Talk:Chris Christie/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Education

"He has cut hundreds of thousands of dollars from school budgets all over the state because of the out of control budget deficit in New Jersey. The NJEA Teachers Union has also decided against resonable means to negotiate, as Christie has offered budget increases for districts in which has taken pay-freezes/cuts." This seems a little biassed to me, particularly the second line. Possible revision?? Xylogirl07 (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please upload official portrait

Can be obtained here: http://www.nj.gov/governor/library/imgs/20091208GovChristie.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.78.69 (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments on illegal immigrants

On April 28, 2008, New Jersey's top federal prosecutor told a Latino group it's a civil offense, not a crime, for immigrants to live in the country without proper documentation, a comment that a spokesman later said was aimed at a narrowly worded question. U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie, widely considered to be a leading GOP contender for governor next year, spoke Sunday in response to a question on illegal immigration at an open forum that grew heated. He said living in the U.S. without immigration paperwork is "an administrative matter" that federal immigration officials are supposed to address through deportation.

Critics categorized Christie's remarks as soft on illegal immigration. In a statement clarifying the remarks, Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak said that although lacking documents is not necessarily a crime in itself, it is a federal misdemeanor to enter the country without going through the proper immigration channels, or to enter by using fraudulent documents.

Christie "did not say, nor did he mean, that entering this country through any means other than the appropriate immigration channels is a lawful act. It is not," Drewniak said in a statement. An immigrant could be in the country illegally without making an illegal entry or using fraudulent documents if he or she overstayed a visa.

Of course, as Christie had to know, there are at least 12 million immigrants in America who could indeed -- quite fairly and quite accurately -- be classified as illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.148.23 (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Added to the Controversy segment of this page. As I read in another spot, foot in mouth, even though he may be technically right!

The American public feel strongly for the topic and you have to think that he WOULD go this path in this atmosphere, as you can think he is seeking votes.

I tried to be neutral on the posting, I think? But I have to agree with society.

paradiver 02:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The controversy portion takes up too much of the article. It is disporportionately large. Gregweitzner (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather, the rest of the article is skimpy. I added substantial content to the issues section, but there are quite a few that I did not have the time to research. Perhaps you could help with this? --Wormcast (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can try to help but I also noticed the statement "Christie has not said how he would recoup these tax revenues" or something along those lines. I just deleted it because although it is said in an unbiased manner the connotation of it is biased. In other political articles no one says "so-and-so politician has not yet stated where he will get the revenue to pay for this project" unless there is a direct source. This statement in my opinion is underlying bias unless we are to question every policy with its fiscal impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregweitzner (talk • contribs) 16:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Freeholder

To be more balanced I would like to see a mention that Christie had served as a Republican Morris County Freeholder and had raised $100,000 in 2000 for George Bush. There is public criticism, valid or not, that Christie was a republican with no criminal justice or law enforcement experience who was placed in the office by a politician he had assisted through fundraising. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Njsamizdat (talk • contribs) 15:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

And yet...

Christie is the most successful US Attorney NJ has ever had. There is NO ONE in living memory who has rooted out more corruption than he has. Simplemines 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)simplemines

Seconded Radiocolin (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is disgraceful in how biased it is. The criticism page was larger than the rest of it combined and was laced with bias. I cut it down a little but some of the references got scrambled. Please help make this more objective and expand on other parts. Gregweitzner (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Greg, moderating biased language is fine with me, but chopping out well-sourced and notable criticism is not. As I suggested before, if you feel that the criticism makes up too large a share of the article, then help to add some more information on Christie's positions and achievements - as far as I know, I am the only one to add anything to the former of these. The article is not yet overly long, and more work needs to be done in these areas. --Wormcast (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are definitely right that more needs to be added to this article. However, much of what I found when going through the sources used in the criticism section was that much of it was taken out of context, or only gave one side of the story. Many of these criticisms themselves have been refuted. If you only use left-wing rhetoric in the criticism section without any refutations or doubts, then it is pure bias. Gregweitzner (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

For instance, this sentence that I included in the criticism section, "However, these fees were found to be in line with similar services" keeps getting moved from where it would be cited. If you actually read the article that cites what comes before it, then you will see that that is in fact included in the article. However, whoever initially wrote the criticism section, selectively chose to ignore this very important fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregweitzner (talk • contribs) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to defend him against all possible questions related to that contract, the public criticism was about him giving it to his former boss. Says me, the left-wing info-adder. (If it lets me off the hook, I also added background about his accomplishments as prosecutor up top!) It's difficult to create a balanced page during a hotly-contested election, so let's assume good faith! Njsamizdat (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I moved the sentence "However, these fees were found to be in line with similar services" to the outside of the inline citations for the preceding information because these cited references do not (unless I missed something) support that claim. As it stood, it gave the appearance that the claim was supported by cited sources, when it was not. I did search for a source for the claim, but was not able to find anything. --Wormcast (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Greg, you have now cited two sources to support your claim that Ashcroft & Co.'s fees "were found to be in line with similar services":

(1) 'The spokesman, Mark Corallo, called the fee structure "consistent with any other large scale-monitoring circumstances," but could not immediately point to similar cases' (Ashcroft's firm to collect $52M to monitor implant case), and

(2) "Mr. Christie said that his office was too busy to regulate every aspect of an agreement, and that news reports indicated that Mr. Ashcroft’s fees were in line with what other firms charged to act as a monitor." (In Testy Exchange in Congress, Christie Defends His Record as a Prosecutor).

The first of is a simple assertion of this claim by Christie's spokesperson, and the second, a simple assertion by Christie himself. Clearly, neither of these statements constitutes a reliable, objective source any more than a claim by Johnny Cochran that "O.J. is innocent" would be a reliable, objective source for stating that O.J. is innocent. Find a real source for this information, please! As it stands now, it is simply campaign propaganda. --Wormcast (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I don't think a website promoting Chris Christie for Governor - the Save Jersey Blog - is a reliable source for this article. I'd suggest finding citations in a more balanced source like politicsnj.com or newspapers. Njsamizdat (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are some articles on Christie's past political career, that could provide some additional background; I just don't have the time to write anything right now: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/gop_candidate_chris_christie_l.html
http://www.politickernj.com/max/29733/murphy-endorses-christie-governor
http://www.politickernj.com/max/26275/political-career-three-parts-chris-christie-freeholder
http://www.northjersey.com/news/njpolitics/Christie_remembered_for_bitter_conflicts.html
I think the most critical fact that needs to be added is his 1997 primary loss for re-election as freeholder, including some description of the political infighting that preceeded it, and the lawsuit that followed it. Neutron (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about his traffic accident controversy?

