like the media coverage of Bridgegate, with their references to their disappointments with Obama or other political figures and related events.

There is a lot of information in the "Reactions and impact" section, which will continue to grow based on the Bridgegate scandal's direct impact on Christie.

This Bridgegate article is getting long and we should not be adding marginally related items.

Let's agree to remove the highlighted item above. Please advise. Wondering55 (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The above content is at least as relevant as the statements below. In fact, in the interest of neutrality, I've been considering adding some additional content regarding evaluations of how Christie has handled the scandal. Instead, why don't we agree to remove all the opinion-based content from this section, including the statements above and below?CFredkin (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sokolich, a perceived target of the closures, told the New York Daily News on January 8 that he was appalled: "How low can you go? This is insane. It's the worst example of a petty political vendetta...I'm embarrassed. And congratulations, you've just made New Jersey the brunt of every political joke for the next 25 years—again."[189]

Barbara Buono stated that the incident may shed light on why it was so hard for Democrats to run against Christie in a state reckoned as part of the solid bloc of blue states in the Northeast. The state has gone Democratic in every presidential election since 1992, and Democrats have controlled both houses of the state legislature for more than a decade. She observed that the culture of intimidation and retribution engendered by Christie and his staff made people unwilling to donate to a competing campaign at a level where their name would be made public, stating that "I was relegated to raising money in $300 increments" because political contributions over that amount must be made public under New Jersey campaign finance law.[190]

The College Democrats of America responded to the scandal by releasing a statement from one of its New Jersey officers concluding "Governor Christie’s leadership is why this happened, and this shows he is not fit to hold office today in New Jersey, or nationally in 2016."[192]

On February 12, the The New Republic published an article entitled, "Chris Christie's Entire Career Reeks - It's not just the bridge", which outlines Christie's political maneuvers and relationships with political bosses and power brokers from his early career to the governorship.[205][206]

The items above that you cited are directly related and relevant to how this scandal impacts Christie and how Christie has responded to this scandal. Eventually, some of the details of these highlighted reactions could be moved to the proposed article, Governor Chris Christie Administration Scandals and Controversies, if it is created.

However, your cited items are not comparable to citing unrelated political events, which have nothing to do with Christie and is what is being suggested to be removed. Remember this article is not supposed to be the "kitchen sink" for everything and every one's published opinion, no matter what.

If you are thinking of adding some additional content regarding evaluations of how Christie has handled the scandal, it could be time to include it under a new subsection in "Reactions and impact". Wondering55 (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Analyses of how the media has covered the scandal are directly related to this article. This is an article about a scandal, not about Christie. Conversely, what's the relevance of The New Republic article to this scandal? What's the relevance of Fulop's allegations to this article?CFredkin (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO, this article is distinctly non-neutral and has become a "coatrack" for partisan attacks on Christie.CFredkin (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion is, this article needs to remove completely unrelated events that have nothing to do with New Jersey and nothing to do with this scandal. There are probably other items that can be added.

I completely agree that any unrelated content should be removed from the article. My point is that there's a double standard being applied here. I've bit my tongue over the fact that Fulop's and Zimmer's allegations are included, although they are NOT related to THIS scandal. Now you're arguing that the New Republic article (which is a broad-scale attack on Christie) is relevant, while discussion of media coverage of the scandal is not. That's just ridiculous.CFredkin (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You can still add perspectives on how Christie has responded to this scandal in a positive way. This article is focused on the involvement of Christie and his staff and appointees at the Port Authority. Stay focused on that and you won't get any objections. Wondering55 (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this is NOT an article about Christie and his staff appointees at the Port Authority. This is an article about a scandal. Christie and his appointees are stakeholders in the scandal, as are the media in their coverage of it.CFredkin (talk)

@CFredkin. I haven't been paying attention to the thousands of edits that are happening here. But has it come to this? Your placing the tag on the top of the article, a highly active and popular article right now, defaces the look of the article and the credibility of wikipedia in general. So all of you children involved in this dispute: play nice together and get rid of the damn tag. Trackinfo (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It's one thing to include complaints about media bias. It's another thing to bring up unrelated political issues like Benghazi. That's a coatrack. Just because some blogger is upset about how relatively nice the media has been to Obama doesn't mean it's topical to this article. If we want to have a line that says "a conservative blogger has complained that the media spends too much time on the scandal." that's fine. But i think that concepts is in the article already. We can add the blog as another reference supporting the observation.Mattnad (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The comparisons to media coverage of other scandals is being used to validate the claims of overkill in the coverage of this scandal. It's completely relevant.CFredkin (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's a test, do you think we need to actually mention Benghazi? If so, why?Mattnad (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The writer is comparing the relative media coverage with the relative impact of the two scandals.CFredkin (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that seals it then. There's no relevance except in that writer's mind, which makes it a very minority, WP:Fringe view. That said, I'm OK with a mention of his perceived media bias about the bridge scandal, but I'm not OK with that being used to bring in any and every other thing the blogger posts about it. Benghazi is very off topic. I will add that the benghazi scandal is still being discussed in the media. I therefore have to question whether the premise of media bias is even accurate, but since we have WP:RS making that accusation, we can include it in a reasonable, not WP:Undue way. Mattnad (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding anything to this article that even mentions Benghazi since the consensus is that is completely off-topic and in no way relevant to this article. In addition, I have already addressed the issue immediately below about whether media bias even needs to be mentioned in this article since it is given that in just about every scandal that those who side with the accused are always saying that there is media bias and too much media coverage about the mentioned issues, which in many cases they don't even consider to be a real scandal. There is no need to state the obvious that there are those, even from "reliable", but somewhat biased sources, who think there is media bias and too much coverage about this scandal. Those statements add no real value to this Wikipedia article. This article has much more important issues to focus on. Alternate views from reliable sources on how this scandal is affecting Christie and his administration can always be added to the article. Wondering55 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

A scandal is as a scandal is a scandal. So let's get one thing straight here. This ain't about media bias. Cwobeel (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

In addition, it is almost a given in every scandal that those who side with the accused are always saying that there is media bias and too much media coverage about the mentioned issues, which in many cases they don't even consider to be a real scandal. There is no need to state the obvious that there are those who think there is media bias and too much coverage about various scandals. Those statements add no real value to this or any Wikipedia article.

It appears that the consensus is that the beginning flag statement, which questioned the neutrality of this article and greatly distracted from the quality of this article should not have been added in the first place. It has now been removed.

This Wikipedia article has been consistently challenged and revised throughout its history to meet a neutral point of view. Certainly questions of neutrality can be raised in the Talk section any time to see if there is a consensus for further action.

I am also deleting the original statements removed by Mattnad since there is a general consensus that they compare media coverage about completely unrelated topics outside of New Jersey. Wondering55 (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I would have no problems with removal of issues related to Hoboken Mayor Zimmer since they are not directly related to this scandal, even though they would be investigated by the same New Jersey and federal authorities as separate matters. Based on this very reasoning, editors have previously removed details on this Zimmer matter, which can easily be put in the Wikipedia articles on Hurricane Sandy, Hoboken, New Jersey, and Governorship of Chris Christie. It has been previously agreed by many editors that these details can also be included in Governor Chris Christie Administration Scandals and Controversies, if it is created, since there has been a long history of allegation of scandals and controversies in the Christie administration. Any thoughts specifically related to inclusion of any details about allegations by Hoboken Mayor Zimmer in this article would be welcomed.

As I and others have noted, the Mayor Fulop allegations need to be mentioned in this article since they are based on the same premise as the most widely reported hypothesis for both the Fort Lee and Jersey City matters; a mayor was targeted for retribution because they did not endorse Christie for re-election. Jersey City mayor raised it publicly when his original concerns about this exact same hypothesis were validated when the Bridgegate scandal broke wide open with the January 8 disclosures of subpoenaed documents. Hopefully, the full details about these allegations can find a home in the Governor Chris Christie Administration Scandals and Controversies, if it is created, and the section about Fulop in this article would be consolidated.Wondering55 (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's the status of the following issues regarding the non-neutrality of this article:

• Allegations of Mayor Zimmer of Hoboken - Per Wondering's comments above, I've removed this.
• The New Republic - Since no one has addressed my comments above regarding the propriety of referencing this in the article, I've removed it.
• Allegations of Mayor Fulop - There is an outstanding dispute regarding the relevance of this to the article.
• Inclusion of allegations of media bias in coverage of the scandal - There is an outstanding dispute regarding the relevance of this to the article.CFredkin (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The article was updated to condense allegations of Mayor Fulop in the "Speculation as to motives" section to show how they involve similar speculation about retribution against Mayor Fulop and Mayor Sokolich for not endorsing Christie in his 2013 election. These allegation are supported by subpoenaed e-mail correspondence from Wildstein referencing both Mayors about not responding to each of them when he was communicating about the toll lane closures, along with many news reports, including referenced citations in that section. See "JC Mayor Section" for consensus reached.