Why not? 67.170.86.33 (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Christie's weight is also an issue

The fact that Christie is relatively, err, volumically endowed, has crept into the campaign, even though it doesn't have any effect on his ability to govern. It has become notable, so I included a sentence or two. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

He does have a high body mass index, don't deny it. It's proper to point out that he's fat.192.12.88.7 (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice Try All You Biased So-Called "NPOV" Wikipedians

The fact that Christie has an entire section called "Criticisms" which comprise nearly 1/3 of the entire article...and the fact that Jon Corzine has no such section...which is empirical proof that the authors of wikipedia are biased, had no effect on the outcome. I already know your excuses..."Well thats THEIR article...if they want to leave out a "criticisms" section, they can..." Isn't funny how it always works out that way? The republican gets the criticism section, the democrat does not, and the biased and (deceptive) wikipedia author always has the excuse "thats THEIR article, not THIS article"... On a Macro level, when it comes to elections, one thing is always certain...Wikipedia will bias left. But who is surprised? Wikipedia authors are mostly young white liberal males, mostly secularists, and leaning socialist. As hard as you tried to skewer the election, you failed. Sorry, my cute cuddly little socialist bias wikipedians. Your "NPOV" mask is a joke, the only people who actually believe your articles are NPOV is...well...you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. And, thats not 1/3rd of the article... --Rockstone (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Measuring it out by length, it looks to be ~1/5 of the article. Not unreasonable for a high profile politician. And reading Corzine's page, while it may not separate criticisms into their own section, there are quite a few interspersed throughout. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since y'all seem to have some strong feelings, I'm going to post here before editing this article. I'm just a random viewer, with no dog in this fight. I came across the article, and I'm going to remove the monty python copyright thing. It's not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedic reference, and just comes across as a NPOV problem. If you feel strongly about saving it, find a copyright article that lists off various transgressions and include it there. SuperJerms (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, does the campaign-related stuff really have much bearing on the sitting Governor? It seems like it should be split off to another article on the election (combined with whatever is on the Corzine page), so that this article can deal with substantive issues related to the office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperJerms (talk • contribs) 19:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why no mention of the use of Monty Python material in campaign advertising?

Why doesn't this article mention the use of Monty Python material in Christies campaign? It is still mentioned in news related to Python (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2010/2932924.htm) and was widely reported when it occured. It calls into question Christie's qualities as a lawyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunhill BKK (talk • contribs) 10:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Teacher's union

There's nothing about his high profile "tizzy" with the teacher's union in here...in fact, there's really nothing in here about anything he's done recently as governor —Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanForrest101 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Report on expenses

I think something about this needs to be added to the article, I just don't have time to do it right now. It needs to be written carefully because the government report apparently does not actually mention his name, but the NY Times makes the connection that he is one of the five violators described in the report. Neutron (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Electoral History Table

The Electoral History Table has a change column, +5.5 for Christie and -8.6 for Corzine, but it is not at all clear what it means or what purpose it serves. Change from what?...previous election? Arzel (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be the change in the percentage of the vote for governor obtained by the candidates of the two main parties from the 2005 election to the 2009 election. For example, Democrat Jon Corzine went down from 53.5% in 2005 to 44.9% in 2009, a drop of 8.6%. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

wiki is propaganda

excuse me i put in a line describing christies numerous health problems, but it is not there any longer. who runs this page? republican propagandists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.39.92 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

State Police helicopter use

I think this section is WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. Considering he paid back the money almost immediately, the issue is going to disappear, making it a one- or two-day story at most. If it lingers we can reconsider it. Now as to undue weight, just skim through the sections and see if anything seems out of place to you:

1. Early life and family
2. Career
   1. Lawyer
   2. Morris County Freeholder
   3. Lobbyist
   4. United States Attorney
      1. Appointment
      2. Achievements
      3. Claims of misuse of deferred prosecution agreements
3. 2009 New Jersey gubernatorial candidate
   1. Campaign
   2. Positions on issues
4. Governor
   1. Race to the Top controversy
   2. State Police helicopter use
5. Electoral history
6. References
7. External links

If the section on his governorship was more extensive this section might be appropriate, but as is it just stands out way too much in my opinion. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Apart from being a current Democrat political talking point it is doubtful to remain an issue. Arzel (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Two lines in an article several paragraphs long is not undue weight, IMHO. If it's truly the heading and not the content the is of concern, let's eliminate that heading that stands out. This issue received attention in several national papers, and was front page news even today in at least two NJ papers, so it's already more than a one or two day issue. I believe in consensus so will not reinsert material now but may invite other editors to discuss. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My problem is not the absolute amount of weight but relative. As it stands, I count 22 sentences in the Governor section (including the quote). If we allow this addition, it is 2/24=8%. Does anybody really think this incident accounts for 8% of the content written about Christie's governorship by reliable sources? –CWenger (^ • @) 20:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with CWenger that, so far, it's a trivial issue in the 24-hour news cycle that means nothing. If Christie decides not to run for President, and several historians say it was because of this incident, then that will be another story.

What does "may invite other editors to discuss" mean? It's a section on the talk page. All interested editors are already invited to discuss. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

We could easily combine the two sentences into one, but I suspect then the discussion would change to word or maybe even character counts. Your rationale is more a justification for expanding the Governor section than it is for excluding cited material. This "it's too small for its own section, it's too big for another section, so it should be eliminated " thinking does not improve ther article, IMHO, particularly when this article contains trivial items like the size and location of the residence he and his wife shared when the first married or the exact number of lawyers that worked under him as a US attorney.

Let me state again, that I don't concur that this is part of the 24 hour news cycle. It moved passed that stage when the nationwide coverage it drew was a huge factor in his decision to reimbuse the state, which generated further headlines. It continues to make news, with a NJ assemblyperson's request that a State Police official testify before a committee being reported in multiple papers nationwide, and will surely generate further headlines if this testimony happens.

Regarding the 'invite discussion comment. It referred to making people who don't spend a lot of time on pages dealing with politicians or New Jersey aware of the debate, perhaps by means of an RFC. It was not meant to imply that one needs an invitation to comment here. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"None of your business' why my kids are in private school"

Gov Christie believes it's "none of your business" he sends his kids to private school as he slashes funding to state education. msnbc, Fri Jun 17, 2011.--87.178.112.128 (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Christie's relationship with Fox News Chief Roger Ailes

I expect that this will go completely ignored, but I'll try anyway. Christie has met with Fox News Chief multiple times. Ailes is considered an adviser to the governor. This has been deleted multiple times as "not notable." I don't understand how a relationship with the head of a news organization is not notable, especially if that person has been categorized (by the state of NJ) as an adviser to Christie. There was no bias in the statement I posted. "In June of 2010 Christie met with Fox News Chief Roger Ailes, who is considered an adviser to the governor." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 18:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking this here as I requested. I have several problems with this content. First, it is out of place in the Race to the Top controversy section. Second, it is arguably not notable, as Ailes has relationships with multiple Republican politicians as I recall. Lastly, it is undue weight. Unfortunately the Governor section is quite short, so we have to be very strict about what we include. It is already skewed with the disproportionally long Race to the Top controversy section. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, civil discourse with actual reason and logic skills employed. Appreciate it. On your first point, I agree it doesn't belong in that section, but it doesn't really warrant a new section either, and I don't think it belongs up top. My intent was just to leave it at the bottom of the entire article. Regarding your second point, whether Ailes is an adviser to one or one hundred politicians, each relationship is notable. It is not common for heads of news organizations to advise politicians, as that implies bias on their news programs. If the heads of CNN, MSNBC, et al had advisory roles with politicians then, I would agree this is not notable, but to my knowledge they do not. I don't think I'm asking for undue weight. It's one sentence. How about just this: "Fox News Chief Roger Ailes is an adviser to Christie." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 18:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC) But actually, as I think about it, even if the heads of MSNBC, CNN et al DID have advisory roles w politicians (which I don't think they do), each of those relationships would be notable. If, for example, MSNBC was an adviser to Pelosi, then that relationship is notable and should be on her page. I think the idea that this relationship is not notable is indefensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 19:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it is refreshing! Based on what you are saying, I wonder if this material would be more suitable in the Roger Ailes article? In other words, it may be notable for him, since it represents a possible conflict of interest, but not for Christie. I think the undue weight point is valid though. We had the same issue discussed above with the brief controversy over his use of state helicopters (and I think that was more widely reported than this). If this report starts to show up in more major media outlets, then I would be more favorable to its inclusion. Where to put it is still a problem though. I think they are discouraged but it might be most appropriate in a "Miscellany" section. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I just added it to the general governor section, but you can take it out. I'm torn. I think it is relevant to Christie, but I think your arguments are sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll wait and see what other editors think. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