I see some differing opinion, but a general consensus in not needing to detail the opinions from "reliable", but somewhat biased sources themselves, that there is general media bias, which is a common accusation in almost any scandal or controversy, and not adding unrelated items that will only add to the length of this article without providing significant objective value to readers. Wondering55 (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The New Republic article entitled, "Chris Christie's Entire Career Reeks - It's not just the bridge", has been relocated to Governorship of Chris Christie in the section about administration scandals and controversies. Wondering55 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I am new to this article. Just edited it for NPOV/NOR. If agreement can't be reached then we must go through dispute resolution. Quis separabit? 04:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Great discussion. Typical outcome. Let's compare some telling numbers:

Info/data	2012 Benghazi attack article	Fort Lee lane closure article
Total bytes (article size)	183,119	187,876
Cites in article	286	253
Views on article per day	~1,300	~800
Wikipedians with >20 edits on article	14	16

Numbers align with the reality of Wikipedia. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTPAPER? No one is stopping anyone from expanding the 2012 Benghazi attack, but in reading it, I see that the article is very comprehensive, and well organized. Maybe that article's subject been exhausted? Seems like it. Cwobeel (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

My point in sharing the above numbers was to simply state what is already known: Wikipedia has a liberal bias[2] and it's evident in Wikipedia articles. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think the premise of that essay is a just a bunch of malarkey, and your comment counters the principle of WP:NOTBATTLE. Cwobeel (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This article appears to use a lot of information to unfairly target Chris Christie based on information others have said about him, and this does not conform to Wikipedia's rules regarding attacks on living persons. Let me give an example. I would point to the fact that although Vice President Joe Biden's charitable giving has been an issue, negative coverage of his lack of giving is not mentioned on his page, whereas charitable giving is mentioned on Mitt Romney's page.Thetruthspeaker09 (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you please provide a concrete example from this article (rather than from Biden or Romney)? And propose new wording that would be "neutral"? JackGavin (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Since Thetruthspeaker09, nor anyone else, has provided any examples of current problems with neutrality, I will remove Thetruthspeaker09 article notice questioning the neutrality of the article. This article has regularly undergone revisions, including back and forth modifications to reach an acceptable version, by many different editors throughout its history when there has been questionable text related to neutrality. If there are further disputes, we should try to address them in the Talk section or through a transformation of revisions. Thetruthspeaker09 is still welcome to come back to this talk section and try and make their case with examples. Wondering55 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I again reassert my objection to the incredibly outrageous number of references to Chris Christie in this article. I think the entire thing should be scrubbed and restarted from scratch. 320 Mentions for Chris Christie's name in this piece, whereas in the IRS Tea Party Scandal Obama is mentioned just a couple times. Both the President and Chris Christie had the same amount of involvement with each scandal - Zero Involvement. I again reassert my opposition to the page in its current form and assert my belief that Wikipedia is enabling this Hate-Speech against Chris Christie to go forward against its own rules. Thetruthspeaker09 (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you please provide a concrete example of the "hate speech" in this article?

I'd have no objection to adding to the lede:

There is no evidence of Christie's personal involvement in the planning or execution of the closures.

I think the IRS story is a false equivalence. In the Bridgegate case we have the apparent involvement of many members of the governor's own office, and of people he personally appointed or recommended to the PA. Nixon had no personal involvement in the planning or execution of the Watergate break-in, but his name is all over that article. JackGavin (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This article provides the needed context on who has been involved in all of these events. To simply provide names without any relationships to their association with, appointment by, referral by, working with or for, speaking for, or hiring by Christie would be a denial of reality and the overwhelming amount of reported facts. In addition, there have been so many news reports on Christie's reactions and responses to the events leading up to the lane closures and its aftermath, even without any evidence of his involvement in the planning or execution. This article has been very judicious in its reference to Christie based on all of the cited news sources, which typically reference Christie by name multiple times and/or make Christie their primary focus, including referencing him in the title. In fact, the article has been frequently modified, when something or some announcement was attributed directly to Christie, in order to more accurately attribute it to one of his aides or his governor's office.

As an example, the article summarized the two citations, Christie Faces Scandal on Traffic Jam Aides Ordered and Bridge-gate fever! Covering the Christie scandal and its repercussions in the invisible primary, and mentioned Christie once in referenced statement in the article, and then only in a secondary context in identifying one of the aides in his office, even though both citations focused on Christie and referenced him multiple times (38, although not all in reference to the specific cited statement below):

The scandal broke in full on January 8, 2014, with an online story by The Record that Christie's deputy chief of staff Bridget Kelly was involved in the planning of the toll lane closures. That revelation catapulted the story into a national political event. The Record continued with details of the dialogues in the troves of e-mails and texts supplied to the New Jersey Assembly Transportation Committee by David Wildstein. The Record described "vindictive lane closures" that were intended to cause massive traffic jams in Fort Lee. Related news with quotes from the e-mails and texts were subsequently published the same day in other news media.

If we also compared the number of times Christie's name is mentioned in this article just in comparison to all of the references to Christie's name in only the cited sources, it is a very, very small percentage (better known as a pittance). We also have to acknowledge that the number of cited sources regarding these events is only a very small percentage of all of the other news sources, which have reported on these events and referenced Christie multiple times and/or focused entirely on Christie's involvement in related events and various reactions and impacts. So in reality, this article is even more judicious in its references to Christie in its comparison to all of the news sources that are available to the public. Since the beginning of the year when this article was first created, there has been a daily and/or weekly barrage of news sources that have been reporting on these events and various reactions and impacts with an overwhelming amount of references to Christie.

The article's mentioning of Patrick Foye, a key Port Authority figure in these events, who was appointed by New York Governor Cuomo, has made multiple references that Foye was appointed by Cuomo and is a New York appointee. I don't see anyone making the case that it is unfair that this article, in regard to Foye, is unfairly mentioning Cuomo and that he is a New York appointee, since Cuomo, unlike Christie, had no real involvement in the aftermath of these events.

I agree with JackGavin that the lede can be updated. My proposed modification would be:

There has been no evidence of Christie's personal involvement in the planning or execution of the toll lane closures or the events that followed in the immediate aftermath.

However, let us all remember that this article has been very careful in abiding by the very intent of the above proposed statement.

Even without his personal involvement based on the proposed statement, the events leading up to and subsequent to the toll lane closures has caused a monumental political impact on Christie, his administration, and his political ambitions that has no comparison to anything else that has happened during the Christie administration. Wondering55 (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We are still waiting for Thetruthspeaker09 or anyone else to provide examples of the claimed hate speech against Christie or how or why Christie should be mentioned less often. Wondering55 (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I updated the lede with Wondering55's text, slightly modified:

There has been no evidence of Christie's personal involvement in the planning or 
execution of the toll lane closures, nor in the events of the immediate aftermath.

I think the new paragraph's position as the second paragraph of the lede gives it all necessary prominence.

I still await the hate speech example(s). JackGavin (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Very well done and positioned for prominent display in the lede as a good positive counterpoint for Christie and his reputation. That statement is a simple summary based on the detailed statements found throughout the article. Any additional feedback with fact-based items from Thetruthspeaker09 is still welcomed. Wondering55 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with that addition. The article does not make any claims that Christie is involved, so there is no need to add a caveat to the lead. Cwobeel (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

One would have to read through the entire article to realize what is not there. Why not Talk before reverting? JackGavin (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Using WP:BRD. Again, I don't think this is needed. Once the investigations end we will know. Cwobeel (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't argue with, "Once the investigations end we will know." But in the meantime, we will have readers. Must they read every word, and only by inference of omission decide that there has been no evidence of Christie's personal involvement in the planning or execution of the toll lane closures, nor in the events of the immediate aftermath? I don't agree with Thetruthspeaker09 about this being an overall hit piece on Christie, but I'm willing to lede one sentence to counter that perception. JackGavin (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with JackGavin that it would be a good idea to counter any misperceptions about Christie at the beginning of the article based on a very simple statement since it is a fact that no one has turned up any evidence so far linking him directly to the planning, execution, and immediate aftermath. There may be claims that he was involved, or inferences based only on secondary substantiated information (i.e. seen meeting on Sept. 11, 2013 at World Trade Center with Samson, Baroni, and Wildstein, who were direct accomplices in parts of the toll lane closures, during the toll lane closures, even though Christie indicated that he had not seen Wildstein for a very long time prior to the election), all of which the article does address based on cited sources. However, there still is no evidence directly linking him to those cited activities. The article does rightly mention Christie frequently throughout the article based on his association with those directly responsible for the planning and execution and his involvement with investigations. There should be no reason that someone has to go through the entire long article to find out in the end that no evidence has cited him in the referenced activities. There already is a statement at the very end in January 10, 2014 in the Timeline section

There was no evidence that additional administration officials, beyond those already mentioned, had advance knowledge of the toll lane closure plan, but showed that top aides to Christie were aware early on of related issues and their importance for avoiding further disclosures

The proposed Lede statement is simply pulling together that Timeline detailed statement and the entire detailed article into a summary statement, particularly since Christie has a major central role on how these events and its investigation ultimately play out. That is the purpose of a Lede statement.