His Weight

there should be a section about his weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.36.151 (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There absolutely should be a section about his weight. He is a public figure and is expected to set an example in this society of celebrity politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.126.16 (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Public Opinion Section poorly written and poorly annotated

The public opinion section is a mess. So many issues with it, I don't know where to start. First, the graph is unlabeled as to who conducted each poll and when that was conducted. This seems like a cherry picked graph. Christy's approval ratings have been all over the map (as low as 22%). It doesn't seem representative to choose a moment when he happened to be above all other govs...if he even was - the graph is so poorly labeled, we have no idea if the other polls were taken at the same time. I can't redo this section, and until someone can come in and do this section in a neutral manner, I'd recommend removing it.Jasonnewyork (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Prosecutorial Career Section

This section is only 75% left-wing criticism and "claims" of impropriety. This is unacceptable, it needs to be 90%. Who cares when he was elected or how many cases he prosecuted? These are just boring facts. What we need are more claims of impropriety and maybe some reportage from the Daily Kos to balance out this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.16.9 (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible 2012 Presidential Bid

Chris Christie is being heavily pressured and considered by some of the elite circles of the Republican party to run for the presidency in 2012. This should be mentioned in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.80.41 (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Why should this be put in the article!, this is plain gossip and not relevant facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.144.246 (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Immigration

I was puzzled a little seeing the whole "On immigration" section removed recently. In order that that work not be completely lost between the cracks, I hereby link to the most recent removal (for the text) and also give here the original removal explanation:

"removed completely non-NPOV section on immigration, with [sic] starts out with the value-laden claim he has been "weak" on immigration and which by the text's own admission hasn't been important in his career thus far".

The removed section said Christie "is generally considered weak on illegal immigration"; I haven't investigated whether the sources backed that point. I also noted, coming here, that there was an earlier discussion-section on immigration, also; which suggests some level of importance for the issue.

Those points being made, I'm not ready to take on the reworking of the section. I do hope this review/compilation can nonetheless be helpful somehow going forward. Swliv (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Holy Land visit

Regarding [1], if there are "Multiple sources" relating to Christie's visit to the Golan that characterize it in the manner done in the edit, the easiest thing to do would be simply to list those sources here. Otherwise, the article needs to preserve the language adopted by the RSes currently being used.—Biosketch (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance Tag

I added the POV tag because I agree with the IP who blanked the Obama section on the grounds it wasn't neutral. I restored it, but have applied the tag because the entire article is not exactly neutral. Feel free to let me know on my talk page, or here (but if here post a TB template on my talk please), if you disagree. Thanks, Go Phightins! 20:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed entirely with the neutrality concerns so had a crack at fixing the section in question with some less POV language, new references and different prose. Have also made the section a sub-heading under his Governorship, rather than as a standalone section (which was out of chronological order). If it is to revert back to a second level ("==") sub-heading then it should go after the section about his suggested presidential run. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I blanked out the following two assertions, pending discussion, because they were not supported by the cited sources (which I left in place): "Christie's comments were made only days before the 2012 Presidential Election and were interpreted, by some, as an endorsement of the President at a critical time in the Presidential race. Reference: The race resumes: Obama buoyed by Christie praise as Romney tempers attacks. Others suggested the comments may have been designed to hurt Mitt Romney's campaign to allow Christie an easier path to the Presidency, were he to consider running in 2016 Reference: Gov. Chris Christie, an Obama critic, praises the president amid N.J. storm damage." Other than that, I believe that the POV tag can be removed, absent an explicit explanation of further issues. User:HopsonRoad 14:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will remove the tag provided no one else has anything to contest. Go Phightins! 20:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Governor Christie and Mitt Romney

Jahjam13 (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)An article was posted by John Munson/The Star-Ledger on Sunday, November 4 2012 about Governor Christie's decision to be the first governor to endorse Mitt Romney 13 months ago. Governor Christie spoke about that endorsement in relation to the compliment that he paid President Obama for his help. At Jahjam13 (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/as_gov_christie_reassures_nj_r.html Governor Christie made it clear that two people in the world know who he will vote for Tuesday. Those two people are Mitt Romney and President Obama. He will vote for Mitt Romney because he still believes he is the best man for the job of President. But Governor Christie said that our political system is obviously broken when he is criticized for giving credit to someone doing a good job, in this case the President, in dealing with Hurricane Sandy.Jahjam13 (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Actions as governor during Superstorm Sandy

This article would benefit from a discussion of the governor's actions prior to, during and after Superstorm Sandy--preparation, emergency management and recovery--apart from the presidential politics dimension. User:HopsonRoad 02:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Politics vs Science and Christie's weight

I recently made an edit that someone quickly reversed, regarding the criticism of Christie's weight. "In February 2013, former white house physician Connie Mariano told CNN that she was worried about him dying in office. Mariano claims to be a republican as Christie is, so it is unclear if her comments were politically motivated. She did not site any statistical numbers to support her comments or contrast Christie's risk factors against other politicians with risk factors, such as Obama's smoking, the early death of both of Obama's parents, Obama's admitted cocaine use or the risk group of being a black male."

I understand my edit probably did not meet requirements to stand on its own. However, if this article is going to attempt to be unbiased, it should be pointed out that exceptional concern for Christie's mortality has not been backed up by citing statistics for the risk groups that he is in, nor has that been contrasting with the risk groups that other popular political figures occupy.

It does not matter if the junk science used to criticize Christie is politically motivated or driven by the ignorance of the soft science of the medical community and the influence they have on our culture. The facts and risk factors should still be explored, quoted and contrasted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.246.183 (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotect Page

The page, as a biography of a living person, should be semi protected. Could we work on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155blue (talk • contribs) 21:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, ± some recurring "fat" comments here and there, I haven't found the level of vandalism to be high enough to be a major irritation, but YMMV, so feel free to put in a request at WP:RFPP. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotect Page

The page, as a biography of a living person, should be semi protected. Could we work on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155blue (talk • contribs) 21:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, ± some recurring "fat" comments here and there, I haven't found the level of vandalism to be high enough to be a major irritation, but YMMV, so feel free to put in a request at WP:RFPP. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Separate "controversies" section

This is deprecated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Cannot find cited source

I have looked high and low for this article but cannot find it:

Mulvihill, Geoff. "Christie's 1st political foray was bumpy", USA Today (May 29, 2009).

I have looked at archive.org, I have looked in several free newspaper archives, checked caches, searched in both Yahoo and Google, plus Google News archive. So, I will look for an alternate source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Replaced with two alternative sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Cell phone tracking

I'm expecting to delete this paragraph, but thought I'd post it here first:

In April 2009, the ACLU publicized records showing that Christie had obtained court orders authorizing warrantless cellphone tracking of people in 79 instances. Christie responded that the practice was legal and court approved.[1] In 2013 the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that the practice was unconstitutional, stating that an individual’s privacy with regard to the location of his or her cell phone was protected by the New Jersey Constitution. The opinion said “police must obtain a warrant based on a showing of probable cause, or qualify for an exception to the warrant requirement, to obtain tracking information through the use of a cell phone.”[2]

[1]Heininger, Claire (April 23, 2009). "ACLU says Chris Christie authorized warrantless cellphone tracking". The Star-Ledger. Newark, New Jersey. Retrieved July 24, 2009.
[2]Unruh, Bob. [http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/court-says-tracking-by-cell-phone-signal-off-limits/ "Court says tracking by cell phone signal off limits"]. Retrieved 22 July 2013. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

Regarding the second cited source, even if Worldnetdaily is a reliable source, this article doesn't mention Christie or his policy. Also, it's not clear to me that Christie's policy did not "qualify for an exception to the warrant requirement" (such as exigent circumstances). Anyway, I'm not seeing that this story was big relative to the others covered in this section of the Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Mariano

This Wikipedia article now says:

Dr. Eleanor Mariano, who was Physician to the President for eight years at the behest of Bill Clinton,[1] said of Christie, "I'm worried about this man dying in office," but on the other hand, that Christie "can also be a great example for people to conquer this [disease]".[2]

[1] Deppisch, Ludwig. The White House Physician: A History from Washington to George W. Bush, p. 152 (McFarland, 2007): "Both presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush selected their presidential physicians, Connie Mariana and Richard Tubb respectively....Mariano served as White House physician for eight years (1992-2001)."
[2] "Ex-White House Doc Says Overweight Chris Christie Could Die in Office". Newsmax. February 6, 2013..

Several issues here. First, Christie has called Mariano a "hack" and pointed out that she never examined him. so it's probably not necessary to quote her without his rebuttal, but that might be undue weight (no pun intended). Second, we already quote a commentator calling Christie "extremely obese", so quoting Mariano too may raise neutrality problems. Third, Mariano was a Clinton appointee, which doesn't exactly enhance credibility on this particular matter (e.g. it's very possible that Christie may soon be running against Hillary Clinton). All in all, I suggest removal of this tidbit from this Wikipedia article, though perhaps it might work well in the Mariano article (together with Christie's criticism of her).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Freeze on affordable housing agency

This paragraph is moved from the Wikipedia article:

On February 9, 2010, he signed Executive Order No. 12, which placed a 90-day freeze on the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and established the Housing Opportunity Task Force to examine the State's affordable housing laws, constitutional obligations, and the effectiveness of the current framework.[1]

[1]"Governor Christie Executive Order No. 12" (PDF). February 9, 2010. Retrieved February 14, 2010.

The footnote is merely the text of Christie's order, rather than a secondary source explaining the order. I think a judge froze this freeze ten days later,[2] and Christie subsequently rescinded it.[3]. So I'm not seeing that it was a major part of his policies, much less his fiscal policies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Line about a "cover-up"

I deleted one line [4] because it seemed immoderately worded based on what the source actually says, and when I rephrase it to say only what the source does, it's basically a match of a previous line about the email. The one thing it adds is that some person the article doesn't name called for people to avoid using e-mail; if that's really true then it seems to have been just about the most incompetently run cover-up I've ever heard of. It seems too prejudicial to go on about that nebulous detail right now, unless there's some other article with more specifics to back it up and tie it more closely to Christie. Wnt (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The name of the article to which the "cover up" line referred is "Bridge Scandal Documents Indicate Effort to Hide Political Motive" (New York Times on January 10, 2014). I think it does' t leave a lot of room for interpretation. The documents released on January 10th are critical in implicating people at the top of Christie's staff and showing efforts to create document to buttress the claim of a fictitious traffic study. I realize there are WP:recentism issues here but I'm betting that this line and the sentence that states that as of this date Christies role in the scandal are unresolved will probably be more than a footnote in 10 years. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

From the Article: “I’ve made it very clear to everybody on my senior staff that if anyone had any knowledge about this, they needed to come forward to me and tell me about it. And they’ve all assured me that they don’t,” Christie said.

This is not correct. What he said was: "If there is any information that you know about the decision to close these lanes in Fort Lee, you have one hour to tell either my chief of staff, Kevin O'Dowd, or my chief counsel, Charlie McKenna."http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303393804579310660187853186http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/10/5-big-unanswered-questions-in-bridge-gate/

Read carefully.

If Kelly was taking orders, even she wouldn't know about the decision.True Observer (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Links

<> US governor faces probe over relief funds>> Christie Campaign Subpoenaed as N.J. Bridge Probe Widens(Lihaas (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)).

Sandy funds probe

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/13/chris-christie-investigation_n_4588132.html

Worth a mention yet, or wait for indictment? Hcobb (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

definitely worth a mention, I think. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur. It has also been reported by the Chicago Tribune and CNN. - MrX 20:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I added it.Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think we should mix the two issues together. This is part of general Sandyness, not related to bridgegate. Hcobb (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be like Watergate which originally referred to a break-in and wiretapping at the Democratic Party headquarters but ultimately came to refer to a collection of scandals and investigations having to do with abuse of power. In this case, there are a number of different kinds of investigations growing out of Bridgegate. At the center of these is the question of whether the Christie administration misused government resources and power. If they get traction, it might make sense to change the name of Fort Lee Lane Closure section (and its associated article) to Bridgegate which would include all the scandals and investigations stemming from the original Fort Lee closure investigation rather than have a collection of articles related to investigations of Christie's administration floating around WP. JMHOScholarlyarticles (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Election history tables

Can anyone explain what the values in the last (rightmost) columns of the election tables recently added by Zisrael indicate? The columns are labeled +/-%, and for each entry there is either a positive or a negative value, such as +0.37% for Kenneth R. Kaplan in the 2013 race and -0.47% for Kaplan in the 2009 race. I have left a note asking about this on Zisrael's talk page, but it seems he or she may not see it for some time. Dezastru (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The +/-% compares what percentage the party received in the previous election with the following one. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this explained somewhere on the page? It does not seem self-evident to me. I'm also not sure that information on the percentage change for the party is particularly helpful for the main Christie bio page. (Aren't there separate articles for the elections and for Christie's governorship?) Dezastru (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"Citation needed" added on statement concerning 2016 candidacy

I have added "citation needed" on the following statement concerning his 2016 candidacy:

"Christie is widely viewed as a possible presidential candidate in 2016." If no current citation can be found in a reliable source, then this statement must be removed, per Wikipedia policy. David Spector (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Using Donald Trump as a RS for claim. Hcobb (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Is he his brother's keeper?

http://www.northjersey.com/news/Governors_brother_invested_in_houses_near_new_PATH_station_in_Harrison.html

Todd appears zero times in the current article. Should this word be added? Hcobb (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP concern on saying he tried to shut down the investigation

Article says that it was reported that he tried to shut down the bridge investigation. One paywall source is given, and the source is apparently the person who actually made the allegation. Christie says not, and that he confirmed that with Cuomo. This is a serious/damaging allegation against a living person, per per:blp it would need very strong sourcing to be in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree and think it should come out unless it can be substantiated.CFredkin (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

George Washington Bridge

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Chris-Christie-Republicans-traffic-/2013/12/09/id/540902