Feel free to modify the last proposed statement. Remember this is a dynamic article that can be quickly be changed if there is evidence to the contrary:

There has been no evidence of Christie's personal involvement in the planning or 
execution of the toll lane closures, nor in the events of the immediate aftermath. Wondering55 (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The lead already does not mention Christie as a person of interest in the investigation. If we ought to base the lead on the numerous sources, what we should do is to reflect what that Christie himself said (that he had no knowledge, etc.) Rather that use a statement that is not provable or disprovable as suggested. For example, we can say what is reported here [3] Chris Christie Says He ‘Unequivocally’ Had No Knowledge of Lane Closure Cwobeel (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Added to the lead's second paragraph: [4] Cwobeel (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The lede's updated second paragraph "Christie continues to stand ..." is satisfactory to me. Yes, basing it on his statements, with cite, is an improvement. Thanks. JackGavin (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed that sentence as it had become too long and lacked context. This is a lead, and the details follow on the article. Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with "Christie continues to stand by his February 2014 interview...." in the lede, which is basically a summary of everything that has been reported? The context is very clear. He continues to stand by his statements in that February interview. You also removed details about which Wall Street Journal Story Christie was referring to. There have been many Wall Street Journal stories about this event. It would be helpful to let readers know which Wall Street Journal story that Christie was referencing. More details about the Wall Street Journal can then be found in the article details. Wondering55 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"Continues to stand" requires context (i.e. that he said that before) but there is no such mention preceding that statement. Also, just remember this is the lead, details about the specific radio interview and WSJ article can be expanded in the body. Just go back to the edit before mine and see if you can read the sentence aloud without running out of breath :) Cwobeel (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The context is that he continues to stand by his interview statements, which are mentioned. I propose the statement be updated:

Christie continues to stand by his February 2014 radio interview statements that he “unequivocally” had no knowledge of, did not approve, and did not authorize plans to close the local toll lanes, and first found out about the traffic jams from a Wall Street Journal story when it reported on leaked e-mails from Port Authority Executive Director Patrick "Pat" Foye after the lanes had reopened.

Wondering55 (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That does not work. This is an encyclopedic article, not a narrative. Just follow the sources without adding your own interpretation or conclusions per WP:NOR Cwobeel (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Target of Fort Lee lane closures

Based on extensive news reports and the recent internal investigation by the governor's office, I would suggest that the article can now safely indicate that:

The Fort Lee traffic jams were apparently created for political retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, but the precise motivation is unclear.

There is still speculation about the exact motives for this political retribution against Sokolich.

The article already shows that from the very first news report by The Record on September 13, 2013, there has been an overwhelming number of news reports that Sokolich was targeted, although several theories still remain as to the exact reason or motive.

Even the internal investigation report commissioned by Christie's governor's office concludes that Fort Lee Mayor Sokolich was the target of political retribution for these traffic jams. While it does not include interviews with Kelly, Wildstein, and Baroni, it does include their available written communications, which has supporting evidence. The report indicates there is still an unclear motive for that retribution.

Critics have attacked the investigation report based on not providing sufficient evidence to clear Christie and others in his administration of any wrong doing since the report can not state with certainty whether anyone did or did not instruct his deputy Chief of Staff, Bridget Kelly, to initiate her authorization to Wildstein to create the Fort Lee traffic jams. However, none of the critics have questioned the report's conclusion that Sokolich was the target of these traffic jams. As already shown in this article, many of these same critics already claimed that Sokolich was the target of these traffic jams, although the motives are still up for debate.

As already shown in many instances in this article, Sokolich is the only official referenced in a negative manner in regards to the impact of the lane closures on Fort Lee, along with a concerted effort not to communicate with him or provide him with proper explanations, in many documented communications during and after the lane closures by the key figures, Kelly, Wildstein, and Baroni, involved with the planning of the lane closures and its immediate aftermath.

As already shown in this article, drivers during the lane closures were told by Port Authority police to contact the Fort Lee Mayor or his office, to address their concerns about the lane closures.

The Wikipedia article can safely state that Sokolich was "apparently" the target of the traffic jams caused by the lane closures based on overwhelming amount of reliable sources already in the article

If you support or oppose the highlighted statement above that still keeps open the motive for that political retribution, please advise. The absolute final verdict is not in on this, but the article can safely mention that Sokolich was "apparently" targeted for political retribution based on overwhelming amount of facts, written communications, and reliable sources already in the article. Wondering55 (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That is already described in the last paragraph of the lead. Cwobeel (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The last paragraph clearly states that it is still a speculation theory that Sokolich was the target of political retribution. That is different than the highlighted proposed statement above.

The first paragraph in the lede statement currently states:

The disruption was apparently created for political retribution, but the precise target or motivation is unclear.

That current statement is in contradiction to all of the reliable sources and subpoenaed documents that are already referenced in the article. It needs to be changed. The original highlighted statement above more accurately describes the current situation based on the current consensus of reliable sources. If the proposed statement is contradicted based on other current reliable sources, please provide them. Otherwise, the article needs to be updated based on the proposed highlighted statement. Wondering55 (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The "precise target" it is still very speculative, including as reported on the internal report by Christie's lawyers. Cwobeel (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The report's executive summary makes multiple references to Kelly and Wildstein targeting Sokolich and the report's factual analysis states:

That said, there are persuasive reasons to believe that the lane realignment was, in fact, motivated to target Mayor Sokolich for some reason. The specific reason or reasons that Wildstein and Kelly wanted to target him—whether Sokolich’s unwillingness to endorse or some other conduct that they found objectionable—is, however, more difficult to determine.

The report identifies Sokolich as the target of this rogue political retribution, but denies the speculation that this political retribution was instigated by Christie and the governor's office because Sokolich did not endorse Christie.

The article can be updated based on the original highlighted statement since all facts, communications, and the governor's reports support that statement. Wondering55 (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That report does not have the last word, and what it says there is that they don't know. Read it. Just be patient, other investigation will complete and we will know more. Till then, it is what it is: we don't know. Also, please avoid all these Pre statements it disrupts the flow of the discussion and are hard to follow. Cwobeel (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

All of your statements so far have been your opinions and generalizations without any specific references from the report or other reliable sources. That is original research. That is not how Wikipedia works. The statement from the report and news sources contradict your opinions. I can also assure you that no one will have the last word on this scandal, even after all of the investigations are completed. Until you have reliable sources that you can present to validate your opinions, the article needs to be updated based on current reliable sources and the report.

I have read the report and it states the exact opposite of what you are claiming and repeatedly indicates, including what I have presented above, that Sokolich was the apparent target without claiming to know the motive for him being the target.

The key word in the proposed lede statement is that Sokolich was "apparently" the target. It does not say "definitely". Wikipedia publishes what is reportedly known. It is reportedly known that Sokolich was "apparently" the target based on many cited sources in this article that go well beyond this report. If you have sources that dispute this, you are free to present them now in the Talk article. However, you will not be able to add any of your generalizations or opinions to the actual article that you have presented on this Talk page that contradict what is reportedly known. Wondering55 (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

the solution is very simple. Remove that sentence completely. The last paragraph is accurate and fully supported by sources. Cwobeel (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the last sentence:

One theory, frequently cited from the beginning of the controversy as to why the lanes were closed, was that it was political retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, a Democrat, for not endorsing Christie, a Republican, in the 2013 gubernatorial election.[21][25] Investigators are also examining other possible motives, such as whether the closures were intended to affect a major real estate development project, which was a top priority for Sokolich, that was underway at the Fort Lee bridge access point.[25][26]..

Cwobeel (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the last sentence of the lead to the 2nd paragraph. This, I believe will resolve this conversation. Cwobeel (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, simply rearranging a previous paragraph about outdated theories does not reflect the current reported items. Relocating that paragraph without any of the proposed changes does not accurately portray what the investigation report and many reliable sources have further stated. The referenced old theories that you presented were the starting points and not the end points of their investigation in order to see if the entirety of each theory statement was valid. As your referenced statements indicate, one previous theory was that it was both for 1) political retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, a Democrat, and 2) for him not endorsing Christie, a Republican, in the 2013 gubernatorial election. The alternate theory was that it was both for 1) political retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, a Democrat, and 2) it was to affect a major real estate development project promoted by Sokolich.

The investgation report established the first part of those theories based on extensive referenced communications and verified it in writing, as reasonably apparent, in the executive summary and the factual analysis (as I highlighted above). It could not establish the second part of those theories. I am not aware of any reliable sources that have argued that it is still not reasonably apparent that Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich was targeted for political retribution, even if it was an unauthorized rogue attempt by Kelly. This significant update needs to be reflected in the article.

The article still needs to be updated as I originally proposed, unless you have reliable sources and any documented conclusions in the investigation report to the contrary. The article would still not state that Christie was involved with authorizing this political retribution, and that the motive for this political retribution is still unclear. Wondering55 (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you please try being a little bit more concise? Look: The "report" is just one informal report, not one done by investigators with subpoena powers. So you can't use that "report" for anything other to describe what that report says in the section of the article in which that is covered. Clear? Cwobeel (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but subsequent news reports are indicating that Sokolich was the target. Your previous article updates are inaccurate and continue to be based on older reporting and you have offered no reliable sources to support your position. We cannot continue to go back and forth if you have no reliable sources to support your opinions. Provide me something of substance or the article will need to be revised. Wondering55 (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no conclusive evidence on neither the motives nor the target. The paragraph in the lead reflects the consensus of all sources, including the internal report. here it is again.

One theory, frequently cited from the beginning of the controversy as to why the lanes were closed, was that it was political retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, a Democrat, for not endorsing Christie, a Republican, in the 2013 gubernatorial election.[7][8] Investigators are also examining other possible motives, such as whether the closures were intended to affect a major real estate development project, which was a top priority for Sokolich, that was underway at the Fort Lee bridge access point.[8][9]

Cwobeel (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

persuasive reasons to believe in the report, is exactly that: a theory same as many other reports and commentary from other sources since the beginning of the scandal. The layers "believe" because they did not interview the key actors in the scandal, so it remains a theory. Clear now? Cwobeel (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You continue to present the same original theories, which I previously explained were the starting point of the Christie investigation, and not the end point of that investigation rather then further reporting by reliable sources. I also explained that those older theories were composed of two parts that needed to be satisfied with further evidence: 1) Was Sokolich the target? 2) What was the motive for him being the target?; "Persuasive reasons to believe" is based on documented communications (evidence) addressed throughout the investigation report and admitted in the executive summary, in which Sokolich was mentioned as being targeted. If there was not extensive documented evidence, they would not have put it in the executive summary. Interviews are still needed with key figures to verify why they were targeting Sokolich, not if they were targeting him, along with any additional evidence that they could supply.