Does the David Wildstein resignation reflect back on Christie yet? Hcobb (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• This absolutely belongs in this article in some shape or form. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There has been no evidence that Christie was involved in the closure. This does not belong in a bio of Christie. CFredkin (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Today we have emails from his deputy chief of staff. There's no paper trail leading directly to him at this time, but he's denied that his office had any connection and this is becoming an issue that is impacting his governorship and public image. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Governor Christie's December statement that the closures were "absolutely, unequivocally not" ordered for political retribution should be included, no? Chris Christie: Andrew Cuomo story ‘wrong’ 24.151.116.25 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless and until there's evidence that he was involved in the closure, I don't believe this is pertinent to a bio of Christie. CFredkin (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So, nothing about the actions of Christie's administration and/or his closest staffers should be included in this article? I was always under the impression that they take orders from Christie, and that Christie is ultimately responsible for their actions. There are dozens of articles in the news today about how the release of the emails and text messages might ruin Christie's political career. I think that is sufficient evidence that Christie will ultimately be held responsible for the lane closures, regardless of whether he directly ordered them or if his poor choice in staffers is to blame. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 18:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If Benghazi, Fast & Furious, and the IRS scandal aren't worthy of mention in the bio on Barack Obama, why would this merit mention in a bio of Christie? We're talking about highway lane closures here. CFredkin (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The Benghazi, Fast & Furious, and IRS scandal all have their own article devoted to them. I'm not opposed to creating a separate article about Bridgegate, if you feel there's enough information to include in it. Also, the lane closures delayed police and ambulance response to the report of a missing 4-year-old child, and an individual suffering a cardiac arrest. So, I don't think it's fair to trivialize them. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 19:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Why aren't they at least mentioned in the Obama bio? If you're really being objective here, would you support adding them there?CFredkin (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that this is an irrelevant argument and the fact that your comparison to Barack Obama's article would seem to imply that your argument is based on your personal political affiliations/bias, I'll respond anyway. Yes, in principle, I would be in favor of mentioning those scandals in the Barack Obama bio article. However, practically speaking, the subject of Barack Obama is much larger than the subject of Chris Christie. There is a lot more material to report on Obama than there is on Christie (i.e. his state senator career, his US senate campaign, US senate career, two presidential campaigns, and all of the events that took place in his two presidencies). Therefore, it is not feasible to cram every last bit of information into the Barack Obama bio article. Rather, it is split among many articles. Take a look at Template:Barack Obama to get an idea. Only the most relevant information is included in the top-level bio article, and the details can be hashed out in articles on the specific events.

The events surrounding Bridgegate are clearly notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I don't think you would dispute that. Therefore, the only question is where do we write about those events? Would putting them in Christie's bio article cause it to become too long? If so, is there enough content to support a standalone article on the event? Is there a better place to discuss this notable event? In my opinion, Christie's bio article is currently the best place for this information, although that could change in the future, for various reasons. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 20:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I agree the content should be added. However, I've made some edits for relevance and clarity. CFredkin (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There is really no way this won't be included in some aspect in this article. However, that said, none of those three Obama scandals are even linked to the template much less Obama. Not really surprised though. Arzel (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the article I read, Christie gave an hour-long press conference on the topic in December, denying involvement. I always think a BLP should let the subject have his say, and so he deserves a quote and reference about it. Wnt (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I've submitted an edit pending review with the following quote and ref: "I've made it very clear to everybody on my senior staff that if anyone had any knowledge about this, they needed to come forward to me and tell me about it. And they’ve all assured me that they don't." Bridge scandal signals Dems ready to give Christie a hard time. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe the superfluous sources at the end of the section should be removed, per WP:Point.CFredkin (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have restored one of the two sources you removed, as I don't believe it is superfluous. It is an important primary reference that contains the full released email/text communications related to the event. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 22:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. I agree. CFredkin (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue of the Bridge lane closure scandal is clearly "stand-alone" in subject and interest. Yes, it obviously has to be given some mention in the main Chris Christie article itself...but it's too independent a subject and matter to not have its own separate article. Because the scandal is international now in interest, and the details are almost incredible to even fathom or believe to many people who are almost shell-shocked (such as the mayor of Fort Lee himself). And also this matter does not just involve Chris Christie alone, but a number of parties and figures and two states directly, as well as the matter of possible ending of a possible presidential campaign, and all the national and international implications and people involved and pundits that go along with that. But I do agree that some mention should be in the main Christie article itself. That seems self-evident too. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Fort Lee lane closure controversy should be linked to from this article and should be summarized. There has been extensive news coverage of the scandal in relation to Christie, and he had a long news conference about it. To avoid mentioning it smacks of censorship. Edison (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

George Washington Bridge - lede

What are everyone's thoughts on including some mention of this controversy in the lede? It seems as if this is becoming a defining moment in Christie's governorship. The fact that we had to spin off an article seems to support that this is WP:DUE.- MrX 14:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say that's premature. Let's wait for more developments to see where the story heads. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: There is no evidence that he had any part in the planning, or that his political career has gone off a bridge for good yet. Hcobb (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  Those are good points. We should first wait to see if he is directly implicated in the bridge closing and coverup.- MrX 16:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Let's wait on that. Campaign articles are especially subject to recentlism. Best to avoid that if we can. If it gets to be a bigger story, we can always change it later. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• I say yes. The only reason anybody outside the US would read this article is because of the scandal. Not having it in the lead makes one wonder if it's the wrong guy. 126.109.231.100 (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Pare?

I see people adding information to that section that doesn't directly relate to Christie. The section in this article should be Christie-centric, for obvious reasons, and the rest of the story can be safely kept in the main article. We should probably trim what is currently written to ensure we're not getting WP:UNDUE on this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bridge section is way too long, agreed, raising issues of undue weight and recentism. The section should be drastically trimmed and converted to a summary of key points (e.g. Christie's senior staff and his contacts at the Port Authority ordered a major bridge-lane closure to punish a Democratic mayor for failing to endorse Christie; the resulting traffic jam caused major problems for the citizens of Fort Lee and cost somewhere between $7 million and $21 million; Christie denied any knowledge of his staff's actions and let some people go; investigation is ongoing). The rest of the details belong in the sub-article. MastCell ^Talk 19:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu and User:MastCell are correct for the reasons stated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the article is keeping a pretty reasonable level of detail overall, with no need for radical change. This is clearly a prominent event in Christie's political career at this point and the article should reflect it - most news sources are saying it is likely to determine whether he runs for presidency, and I dare say it is more likely to do so than his "lap-band", which is included in some detail. I'll agree that the paragraph about Wildstein invoking the Fifth Amendment should stay out. Most of what we have is at about one "pointer" away from Christie, and this is appropriate: Christie (directly) appointed someone who (at one remove) gave an order. Wnt (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The section needs to be slimmed down quite a bit. As it stands right now the section is the second or third largest in the entire article, and the largest based on one topic. I'm not saying we should delete the section, but move the majority of the content to the related article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, this section is starting to get a little heavy in the rear. I tried but failed to cut the sentence about "elaborate efforts by Christie loyalists ... to cover up political motives" because I felt a preceding sentence was adequate, and the sentence about how various investigations have "just begun" is a big nothing we could do without. Also, an argument could be made that the various explanations for what the heck Christie was up to could be summarized and deferred to the article, because, well, none of them are really presented as true, so they don't really represent a good biography of him. I'm willing to see these excesses go in order that more important developments in the story aren't omitted for lack of space. Wnt (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The section is probably about twice as large as it should be given what we currently know. There is a fair amount to excessive detail, direct quotes, and media speculation. I think we just need to watch it and as newer, more important information surfaces, we can cut some of the less important detail.- MrX 12:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

There has been a lot of water under (and over) the bridge (pun intended) since the last entry on this and related subjects and since there are already several investigations open, it seems to me things need to be added concerning both the GWB lane closings and the Sandy relief situation especially involving Hoboken and its mayor Dawn Zimmer. (see article on her!)