You continue to present legal arguments, which is not what Wikipeida is for, rather than documented items from the report that indicate that Solkolich was targeted. Reliable sources now indicate that Sokolich was targeted, while they still debate the motives.

If you want to take it to the extreme, Kelly's lawyer has indicated there is no proof that Kelly sent the e-mail, "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee" and many of the other lawyers have indicated that their clients did not do what has been reported about them. The entire article would have to be re-crafted, even though reliable sources continue to attribute certain reported items to their clients. In the extreme, almost everything in the real world can be considered a theory. At some point, Wikipedia documents what reliable sources claim is hard evidence. That is all we would be doing in this article.

Please present reliable sources that continue to raise significant questions whether Sokolich was targeted. Otherwise, the article needs to be updated. My proposed modified version, based on the investigation report and reliable sources subsequent to that report, is:

"The Fort Lee traffic jams were apparently created for retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, but the precise motivation is unclear."Wondering55 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed version does not work because it does not include the widely held opinion that it is not only the motive unknown, but also the target is unknown. So I would agree to this modification, here the entire paragraph:

The Fort Lee traffic jams were apparently created for retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, but the precise target and motivation is unclear. One theory, frequently cited was that it was political retribution against 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 a major real estate development project, which was a top priority for Sokolich, that was underway at the Fort Lee bridge access point.

Hope you could agree to this as a suitable compromise. Cwobeel (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer the first sentence be modified, as noted below. The questions about "cause" is what caused them to target Sokolich. The questions about motivation is what motivated them to create traffic jams to inflict damage to Sokolich and his secondary interests, either for political or economic purposes.

The Fort Lee traffic jams were apparently created for retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, but the precise cause and motivation are unclear. Wondering55 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Once we agree, I will take care of the updates. Wondering55 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no deal. I proposed a compromise. :"cause and motive" is just NOR. Better to use what the sources say: the target of the retribution and the motivation are still unknown, although there are several theories. Cwobeel (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence could be revised, as noted below since it is not clear whether his political interests or economic interests (real estate development deal) were being targeted, as explained in the two subsequent sentences.

The Fort Lee traffic jams were apparently created for retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, but the motivation and precise targeting of his interests are unclear. Wondering55 (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

still does not work, thank you for trying though. The problem is that you are asserting with that statement that the reasons for the lane closures was targeting Sokolich, but the fact is that we don't know yet as the State and Federal investigations have not submitted their reports yet, and the internal review by Christie's lawyers have not interviewed the main protagonists: Kelly, Stepien, and Wildstein. Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That is why the statement says "apparent". The proposed statement is an accurate description based on current reliable sources and the two sentences that follow. If you have any reliable sources that support your position that we don't know who the target is yet, please present them now. Reliable sources, including Christie's investigation report, in the article have already stated that Sokolich is the apparent target. My proposed update is a reasonable compromise. If the State and Federal investigations turn up something different later, the article would be updated then.

The State and Federal investigations can also find out that Kelly never actually was the one, who sent her infamous e-mail on August 13, 2013, as claimed by her lawyer. The Wikipedia article would be updated accordingly at that time. We are not going to change this article now about that e-mail, just because the State and Federal investigations have not been completed, since current reliable sources in the article indicate that she sent the e-mail. Wondering55 (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have argued quite clearly my point: There are theories about the target and about the motives, and that remains the only fact we know. So "apparent" is OK to be uses, thus my proposal above. Please read it again, as this back and forth is becoming quite a PIA for me. Cwobeel (talk)

Here it is again

The Fort Lee traffic jams were apparently created for retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, but the precise target and motivation is unclear. One theory, frequently cited was that it was political retribution against 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 a major real estate development project, which was a top priority for Sokolich, that was underway at the Fort Lee bridge access point.

Cwobeel (talk)

Your arguments have been your theories. We are not hear to argue theories. We are here to make sure article statements can be supported by reliable sources. You still need to provide reliable news sources based on the current reality to support a simple repeat of the proposed first statement. Without them, that statement is your own personal theory, which is not supposed to be published in Wikipedia, that is further contradicted by reliable news sources in the article. That statement may have been accurate a month ago, but it is no longer accurate based on additional communications that have been made public, along with the investigation report. In addition, that statement is confusing since it indicates that Sokolich was the apparent target for retribution, but the precise target is not clear.

Let's go with my proposed statement, which is a compromise based on your feedback, that is supported by current reliable sources. It would also then include your two updated statements that follow in your highlighted box.

If you have no further reliable sources, let's move on from this back and forth about theories. If new reliable information comes out, as the investigations progress, we can update the article. Wondering55 (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I just read through this discussion, and I agree that for Wikipedia 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.") Wikipedia 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. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Source conflict

In what it describes as an "exclusive," ABC News reported on April 4 that a grand jury had been convened, and that it had called Michael Drewniak. [5] However, in an article on the same testimony, citing the ABC News report, the New York Times said that this was not a new grand jury, but the same one that had been previously reported as subpoenaing documents: "While it has been previously reported that a grand jury was meeting in the case, ABC News reported on Friday that the grand jury was calling witnesses to testify and not only reviewing subpoenaed documents."[6] In a situation like this, we need to be mindful of WP:V and especially WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." The claim that this is a new grand jury requires multiple sources, and we don't have it yet. However, we do have multiple sourcing that Drewniak testified, and that this is the first report of someone actually testifying before that grand jury. Rachel Maddow also threw cold water on the ABC News report, but I'm not quite sure how or if we can cite that. Coretheapple (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I've tweaked it to include both the ABC and Times versions. There is a good essay that deals with this kind of situation. In the timeline, however, I've abbreviated it to just Drewniak appearing, not discussing the source conflict. Coretheapple (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Good call. Cwobeel (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Troublesome language and a desirable addition

I have been away and have to go through this page and catch up, but I have to say candidly that I don't like some of the editing that's been going on in this article, the invoking of "consensus" that does not appear to be evident in the talk page, some of the kneejerk reversions, the overreaching, the OR, the WP:OWN conduct here and there. I think that we are going to have to laboriously go over the contentious aspects of this article, one phrase at a time, to determine where the consensus really exists. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The history and input to this article has been based on a very collaborative effort based on an overwhelming amount of revisions. Many agreements or compromises have been reached though back and forth editing comments without the need to go to Talk. Any reversions that have been questioned have been addressed in a respectful manner, while asking for additional feedback in order to address any specific concerns. Questions of Original Research have been addressed by including many referenced citations, along with modifying or deleting OR text. Editors have already been essentially reviewing every phrase in this article based on the overwhelming amount of revisions for this article on an ongoing basis throughout the history of this article that is elevating the article's quality based on Wikikpedia's guidelines and policies. I don't think that a review of every phrase is needed at this time. Wondering55 (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome not to participate. Let's begin with a couple of reversions which you made, and made repeatedly, that trouble me:

1. In the lead, the current version of the article says, "The Fort Lee lane closure scandal, also known as the George Washington Bridge lane closure scandal or Bridgegate,[1][2] is a U.S. political scandal in which a staff member and certain political appointees of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie were shown to have conspired to create traffic jams in Fort Lee, New Jersey, by closing local lanes at an eastbound upper-level toll plaza entrance[3][4]..."

Note what I put in boldface. In my opinion, Wikipedia should not be saying, in its voice, that political appointees "were shown to have conspired." That is not neutral language. It is POV language. "Conspiracy" is a criminal offense. It is entirely possible there was such a conspiracy. (My own personal view is that there was.) But I think that it is sufficient to say "... which a staff member and certain political appointees of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie created traffic jams in Fort Lee, New Jersey, by closing..." omitting the word "conspired."

2. In the section "Other allegations against David Samson," there is a paragraph that currently reads as follows: Calls for Samson's resignation and/or removal came from New Jersey officials and media sources, including The Star-Ledger,[187] The Daily News (New York),[188] The Record,[189] and The New York Times.[190]

I believe that paragaraph should read as follows: "Calls for Samson's resignation and/or removal came from New Jersey officials and media sources, including The Star-Ledger,[179] The Daily News (New York),[180] The Record,[181] and The New York Times.[182] On March 4, the freeholders (county legislature) in Bergen County, where Fort Lee is located, called for the resignation of Samson and the other five New Jersey appointed commissioners, with the commissioners faulted for failure to exercise proper oversight.[183]"

The sentence that I would like to add is an abbreviated version of the text that was there already. It was reverted, insistently on the ground that it replicates what is in the timeline. But as was pointed out when I attempted to add that text, timeliness necessarily replicate what is in the article. The Bergen County legislature is at least as important as the Bergen County newspaper in that context, and the paragraph as it is now is incomplete.