Using terms like "allegations" should get over some of the objections of Christie loyalists as none of these are more than that up to the present.Ed (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Does Jersey City deserve a mention in this article?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/christies-staff-cut-access-to-jersey-city-mayor-who-would-not-endorse-him/2014/01/13/32d76970-7c83-11e3-9556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html

Or do we just open up a new article about disendorsement-gate? Hcobb (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably just keep it to the Fort Lee lane closure article, which could grow into a larger article about Christie's vengeance, should that be what this is all about. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

See my comments above re: Watergate analogy. I think there will be so many inquiries into abuses of power stemming from the Fort Lee lane closures that they should be subsumed under an umbrella term like Bridgegate and grouped together. So, yes I think someone should include it and maybe change the name of the section to Bridgegate. Thoughts?Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The use of a term like "Bridgegate" is not neutral (even if a reliable source can be found) and therefore cannot and must not be used, per WP policy. This is an encyclopedia and must maintain a neutral tone. David Spector (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The term Bridgegate is not merely non-neutral; it's also extremely informal (and linguistically illogical) and thus not encyclopedic. As for the "Watergate" analogy: Notice that the suffix gate was not affixed to Water to create the term for the scandal; Watergate, in it's entirety, was actually the name of the hotel. Thus an analogous term for the New Jersey scandal would George Washington Bridge, not Bridgegate. TheScotch (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY

Explains why sections which link to subarticles are supposed to be summaries of the subarticles, not full articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY says,

Sometimes editors will add details to a summary section without adding those facts to the more detailed article. To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section. In other cases, the detailed article may grow considerably in scope, and the summary section will need to be rewritten to do it justice.

And WP:SPINOFF says,

moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material

You are rejecting a five-paragraph-long revision for a poorly-edited and somewhat confusing three-paragraph-long version of this section of the article. The version you are arguing for does not mention the investigations opened by the Department of Justice, nor does it mention the allegation made by Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer, both of which are covered in the subarticle and which are important points in the course of events related to the lanes closure. For the content in the Christie article to be a neutral summary of the subarticle, it needs to include these points.

The claim that anything that does not directly relate to Christie is inappropriate for the Christie bio article is not an adequate justification for deleting information that might be viewed as negative about Christie's administration, which seems to be what is going on here (since there has also been an attempt to remove the term "scandal" from the section title, when the vast majority of sources are referring to the matter as a Christie scandal). Excepting the two opening lines of the section, almost every sentence in the version you are rejecting mentions Christie by name or refers directly to him by pronoun. The other individuals named in that version all worked for his administration, and Christie himself said multiple times that he is responsible for the actions of his administration (one of the lines you are attempting to delete).

Some of the information being added in the version you are rejecting is necessary for readers to be able to understand the rest of the section. For example:

After the release of emails indicating the involvement of his aides and appointees in the lane closure scandal, Christie again denied having had any knowledge of, or involvement in, the traffic closure and said he felt "embarrassed and humiliated" by the poor judgment of his staff, for which he again apologized.

He again denied and he again apologized? When did he previously deny involvement and previously apologize?

On January 31, 2014, a letter from counsel for Wildstein alleged that Christie knew of the lane closures while they were happening in September of 2013 and suggested that Wildstein had documents to prove his claims.

Who is Wildstein? Why should the reader care?

But most important: The version you are arguing for makes NO MENTION that there are allegations that Christie staff arranged the lanes closure as political retribution against Christie opponents, which is the main point that all of the reliable sources have been covering and which the subarticle discusses. How can you leave that out and argue that it is a neutral summary of the subarticle or of the topic more generally? Cheers. Dezastru (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is a WP:BLP. It is not the "main" article for an article on the scandal. At this point (and unless/until evidence otherwise actually appears), Christie is a peripheral player in this event. Consequently, the section related to this should not be intended to provide a summary of it. The section should be limited to content which is directly related to Christie.

Wildstein's role can be explained with a phrase, which I've added. Once again, unless/until evidence surfaces which implicates Christie in having directed the action for political retribution, the motives of his appointees are not relevant to this article.CFredkin (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You've cited WP:BLP, so let's be clear. Everyone agrees that this is a biographical article. Are you specifically invoking the special protections for living persons that are delineated in WP:BLP policy? If so, specifically which part of WP:BLP are you basing your argument on? Dezastru (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think my point above is clear.CFredkin (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me, and I think it's reasonable to ask which specific part of WP:BLP you are referring to, if you are basing the argument on WP:BLP protections. I don't see any part of WP:BLP that is relevant, but that may be simply because I am not sure which part you are referencing. Dezastru (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP is shorthand for "Biography of a Living Person".CFredkin (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What I am asking you to clarify is whether (a) you were simply using an abbreviation (WP:BLP) to say that the article is a biography and, as such, should only include information directly relevant to the person who is the subject of the biography or (b) you are saying that the article must adhere to the policy delineated in the article Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If you meant the latter, which is what people usually mean when they cite WP:BLP as the basis for objecting to article edits, please state which specific lines in that policy you feel apply in this discussion. Dezastru (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The former.CFredkin (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

While what CFredkin is saying is obviously true, it is a complete non sequitur. Yes, BLPs should contain material only directly relevant to the subject. This particular scandal affected Christie's presidential ambitions, and is therefore very directly related to the subject. Merely stating that there are "allegations" would be incomplete, because it is the strength of the allegations and the evidence behind them that damaged his reputation. Dezastru, I would support a limited re-addition of what was removed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Many things can affect someone's political ambitions. That doesn't mean they belong in their bio.CFredkin (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the reasons given above, we need to remember that this is a boi article It should be about the person, not a selection for the 10's of thousands of things that are somehow related to the person. As a rough guide I checked to see how large the sections covering the Solyndra, Fast and Furious Benghazi Attack response and IRS Targeting controversies were in the Barack Obama article. The size of the sections on on these there is is zero.....not even a mention of them. Maybe that would be a good guide for here. Or maybe use a slightly less favorable standard for Christie and put a short mention in here. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If the policies of his administration are to be mentioned at all, then this should be mentioned, too. All the content about legislation he pushed through is sourced to news items, just like this particular issue. There is nothing to indicate that they are more notable than the bridge case. Moreover, the allegations in this case are directly related to Christie himself, what the hell do you mean "somehow" related? The Obama article is irrelevant. Nobody involved here wrote it, if you feel it has shortcomings, be my guest and correct them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I just chose the Barack Obama article it as an example/guide of a bio article, one that has had a lot of work and which has achieved FA (Featured Article)status . "Somehow related" means "related" and "related to Christie himself" all mean the same thing; I used the "somehow" qualifier to emphasize the wide range of ways that something can be related to the topic/person; a low bar that would include tens of thousands of things. North8000 (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you are dodging my point. There are several thousand things we could possibly write about Christie. Of these, we choose notable ones based on their mention in WP:RS. All the polices of his administration, his record as an attorney, and so on, are in here based on that criterion. The bridge scandal fulfills this criterion. It made headlines internationally, for god's sake; it's probably Christie's most prominent mention ever in the international media, with the possible exception of his convention speech. I repeat, how is this incident less notable, or less related, than any other activities of his administration? Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

(added later) Your first blue link was in error (wp:notability is a criteria for existence of an article on a topic) but I understand what you are trying to say. First, just to be clear, I am only discussing one aspect of this; I am not replacing or touching on the BLP and summary reasoning given by others. Obviously relevancy (or degree of relevancy) needs to be a consideration. Regarding that, when there is contention, I tend to suggest that the highest degree of relevancy be used as a standard. That the statements are statements of fact directly about the topic of the article (not just related to the topic of the article) and then within that go by amount of coverage in sources. North8000 (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion here.... There is already a section on the "scandal" in this article.CFredkin (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I was aware.....perhaps there was some misunderstanding. I said above that I would support a limited readdition, not a full one, because the section as it currently stands is incomplete. I am aware that it should be a summary, nonetheless there are points that should be there, that are left out; the DOJ investigation, his statement that he was responsible for the actions of his appointees, the fact that he is being sued, etc.