Let's start with these two reversions. Coretheapple (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

For NPOV, added the distinction "allegedly" to that first sentence to read: in which a staff member and certain political appointees of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie allegedly conspired to create traffic jams in Fort Lee, New Jersey. Cwobeel (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That helps, but you see, the problem with "allegedly" is that no on is "alleging." I think that needs to be reserved for situations in which some law enforcement authority has accused someone of doing something. That hasn't happened (yet). This is the first sentence so we want to be extra-careful. Coretheapple (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

So what would you propose? Cwobeel (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(BTW, the definition of allegedly: used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof. which I believe is applicable in this case as there are numerous sources that allege it.) Cwobeel (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As I indicated above, it's enough to say that they created the jams, which is undisputed. To add in "conspired" is tantamount to Wikipedia indicting them for the crime of conspiracy. "Alleged" doesn't do. Alleged by whom? We should only use that term when there has been an allegation in a court or some other formal process. We just don't need "conspire." Coretheapple (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As I previously indicated, the term "conspire" has been used quite extensively by reliable news sources, as shown in Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/Archive 1#Conspired to create traffic jams. All of those extensive sources were provided in the Talk section by Dezastru because there was extensive back and forth editing at that time questioning the use of "conspire", which had been repeatedly added by other editors. So Wikipedia itself is not saying anything about "conspire" or using it in a legal context. This article is reporting what other reliable sources have indicated and what other editors agreed was acceptable since it was not being used in any legal context.

Just for your information, there are was also an extensive debate at that time through back and forth editing on whether "were shown to have" conspired vs. the second version "allegedly" conspired should be used. Based on all of the cited reliable sources, it was decided by the editors to include the first quoted version. There were extensive written communications by those cited or testimony taken under oath by other PA employees, who dealt directly with those cited, at a legislature investigative committee hearing in December 2013 that provides the evidence and proof. Many of these items are already cited in this article. Cwobeel has now revised it back to "allegedly", even though reliable news reports and the cited evidence do not depict it that way.

As I previously indicated, a majority of the events in this article could technically be described, as "allegedly" since so many items are not known for absolute certainty. Even if there is a trial or final reports by federal or state investigations, there will be those, including lawyers, who will dispute the confirmed items as still "allegedly" or not true. Wondering55 (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Details about the freeholder vote to call for Samson's resignation are included for readers in the David Samson main article redirect. There is no need to repeat the details in the Samson section, which was addressed in previous talks in that it would provide a brief overview of major items with a main article redirect to the Samson article for details since this section was getting too long. A brief highlight about this event is included in the Timeline section. Many of the Timeline section events are not duplicated or referenced in more detail in the more descriptive sections above it. As far as I am concerned, I would have no problems with even deleting the Timeline highlighted item since I consider it to be a relatively unimportant item in the overall context of this scandal and the Timeline section is generally used for significant relevant items. Details of this freeholder vote would still remain in the main article redirect to David Samson. Wondering55 (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You keep referring to a "redirect," when what you're referring to is a "main article" reference, which does not justify removal of a relevant detail. Please explain how the call for resignation of Samson by the Bergen County Record is more worthy of being referred to within the main text of this article as the action of the Bergen County Legislature. Coretheapple (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's main article wikilinked redirects are used in order to limit details in the originating article. That is the explicit justification in Wikipedia guidelines on why details are removed from one article and transferred to a main article redirect.

The resignation calls by 4 major newspapers in editorials that are read by well over a million people in the New York and New Jersey areas have considerably more significance to influence public opinion and government officials than a minor non-binding vote by county freeholders, who have absolutely no jurisdiction or influence over the PA, NJ legislature, and Christie administration. Wondering55 (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know your opinion and have heard it several times, mainly in edit summaries after you hit the revert button. I think we need wider community input on that unsound omission and upon the unwise use to the term "conspire," which had previously been mentioned only here. It's a red flag term and we don't use it unless a person has been accused of something in formal process. We could simply say that the officials "created" the jam, and there is no good reason to toss in "conspire," thereby making it a criminal act when nobody has been accused of anything at this stage. Coretheapple (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

When I present overwhelming facts based on reliable sources that contradict what you are stating, you inaccurately describe them as my opinion. You need to go check out the back and forth editing, previous to the cited Talk discussion initiated by Dezastru, that previously addressed the use of the word, "conspire", which was allowed by many editors based on overwhelming amount of reliable source reporting with the use of that word. It culminated in Dezastru providing the overwhelming number of citations that used that word "conspire". Once Dezastru presented the evidence in the Talk, the objections to the use of the word "conspire" stopped.

The previous back and forth editing several months ago, which culminated in the use of the word "conspire", previously suggested using words, like, "create", instead of "conspire". The use of the word "conspire" was taken directly from an overwhelming number of reliable, well established sources, which have lawyers and editors that review whether it is appropriate to use words, like "conspire".

Please feel free to go back and notify all of the editors, which were involved in that back and forth editing, that agreed to the use of the word "conspire" based on their acceptance and resolution several months ago and tell them that you want to change "conspire" to another word, like "create", which they rejected. Perhaps, there will be a change of mind about this issue.

You also seem to be unable to accept what was agreed to in past Talk discussions about the how the David Samson section would be handled based on a summary overview of major items, along with the details in the Main Article wikilinked redirect. Your contentions are even more questionable since I have seen so many discussion in other articles where it was agreed to limit what was included in an article's section since it was agreed that a Main Article wikilinked redirect would cover the more extensive details. Editors then didn't start adding more details to an article section that were already addressed in the Main Article wikilinked redirect. I did not see Talk discussion debates, if editors came along well after those discussion, and tried to add unnecessary details to the affected article section with the Main Article redirects. These editors were simply reminded not to include these details, which were already shown in the Main Article redirect or were told to relocate it to the Main Article redirect. There were no extensive back and forth objections. It is even more confusing, since you are proposing to duplicate an exact same item from the Timeline into the David Samson section. As I previously explained, the Timeline events are not necessarily also included in the more descriptive sections above it. Why can't you accept past Talk agreements and the facts. Wondering55 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you expect me to read long tirades? Can you be more concise? Cwobeel (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comment says it all, by falsely and inappropriately accusing me of "long tirades" that clearly violates Wikipedia etiquette guidelines. If you can't handle the overwhelming facts, past Talk agreements, and the truth, that is your problem. This necessary and substantiated information seems to overwhelm your short opinions. Wondering55 (talk)

We can really, really do without the "false accusations" rhetoric. Please simmer down. Coretheapple (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We can also do without the “simmer down” rhetoric. Wikipedia guidelines want editors to focus on the facts/issues and not personalities. It is also unfortunate that nothing was found wrong with denigrating comments that I pointed out, like describing a “long tirade” in response to a presentation of extensive facts that were supportive of my position. Wondering55 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Legal representation chart

Is it absolutely necessary? I don't think it really adds much of general interest. The chart on key players is definitely helpful, but I don't see the legal representation of the players as being material. Am I missing something? Coretheapple (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Having all of this in one place is fantastic, imagine trying to piece it all together on your own. I think readers will appreciate it. Cwobeel (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it interesting, but I'm kind of a "scandal buff." I'm not sure about people generally. It's just that I've heard some complaints about the article getting too long. I don't agree, as I think that this scandal has many elements that need to be included. Some (Zimmer's allegations concerning Sandy funds) are not even mentioned. Coretheapple (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

When we get to the stage of slimming down the overall atricle for posterity, this might be a good candidate to budding off into a new article, with a just a Main Entry and brief synopsis here. Easy to find, but not dominating the flow. Likewise for Investigations (though synopsis might not be so brief). JackGavin (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess the legal representation graph struck me as a bit too much, but generally I'm not too upset about the length of this article. Overall it is a useful article, well organized, though some salient points are omitted. For instance, Zimmer's allegations about Sandy funding. That too may warrant a separate article. However, it is part of the Bridgegate scandal, as evidenced by the fact that it was a subject of the recent internal investigation. Here it warrants a brief mention. Coretheapple (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is intertwined with Bridgegate, but for now the main entry for Hoboken/Sandy/Zimmer is at Governorship_of_Chris_Christie#Hoboken_relief_funds_investigation. Perhaps a pointer to there is appropriate in the Bridgate article, maybe a "See Also" just under the "Office of the Governor investigation" section headline.

At one point, I had explicitly mentioned that the "internal" report covered both topics (Bridgegate and Hoboken/Sandy/Zimmer), but that got lost in subsequent editing. JackGavin

(talk) 15:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Subsequent editing referenced Zimmer allegations (which are completely separate from the Bridgegate scandal and which has its own dedicated section in the Governorship of Chris Christie as previously discussed and agreed to), in the third paragraph of the "Office of Governor investigation" section, as shown below, with a wikilink to the main article on Hoboken/Sandy/Zimmer.

"The published report, at www.gdcreport.com, addressed Bridgegate allegations and separate allegations about Hurricane Sandy relief aid."

It's similar to how Fulop's allegations are referenced in "Speculation as to motives" section, as shown below, with a wikilink to the main article on Fulop's allegations.

"Steven Fulop, Mayor of Jersey City, alleged that he was also targeted for political reprisals by the Christie administration for declining to endorse Christie in the 2013 governor election."

Neither of those topics have "See Also" wikilinks, but they can be easily added, if there is consensus. Wondering55 (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I added "for Hoboken" to the first sentence of the third paragrqaph:

The published report, at www.gdcreport.com, addressed Bridgegate allegations and separate allegations about Hurricane Sandy relief aid for Hoboken.

(since it does not cover Belleville, New Brunswick, etc), with that last phrase (still) being a Wikilink into the Governorship page section, and I think that is satisfactory mention now, without "See Also". JackGavin (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I support your recommendation and update. Wondering55 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the legal rep chart serves as a benefit for referencing the lawyers and their firms for the major figures and organizations in the scandal in one central place. Wondering55 (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Federal investigation

There is new reporting on this here [7] and here [8] Cwobeel (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Also here [9] Cwobeel (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletions

For the trigger-happy editors amongst us, please engage in a discussion before massively deleting content that so many of us worked hard to research, edit and source. Cwobeel (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about.

This article content gets updated all of the time in a judicious mannner with items that superscede previously mentioned items, which then get deleted, or is updated to delete descriptions that are duplicated in two or more sections. Clear explanations are included in the History comments for these updates, which is how editing is normally handled. Many of my items or citations get overwritten by other editors, who provide explanations on the reasons for their edits. I do not revert their edits just because they did not open a Talk discussion. A Talk discussion does not need to be opened up for every edit. A Wikipedia article should also not be a repository of all previous edits of editors if those items are outdated or can be described better without the need for duplication. Wondering55 (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You have made an unilateral "decision" to delete content from the timeline. But a timeline is exctly that: a chronology of events. Of course new items in the chronology may be different than previous entries, but that is exactly the point. As an example: Say actor X claims the 5th in January, and in February he decides to testify, we need both entries in the chronology. Now, if you want to add material GO AHEAD. But please DO NOT delete material that I and others have researched, copy-edited and sourced without at least asking for consensus first! You need to assume consensus of existing material that has been in the article for a while, and if you want delete it ask first. The burden for seeking consensus in on you. Cwobeel (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, if you want me to discuss some of your edits, then go easy on your edits, do one at the time and ask for feedback. What's the rush? Cwobeel (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel. You have very bad habit of making changes to an article in the middle of a Talk discussion based on what you want, even though the discussion is ongoing and has not been resolved. You then indicate in the Talk what your change was, as if that is the last word on the topic, and then inappropriately indicate in the article History comments that your edit is being made as per the Talk. That is not how Talk discussions and article editing works and is definitely not an accurate History comment. You need to resolve in Talk before editing the article. I have tolerated this bad habit up to a point.

Please do not delete my recent edits, all of which have been provided with extensive substantiated explanations, until you address them in Talk, as requested. Otherwise, you are simply involved in edit warring.

Unfortunately, what you are proposing is not how this article has been continuously updated. Many editors have made many sequential edits, including deleting specific items, without having to go to Talk to address each one since they provide adequate History comments.

No editor has to go easy on their editing if they provide adequate History comments.

Your accusations above are simply inaccurate, over exaggerated, and simply contradict the extensive explanations that I provided in the History comments for my edits. Since your accusations are essentially inaccurate based on the facts, your conclusions based on those inaccurate accusations are not valid.

Please stop putting unnecessary burdens, which seems to be your stated intention, on me.

I would make the same argument to you. What is the rush in deleting so many of my edits without going to Talk to discuss them as I would be happy to do and which I have politely asked you to do?? Wondering55 (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wondering55, your attitude seems to be "please go to the talk page if you don't like my edits but I'll revert what I don't like." It's perilously close to WP:OWN behavior. You just removed some very useful information that belongs in this article, and you need to not do that. Coretheapple (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple. You are making false accusations as my Talk history has shown that I frequently discuss changes both in advance and for past changes. You seem to be unable to accept what I and other editors have told you or agreed to in Talk discussions and continue to bring up old issues that have been previously resolved or addressed. This is now bordering on harassment. You are also both engaging in edit warring, which is not acceptable. If you both do not stop this, I will have to report both of you since all of your false accusations contradict the actual facts that are continually presented to you.

Please stop with the false accusations. I have not reverted what I don't like. It is you and Cwobeel that have done the reverting with any basis. I have not removed any useful information that is not already covered by other items in this article. Until you are able to cite specific instances and discuss them with me, please stop reverting.

Both of your arguments look clueless, vindictive, and personal, while making a lot of extra work, when many of my revisions that you both reverted are simple copy edits that involved rearranging sentences and content without changing the actual meaning and content. Another edit that involved relocating an item to the David Samson article was based on my Talk discussion with JackGavin, who gave me permission to remove the item that he added to this article and relocate it to the Samson article.

I am waiting for your specific cited items so that I can discuss them with you. Until such time, there is no basis for reverting my edits.Wondering55 (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Wondering55: You need to relax, and take it easy. I appreciate your interest in this article, but please note that you are not alone. SO, here it is again: If you want to delete content that has been in the article for a while, you can discuss first before deleting as you are breaching the previous consensus. If that is too slow for you, you can do this: Make a single deletion, and see if it gets reverted. If it is get reverted, engage in a discussion and defend your deletion. Once that is done, move to the next edit you want to delete. Slow? Maybe, but that is the best way to collaborate. Cwobeel (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

So, show now some good faith, and demonstrate you want to collaborate. Yu can easily do that by undoing your last revert and start afresh with the process proposed above, step by step, slow and easy, and with good intent to make this article better. Cwobeel (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Wondering55:I see that Coretheapple has already reverted, so go ahead and start one deletion at the time and let see if it sticks or not. If it does not, you can defend your deletion here in talk. Cwobeel (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not a good idea, as it would just mean yet more reverting piecemeal until all involved have exhausted their reverts under the three-revert rule. What Wondering55 needs to do is to stop pulling out copy but to justify such deletion of what appears to be perfectly valid content. Coretheapple (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a good idea if we get started tomorrow or Monday. No rush Cwobeel (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite the point. There are at least three separate sections of text that Wondering55 wants to cut out. They have been reinstated. It is not a good idea for him to take those back out one by one. That's just a slow-motion edit war. What he needs to do is to justify why the specific blocks of text don't belong in this article. For example, I can't for the life of me understand how the material on Samson can be removed. He is a central figure in this scandal. All major aspects of the scandal regarding Samson belong in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As Cwobeel stated, lets get started on Monday. I wait for your first substantiated comments based on the facts, and not opinions. You also have to give credence to past Talk discussions and past agreements that I present by various editors since article editing does not happen in a vacuum that ignores past History. I also know that past agreements do not necessarily mean that those accepted changes can not be further reviewed and revised.

In regards to Coretheapple's previous comments, it is not accurate that text has been cut out. Items that are duplicated elsewhere, superseded by relevant events, and that was agreed to be relocated by the originating author to a related Samson article have been eliminated. Most of my edits are simple copy edits that rearranged sentences and content or simplified wording. All of these types of revisions have been made by other editors without any problems. Wondering55 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The view of the "originating author" carries no weight beyond that of any other editor. If editors object to the edits you make, you need to discuss, not edit war. Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

More generally, with regard to the "conspiracy" language in the lead that you also edit-warred on, and which I raised in the preceding discussion: just because one or two editors decide that it is OK to use POV language, that does not make it correct. There is a neutrality issue there, and it needs to be seriously discussed. If in fact there was a consensus, and I don't really see much of a discussion, much less a consensus, then it has to be reevaluated in light of Wikipedia policy. We can't say that people "conspired" or "allegedly conspired" when there have been no criminal charges raised at this point. All we have to say is that they "caused" the traffic jam. We don't use loaded, POV terminology in such situations. I suggest that you go back and remove that term. Coretheapple (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a real PIA. I will wait to tomorrow to restore the deleted material, which was done ignoring previous de-facto consensus. Cwobeel (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As expected, now that edits have been made since the deletions, it will be quite a chore restoring all the deleted materials. Is there a way to undo just specific edits without affection subsequent edits? Cwobeel (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course, but that's not desirable. I went back and restored everything I saw deleted without proper justification except for an item in the timeline, which I didn't get around to doing. (See the Feb. 18 timeline item here [10]) Do you mean that? I think everything material that was slashed out, other than that, was restored. It's easy enough to go back and see where it was deleted and restore it. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Feb. 18 timeline item restored. It's a sentence, so I think it's needed in the timeline and is not excessively duplicative. Is there anything else? I don't think so. Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. I just noticed and restored another. Yes, this article really has gotten the once-over, hasn't it? Restoring material that was unjustifiably deleted is going to be a chore whether or not there are subsequent edits. Coretheapple (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

There has been no de-facto consensus in any talk discussions about what items should ultimately be deleted or kept in the article.

There has been no factual basis presented to indicate that any item was “unjustifiably deleted” or that there were massive deletions, all of which simply remain an opinion.

As has been previously pointed out, there were legitimate deletions for:

• Some recent edits involved deleting items that were duplicated elsewhere in the article and that many previous editors had made similar types of deletions, without any objections, Talk discussions, or reverted edits, since the items they deleted were duplicates of other items.

• One recent edit involved removing an item that was superseded by other described events in the Timeline that followed that fully addressed the removed item. Many previous editors had made similar types of deletions, without any objections, Talk discussions, or reverted edits, since the items they deleted were superseded more accurately by other described events that followed.

• One recent edit involved relocating an item to the David Samson article, based on Talk discussion with JackGavin, who gave permission to relocate the item, which he added to this article, to the Samson article since the Samson section in this article has a Main Article wikilinked redirect to Samson article.

• One recent edit was to move details from Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Other allegations concerning David Samson to David Samson (New Jersey) based on a previous Talk consensus shown below with other editors to keep the Samson section as short as possible. It was even pointed out that putting this info back into the Samson section was not needed since it was already shown in the Timeline section and that it should not be duplicated in the Samson section. It was further pointed out that many items shown in the Timeline section are not shown anywhere else in any other article sections, which describe items in more detail, and that it is not necessary to simply duplicate items from the Timeline into other sections.

As previously noted above, the Samson article will be used for details about investigations into multiple investigations and questions of conduct/conflicts of interest/ethics violations of Samson. The Samson article already includes details based on the citation that JackGavin referenced. Those types of details should not be duplicated in this article, which currently has a smaller section titled, "Other allegations concerning David Samson", with a Main Article wikilink redirect to the Samson article.