When I brought these points up, it seemed to me like your responses were questioning its notability, which is why I responded the way I did. North's first post suggests that it should not be included.

In short, there are a couple of points in the content Dezastru added that should remain, even if all of it does not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read the full thread of this discussion. Once again, the section on the "scandal" in this bio should absolutely not be a summary of the "scandal". This is a bio of Christie. There is already a complete article on the "scandal". If a reader wants more info on the "scandal" (or even a summary of it), they can click on the link to that article in this bio. The bio of Christie should only include content on the scandal that is directly related to him.CFredkin (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I used "summary" in a general sense, and perhaps I should not have. Nonetheless, you are nitpicking. The points I made are, in fact, directly related. If he is being sued for something, how is that not related to him? Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There are many frivolous lawsuits. Not all, or even most, are notable.CFredkin (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh god, not again. Does every American lawsuit make headlines in British media? Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The claim that Wikipedia biography articles on political figures do not include information about controversies involving associates or members of the governments of the subjects of the biographies is meritless, as anyone can see from the following samples:

Eliot Spitzer see section on Controversy over use of State Police for surveillance

John Major see section on "Sleaze"

Scott Walker (politician) see section on Operation Freedom

Kofi Annan see section on Oil-for-Food scandal

Hugo Chavez see section mentioning Maria Afiuni

Lula see section on Corruption scandals and controversy

George W. Bush see section on Midterm dismissal of US attorneys

Barack Obama see mention of Tony Rezko

Jim McGreevey see section on Machiavelli controversy ////////// Dezastru (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The examples you provide above are irrelevant. We're discussing the bio of Christie. Whether each of the examples above are appropriate for this project can (and perhaps should) be discussed independently. But this is not the appropriate forum for those discussions.CFredkin (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY break two

a - where the bridge is, who controls it, why the lanes that were closed are important to local communities

From September 9 through September 13, 2013, two of the traffic lanes used by Fort Lee, NJ and surrounding communities for access to the George Washington Bridge, which connects Fort Lee to New York City, were closed on orders from a senior Christie aide and an administration appointee. ... [the Port Authority], which is jointly controlled by the governors of New York and New Jersey and which manages the bridge ...

b - the effect of the lanes closure on Fort Lee

The closure caused severe traffic congestion in Fort Lee, delaying emergency services responses and disrupting school start times during the first week of the school year.

c - the claim by Christie appointees that the lanes were closed for a traffic study; the Port Authority chief's criticism

Christie appointees at the Port Authority ... said that the lanes had been closed for a traffic study; but the Port Authority chief (an appointee of New York's Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo) challenged this in sworn testimony and wrote in an email to Port Authority staff that the closure of the lanes had subverted Port Authority procedures and may have been unlawful.

d - the allegation that the lanes were closed as political retribution against Christie administration opponents (and Christie's denial)

Democratic lawmakers and local officials questioned whether the lane closures had been orchestrated as retribution against Christie’s political opponents; Christie dismissed the suggestion as absurd.

If there is an objection to any of these points, please post your comments in a separate reply following this post, referring to the specific item, along with a suggestion for improvement. Dezastru (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This looks good to me. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY break three

Continuing the discussion from above:

h - the Hoboken mayor's allegation of threats of withholding of funding and that the lt gov said this had come directly from Christie

After the subpoenaed emails and other documents had been released to the public, the mayor of Hoboken, NJ, Dawn Zimmer, a Democrat who had previously been a supporter of Christie, accused the Christie administration of having withheld tens of millions of dollars in federal Hurricane Sandy recovery funds from Hoboken because she had refused to support a real estate development project favored by the governor and the governor's top appointee at the Port Authority, David Samson. Zimmer alleged that the Lieutenant Governor, Kim Guadagno, had said the threat of withholding funds had come directly from Christie.

i - the lt governor's denial of the mayor's allegation

Guadagno called Zimmer's characterization of their conversation "categorically false".

j - the federal (DOJ) investigations into the lanes closure and the mayor's allegation; the state's investigation

The US Department of Justice has opened inquiries into both the bridge lanes closure incident and Mayor Zimmer’s accusation, as the state legislature continues its own investigation into the lanes closure.

Dezastru (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(h) & (i) and the reference to them in (j) definitely seem inappropriate to me unless some evidence emerges to substantiate the claim.CFredkin (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY break four

Continuing the discussion from above:

e - the emails/text messages evidence of the Christie administration involvement in arranging the closure and preventing disclosure of it

Emails and text messages obtained by the legislature under subpoena revealed that Christie aides and appointees had been involved in arranging the lanes closure and in preventing local officials from receiving information about the closure. In one text message exchange, a Christie administration appointee suggested there was no reason to feel sorry for the schoolbuses caught in the traffic congestion because the buses were carrying children of Buono voters, an apparent reference to Barbara Buono, Christie’s opponent in the gubernatorial election that was underway at the time.

Dezastru (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not directly related to Christie.CFredkin (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

f - Christie's denial of knowledge and blaming of his staff

Following release of the emails to the news media, Christie said that although he had had no knowledge of the lanes closure, as governor he was responsible for the actions of his administration.

Dezastru (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO this could be considered relevant.CFredkin (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

g - Christie's dismissal of aides and the previous resignation of appointees

He fired a deputy chief of staff, Bridget Anne Kelly, and he withdrew support from his campaign manager and political confidante, Bill Stepien, who until then had been been serving as a consultant for the Republican Governor’s Association and who had been expected to become the next chair of the Republican Party of New Jersey. Two of Christie's highest ranking appointees at the Port Authority had already resigned.