It would be preferable that the current section should continue to only have a very broad summary about these separate ethics and conflict of interest issues since this article is now focusing specifically on the Fort Lee lane closure events and is already getting too long. We realize that the Fort Lee lane closure scandal will generate many tangential topics as the investigations progress. This article currently uses Wikipedia:Splitting with Main Article wikilink redirects for this tangential issue… in order to avoid too much information in the current article.

All of the items above have been put back in without any further discussions or consensus, even though it was agreed that there would be further discussions by Cwobeel and Coretheapple with me.

As has been previously noted, every effort should be welcomed to streamline this article in order to limit its overall verbiage as this long article continues to grow.

If there is any evidence to the contrary on what has been stated, please feel free to provide it. Wondering55 (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Wildstein

Didn't Wildstein recently testify or meet with officials? This should be added into the time line, no? As well as the main article body, no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this[11] warrants a brief mention. Coretheapple (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

But I don't know about the timeline. For one thing, the timing of the meeting itself is hazy. Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring past talk discussion agreements

Note: Bold highlighted items below are the question that needs to be addressed and my proposed solution. Any suggestions would be helpful.

Cwobeel and Coretheapple are making revisions to the article that ignore and contradict past Talk discussion agreements in which they participated.

When I simply revise the article to reflect the past Talk agreements, they inaccurately accuse me on my Talk page of edit warring and questionable personal motives if I do not accept their changes.

They then reverse my changes and threaten to report me for edit warring and 3RR violations if I try to revert their article changes, which contradict past Talk agreements or reliable sources that I cite.

I repeatedly ask them to address their concerns either through a back and forth editing process, which has been widely used with this article, or on the article Talk page. They ignore my requests and make more inflammatory and inaccurate claims on my Talk page.

The article editing can be an iterative process of mutual back and forth editing based on History comments that explain each editor's rationale until a mutually agreeable compromise is worked out. Editors do not have to start falsely accusing someone else of edit warring, just because the initial set of revisions that are being made about a specific item does not immediately gain acceptance between different editors. Most editors on this article page have adhered to that philosophy and there have been many extensive back and forth edits, deletions, revisions, for many specific items that included the editors perspectives and facts in the History comments. This gives other editors an opportunity to agree, disagree, or reach a compromise.

Anyone have any recommendations on how we get back to having Cwobeel, Coretheapple, and me working together?

This article has been very liberal in allowing many editors to delete duplicate items, relocate items to other wikilinked articles, and remove items that are superseded by more relevant items based on their History edit comments that cite past Talk discussions and reliable sources. All of a sudden, when I try to do the same type of edits, which I have been doing throughout the history of his article, I get continually reverted by Cwobeel and Coretheapple. That is not acceptable.

I regularly review all of the edits made to this article. While I do make changes to previous edits, including those by Cwobeel and Coretheapple, I very rarely revert their edits.

My suggestion is to let me go back to what I have been doing best based on back and forth editing that cites Talk discussion agreements and reliable sources. Stop the extensive reverts and accusations that are personally driven or that cannot be substantiated based on reliable sources. As everyone must know by now, I provide pretty extensive explanations and justifications in the History edit comments. I certainly am open to anyone'e editing of my updates based on reliable sources and substantiated reasons. Stop the unsubstantiated claims of edit warring if we simply go through an iterative process of back and forth edits to find the best solution.

If we cannot resolve the matter here, I will need to elevate it to dispute resolution as this has become much too time consuming for me based on too many of their reverts for me to even count. I have not had these problems with anyone else in my overwhelming amount of contributions to this article or the many other articles I contribute to.

Cwobeel and Coretheapple claim they don't have the time to read my Talk page explanations, but they seem to have a lot of time to revert my legitimate edits and continually make inaccurate claims about me and my edits and further threaten me with false accusations.

I cannot be spending all of my time in article talk discussions for every single edit or deletion of particular statements that I want to make that Cwobeel and Coretheapple disagree with, while also addressing their inflammatory allegations on my Talk page or in this article Talk page.

For those that can't fathom how to deal with opposing editors, I provide the next two talk items based on specific content examples that hopefully are easier to resolve. ]

Sorry, find your attempt to resolve this quite complicated to follow, arguments are long-winded and interspersed with personal attacks, and in no way or form conducive to a resolution. Cwobeel (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are absolutely no personal attacks by me based on what I outlined above. I have simply documented the undisputed facts based on past events and your comments about me and my editing.

Instead of denigrating my presentation and content, please focus, as I originally requested, on my bold highlighted recommendation above that focuses on content and not personalities. It is very simple and straight forward, as shown again below, along with a very important point about complying with Wikipedia guidelines.

My suggestion is to let me go back to what I have been doing best based on back and forth editing that cites Talk discussion agreements and reliable sources. Stop the extensive reverts and accusations that are personally driven or that cannot be substantiated based on reliable sources or past Talk discussions. As everyone must know by now, I provide pretty extensive explanations and justifications in the History edit comments. I certainly am open to anyone'e editing of my updates based on reliable sources and substantiated reasons. Stop the unsubstantiated claims of edit warring if we simply go through an iterative process of back and forth edits to find the best solution.

Editors need to pay particular attention to edits made based on Talk discussion agreements and consensus. To revert edits that are based on these Talk discussions without going back to the Talk topic to make a case for making further changes is a violation of Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Edit warring. Wondering55 (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Mastro blame in Key People

In the Key People table, the Wildstein and Kelly entries each might note the large share of blame doled out by Mastro. Eg for Wildstein entry, add:

With Kelly, shared the primary blame according to the Mastro report

and vice versa for Kelly entry. Thoughts? JackGavin (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I would not reference those claims in the Key People chart since the Mastro report has received widespread criticism of its bias portrayals of Wildstein and Kelly, neither of whom were even interviewed by Mastro and his firm. It would be providing those claims with undue weight in the fact based, NPOV chart for Key People. Wondering55 (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Wondering55. The "investigation" is widely considered a sham, used only to rehabilitate Christie's floundering image. It has been criticized as biased and non-objective. It relied on witness statements taken not under oath. And it did not interview the most essential and key players. Its "conclusions" are of zero weight and zero credibility. Furthermore, the legal team was paid over $1 million by Christie, and the team consisted of one of Christie's close friends. To include its "conclusions" in the chart for Wildstein and Kelly is a clear violation of NPOV. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. I also think we need to refer to the Rudy Mastro report as an "internal" investigation. It's referred to that way repeatedly in reliable sources.[12] Yet in recent edits the word "internal" has been removed. We may not view it as an internal investigation, but our opinion doesn't count. Coretheapple (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, concensus is to skip this particular edit. I had not intended it to give credence to the Mastro report, but only to to highlight how narrowly Mastro cast blame. But we'll let the regular narrative do that. JackGavin (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What about the point I raised about use of the word "internal"? I don't understand why it was removed. I think we need to discuss that. Coretheapple (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not much to discuss. The word "internal" should indeed be included. No reason for it to be removed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but at least one and possibly two editors (I'd have to go back and look) went around removing the word "internal," so I thought I'd raise the issue. Anyone else have any thoughts on the subject? Coretheapple (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, "internal". I have withdrawn the checkmark. I agree that the investigation was ostensibly of the executive branch, and at the behest of the executive branch, and was widely tagged "internal". The other side of the coin is that it was by an external (not to say disinterested) party. I think it would be fair to at least once (near the beginning of the section) call it "internal" with the scare quotes. BTW, there is another "internal" investigation, that of the PA's inspector general and police chief investigating the PA. JackGavin (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Why would we use scare quotes? To do so would be to make an editorial comment on the term "internal," and to act as if there is something strange or nonstandard about its usage. It seems perfectly standard to me. I don't see anything in the sources that dispute use of the term or make its use controversial. I think it would be POV to use scare quotes, unless there's a good reason for it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If there was some controversy about whether it was internal, then we should say so, and source it. But just because a Wikipedia editor thinks its use is strange, or does not like that it is called an internal report, that is no reason to use scare quotes. Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the body being external, and looking for witnesses (like Zimmer and Sokolich) who are external, make "internal" dubious. If you need a cite for that, I'll look for it. BTW, there is an analysis by The Record showing that the Mastro report did not conform to the usual GAO "Yellow Book" federal standards for an audit. JackGavin (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

But you see, that just underlines my point. By putting scare quotes around "internal," we make the opposite point, by implying that's really an arm's length inquiry! I think what you seem to be suggesting is that we put scare quotes around "investigation." But I wouldn't favor that either. Why not just simply add that very interesting citation within the body of the article? Assuming it's not there already. Do you see my point? Coretheapple (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC) (I really meant opposite "implication" that is, not opposite point. Coretheapple (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, we should add an explanation, and not rely on scare quotes alone. Look at the first half dozen found when Googling Mastro "so-called internal". JackGavin (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh sure. But we've had people taking out "internal" out of a sincere believe that it was an external investigation. Those quotes links are from people who think it wasn't an investigation. Coretheapple (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Given the widespread uproar and the numerous sources doubting that it was an investigation at all, why don't we simply substitute the more neutral term "report"? In the lead we'd talk about Christie being exonerated in a report commissioned by, etc. etc. Coretheapple (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not equate "external" with "unbiased", especially in this case. My point is that this is not a cut-and-dried instance of "internal". It's fair for us to note the common media usage of "internal" to refer to this, but I would suggest some caveat accompany the first usage. But I'm not going to keep flogging this. JackGavin (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that it's not cut and dried. Coretheapple (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Even if some news sources refer to it as an internal investigation, it should not be described in this article as an internal investigation since it was done by an external law firm, who was supposed to provide an outside perspective to try and avoid claims that it only served the internal purposes of the Christie administration. Christie conducted an internal investigation by his inner circle of his office staff in December 2013, which the article correctly refers to as an internal investigation. The Port Authority is conducting an internal investigation of this scandal through their Inspector General. Wondering55 (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we report what sources say about a subject, not what we believe to be correct (and even if we think we are correct and the sources are incorrect). You can refresh your memory of WP:NOR Cwobeel (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a good point to be aware of. That should not mean if there are some published reports that wrongly describe it somewhere in their news report as an "internal investigation" then we must include that exact verbiage in our article, even though every single description in those very same news articles do not describe it in every single instance as an internal investigation, and there are other news reports that do not even use that verbiage at all. NOR does not come into play if there are already instances in those very same news reports that do not refer it to as an internal investigation or there are news reports that do not use that verbiage at all.

Let me qualify my previous statement in that Wikipedia editors pick and choose what they want from cited news reports all of the time. Obviously, other editors frequently check the actual cited articles to ensure the Wikipedia descriptions can be verified by the cited articles. I come across many Wikipedia article statements that I would not have used based on the actual cited content, but it is still allowed since the citation includes that alternate version/description.

It is not like it was universally being described as an internal investigation. Wikipedia is not obligated to describe it as an internal investigation just because some news reports describe it as an internal investigation. It's not as cut and dried as it first seems. As I also found out in my review of news articles, a lot of times media editors include news article headlines that use buzz words, such as "internal investigation" that were never intended to be used by the originating reporter based on the actual content of their news report. Wondering55 (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to decide whether it is "internal" or "external." We just report what the reliable sources say. Since there is a substantial body of opinion that it was not an investigation at all, we may not want to even call it that in Wikipedia's voice. In any event, just removing "internal" in the personal belief that the "media is wrong" is just unacceptable. Coretheapple (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As indicated, there are many reports that do not report it as an "internal" investigation. There is no personal belief involved on who is right and who is wrong, since many in the media itself have already indicated it should not be described as an "internal" investigation. Coretheapple seems to be making the case to leave out the very contentious word of "internal" since there so many other ways to describe it based on media reports, as I originally suggested. Wondering55 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. What I'm suggesting is that we omit referring to it as an "investigation" and, if that's not agreed to, we should refer to it as an internal investigation. Reliable sources are in conflict as to whether this was an investigation at all. I don't know of anyone outside of the governor's office who is referring to as an independent, arm's length probe. Coretheapple (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The current wording in the main section describing the report is fine: Released on March 27, 2014, a law firm's investigation report (commissioned by the governor's office) indicated...' except that the word "investigation" may be a stretch, given the criticism that it has received. Elsewhere, and I don't think it is referred to more than once or twice elsewhere, I think it's best to just call it a "report" and thereby not get into whether it is an "investigation" or "internal." Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Motives for lane closures

Note: Bold highlighted items are my recommendations for compromise and resolution. Please advise if acceptable.

Cwobeel and I had extensive discussion at Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Target of Fort Lee lane closures about whether the Lede sentence below should be modified or kept in the article.

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 [two] 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 Wikipedia 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.") Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia 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)

Read my previous comment in the section above. Cwobeel (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

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.

Anyone else is also encouraged to provide support or feedback on why the proposed changes, which agree with Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Target of Fort Lee lane closures, should not be allowed. Otherwise, past article Talk discussions would allow this revision of content based on Wikipedia consensus and Talk page guidelines. Wondering55 (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia 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.

I continue to be guided by what needs to be included based on the content supported by reliable sources and Wikipedia guidelines about Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Consensus.

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 Wikipedia's guidelines in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Consensus, and avoids Wikipedia: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)

overuse of "scandal"

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)

This is widely called a "scandal" in the press, even in relation to the grand jury: "A federal grand jury has begun hearing testimony in the criminal investigation of the George Washington Bridge lane closing scandal, and Gov. Chris Christie’s chief spokesman is among those who have testified, his lawyer said Friday." from In bridge scandal, federal grand jury investigation is underway, upping the ante (NJ.com). JackGavin (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It is referred in most sources, if not all, as a "scandal", not as an "affair". Cwobeel (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely "scandal." If you put "Christie" and "affair" in Google News[13], 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)

Yes that must have dropped out somewhere along the line. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Added a short sentence to the lead. Cwobeel (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In re-reading the lead, I think it's way, way too long per WP:LEAD. I will do a WP:BOLD edit and see if it sticks. Cwobeel (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

At first glance I'd say it looks fine. Coretheapple (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Poll reference

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)

Sure, give it a go and see if it sticks. Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 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)

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.

As this article was developing, it was agreed in talk discussions at Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Complaints about media coverage & Neutrality & Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/Archive 1#Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion that details of Zimmer allegations, which are completely separate from Bridgegate, would be included in another article, which became allegations about Hurricane Sandy relief aid for Hoboken. This was agreed to even though it was acknowledged that the two separate scandals would be investigated by the same state and federal authorities.

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.

The published report, at www.GDCReport.com, addressed Bridgegate allegations and separate allegations about Hurricane Sandy relief aid for Hoboken.

Coretheapple, who participated in this Talk discussion, and made no further comments, then goes to the article and revises the statement above to read:

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.

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.

The published report, at www.GDCReport.com, also rejected allegations about withholding of Hurricane Sandy relief aid for Hoboken.

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)

Agree. I could not put it better. No BLP issues here whatsoever. Cwobeel (talk) 15:04, 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:

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.

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.

The published report, at www.GDCReport.com, also rejected allegations about withholding of Hurricane Sandy relief aid for Hoboken.

Coretheapple and Cwobeel go to my Talk page and make false allegations about me edit warring and my personal behavior and Cwobeel reverts my edits without any further Talk discussions. That is simply in violation of Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Consensus, and Wikipedia:Edit warring.

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)

Have a cup of tea. And avoid ultimata. Collect (talk) 16:40, 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 Wikipedia consensus and Talk page guidelines.

The published report, at www.GDCReport.com, also rejected allegations about withholding of Hurricane Sandy relief aid for Hoboken.

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.

The published report, at www.GDCReport.com, also rejected allegations about withholding of Hurricane Sandy relief aid for Hoboken.

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.

I will repeat what I have been clearly stating from the very beginning. All references to Zimmer and her quoted comments about Hoboken Sandy relief aid should be removed from this article since they have absolutely nothing to do with Bridgegate, as per consensus and agreements reached in many Talk discussions that further agreed that Zimmer allegations belong in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds. See Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/Archive 1#Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion and Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Complaints about media coverage & Neutrality.

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.

The published report, at www.GDCReport.com, also rejected allegations about withholding of Hurricane Sandy relief aid for Hoboken.

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)

Stop with the personal attacks and opinions, like use of "insane" and focus on content and the facts, which are that all past Talk discussions have agreed that denial of Sandy relief aid to Hoboken is not directly related to Fort Lee's Bridgegate and should be addressed in separate article. All previous references to Zimmer's allegations were removed and relocated a while back to Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds based on Talk discussions at Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/Archive 1#Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion, as well as Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Complaints about media coverage & Neutrality.

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 Wikipedia: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.

I am still not sure why Coretheapple cannot accept past Talk discussions, including one where Coretheapple participated, that relocated all details about Zimmer allegations with a wikilink to Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds for any reader interested in all of Zimmer's allegations. Wondering55 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

Hello? It is reliable sources making the connection, not me. I'm done trying to reason with you on this. You just won't listen. Coretheapple (talk) 18:42, 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 Wikipedia 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.

The published report, at www.GDCReport.com, also rejected allegations about withholding of Hurricane Sandy relief aid for Hoboken.

Let's be reasonable. Wondering55 (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

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.

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.

Coretheapple then edits the article with further details about Zimmer allegations, all of which should be shown in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation as per past Talk agreements and no consensus reached in this Talk discussion.

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)

All of Coretheapple's edits regarding Zimmer details have been reverted in accordance with Bold Revert Discuss and past Talk discussions that indicate that these details belong in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation Wondering55 (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:No personal attacks rather than address the content issues.

This could also be resolved by putting in a "See also" to Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation and remove any sentence about Zimmer and her allegations. Wikipedia articles do this all of the time without objections.

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.

Coretheapple is in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Consensus. Wondering55 (talk) 15:05, 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)

I've also changed some of the "stateds" to "saids" as it was used almost exclusively instead of "said." Coretheapple (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, the use of "claimed" is also found in the article, and should also be "said." Collect (talk) 16:52, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia, if reported information from a study or investigation cannot be verified from more than one source, it should not be shown in Wikipedia. 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia -- 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)

Y 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)

New Yorker articles

Interesting articles in The New Yorker. Here is one: [14]. Here is another: [15]. This second one, in particular, is fascinating. We may want to add some info from these New Yorker articles into the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Your points are valid. My apologies. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:04, 12 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 Kean stuff is in the Lizza article. All Cassidy does, re Kean, is quote his colleague's article. Coretheapple (talk) 12:59, 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 [16] 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Great job. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Four April 22 legislative subpoenas

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)

That's certainly worth mentioning. The way MSNBC played up DuHaime, I expected he'd have gotten a subpoena. Coretheapple (talk) 14:03, 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.[17] 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)

For the uninitiated (such as myself), the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. We may bump into "Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold." JackGavin (talk) 17:28, 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)