Dezastru (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me to replace the 2 existing sentences on Kelly and Stepien.CFredkin (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

k - the refusal of certain former staffers to testify under oath or submit subpoenaed documents

Several Christie administration appointees have refused to testify under oath or to submit subpoenaed documents to the legislature, citing their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Dezastru (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not relevant to Christie.CFredkin (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes edit

Since my acceptance summary doesn't show, I wanted to clarify that I accepted the edit based only on the pending changes criteria (= wearing a different hat) and such does not indicate my support for the edit. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY break one

I have rewritten[5] the section on the bridge scandal, with enough information for readers to understand all of the key issues involved.

a - where the bridge is, who controls it, why the lanes that were closed are important to local communities

b - the effect of the lanes closure on Fort Lee

c - the claim by Christie appointees that the lanes were closed for a traffic study; the Port Authority chief's criticism

d - the allegation that the lanes were closed as political retribution against Christie administration opponents (and Christie's denial)

e - the emails/text messages evidence of the Christie administration involvement in arranging the closure and preventing disclosure of it

f - Christie's denial of knowledge and blaming of his staff

g - Christie's dismissal of aides and the previous resignation of appointees

h - the Hoboken mayor's allegation of threats of withholding of funding and that the lt gov said this had come directly from Christie

i - the lt governor's denial of the mayor's allegation

j - the federal (DOJ) investigations into the lanes closure and the mayor's allegation; the state's investigation

k - the refusal of certain former staffers to testify under oath or submit subpoenaed documents

I have removed the mention of the letter from David Wildstein's attorney alleging that Christie's public statements on when he learned of the closure are wrong, to avoid WP:RECENTISM. This information could eventually turn out to be an important part of the account of the lane closures incident, but right now its longterm importance remains to be seen.

The section is now 3 paragraphs long. If there are disagreements over inclusion of any of the above items, let's discuss below, referring to each item in question by letter. Dezastru (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please provide the specific statements associated with the points above that you're proposing for inclusion. Thx.CFredkin (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I read the paragraphs of Dezastru and think they are a fine summary of the state of affairs. Kudos for writing them. I can't see any reasonable objectionsScholarlyarticles (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

George Washington Bridge scandal

This section is supposed to be a summary of Fort Lee lane closure scandal‎, but what is there now is far from being a summary. Cwobeel (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep -- you have made it a full article here. Summaries are supposed to be short. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's not even supposed to be a summary Fort Lee lane closure scandal. It's supposed to be an entry of appropriate size (for a biography article) of the Christie portion of it. North8000 (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is supposed to be a summary, read Wikipedia:Summary style, in particular the section "Keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronized". Cwobeel (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My point is that what is here now is not a well rounded summary, but rather a cheery picked summary. I will add a POV tag to this section until addressed. Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

We both agree that it should be a summary (of something), the question is what should it be a summary of, and also wp:due length given the topic of the article. My point is that it is should be a summary only of what is about the topic of the article, and this about the Christie-related aspects of the scandal, and that it should be a suitable length / wp:due for an article where a person (not the scandal) is the topic of the article. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point. But can we also agree that what is there now is not a balanced summary? Cwobeel (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I have not reviewed that aspect but I'll do so now. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If we both accept that it should focus on the factual "about Christie" aspects, it looks OK to me, but I might be missing something. What would you say is missing? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

For those who haven't been following the Talk page recently, there is a related RfC underway. Dezastru (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that the RFC is going to have to be restarted to have usefulness or validity. North8000 (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your objection to the RfC was noted above. If you feel the questions of the RfC could be improved, you should resume that discussion in the RfC thread. Dezastru (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

To your question of what is missing, well, ahem. Is that not obvious? Cwobeel (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not to me. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not mentioned: the assembly investigation, subpoenas to Christie’s office, and the Federal investigation. Also missing is the resignation of Bill Baroni, Christie’s appointment of Randy Mastor as legal counsel and his announcements about his internal investigation of the scandal, to name a few. Cwobeel (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This detail can be found in the article that is dedicated to the topic.CFredkin (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reflecting only on the "directly about" criteria, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the scandal to fully know which of those are directly about Christie. And so I looked at your large expansion and didn't see most of those in there. Going by your descriptions, "Christie’s appointment of Randy Mastor as legal counsel and his announcements about his internal investigation of the scandal" appear to be about Christie, subpoenas to his "office" and the resignation not, and on the other two investigations I can't tell. North8000 (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The detail can be indeed found on the sub article, but these facts are directly related to Chris Christie and his administration and I see no reason why these undisputed facts should be omitted. After all, one of the reasons we have this article is because Christie is a sitting governor. We are describing his activities as a governor and as a politician, which includes his office as well. Basics, really. Cwobeel (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The investigations of the scandal are only relevant to Christie's WP:BLP if evidence emerges directly linking him to the activity in the scandal. The resignation of Port Authority appointees is not relevant to his bio.CFredkin (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My point is that related to is too low of a bar, and directly about is a better standard for cases like this. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to assume good faith here, but I'm not hearing from you or CFredkin why it is not relevant to add content about the assembly investigation, the subpoenas to Christie’s office, the Federal investigation, and Christie's announcement about his internal investigation of the scandal. Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a bio of Christie, not an article on allegations and investigations into his administration. I believe the points we've made above are clear. In addition, as a WP:BLP the burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material.CFredkin (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a bio of a sitting governor and a politician, on which we report what reliable sources say about him, which is in direct accordance to the BLP guidelines. If we can't report on his activities as a politician, and the repercussions of the government he is currently administering as reported in the free press, what kind of bio will this be? Cwobeel (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Not everything that gets published about a public figure is relevant and notable for their bio, even if the source is "reliable".CFredkin (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The New Republic Article on Christie

This article is not appropriate as an External Link to this WP:BLP. Per WP:ELBLP, "... sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles."

WP:BLP's are going to get ugly quickly if we all start adding External Links to derogatory articles for politicians we don't like.CFredkin (talk)

What makes The New Republic a dubious source? Djflem (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I never said it was.CFredkin (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I took a quick look. It looks like an anti-Christie op-ed piece at best, a "hit piece"/ rant at worst. Without getting into questions of possible explicit exclusion by policies, I really don't see how such adds to the article. North8000 (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose then policies shouldn't be cited in discussions if the person citing them doesn't wish apply them.Djflem (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply that just because someone talks about article quality considerations that that means that implies that they has reason or motivation to avoid taking about policy implications for the discussion at hand or are advocating violations of policy? That is certainly what you just wrote looks like. If so, that is baseless, contrary to a big part of the process of building quality articles, and badly out of line. North8000 (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Look again, not implying anything. If someone says "sources of dubious value" shouldn't be used they should explain their POV as why they believe the source is dubious The NR is a well-established..Djflem (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your last post makes a common error. Besides article quality considerations, there are many policies which place different constraints on the presence of material. You are saying that if material (putatively) complies with one of them that 1. Such means that it complies with all other policy constraints. and 2. Policy is mandating (or provides an argument or force for) inclusion. This is incorrect, there is no basis for either of those assertions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are there for us to follow, but editorial discretion is needed in every case. Arguments can't just be "there is a policy for this or that", rather, we need to engage in a conversation that attempts to apply these policies to the subject at hand. To this point, I don't understand the argument that the New Republic is not a reliable source, as it clearly is one. If it is an op-ed, then all we need to do is to assert that "New Republic's so and so in an op-ed published in this date, commented on this and that". That is what NPOV is: describing what sources say about a specific subject, and ascribing opinions to these that make them. Cwobeel (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here is arguing that The New Republic is necessarily un-reliable. I think the point is that the article itself is of dubious value to this bio. If there are facts in the article that should be included in the bio, I think you may be able to make the case for those specifically. But the existence of the article itself is not useful for this bio.CFredkin (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

To which I'd argue, that an op-ed on The New Republic is a valuable commentary on the biography of a living person, as it is an opinion by "a liberal American magazine of commentary on politics and the arts published continuously since 1914". As long as we state the provenance, we are good. Cwobeel (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

FROM WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. " Cwobeel (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So, bios are not just about facts.Opinions are also important. Cwobeel (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

To my point, per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; Cwobeel (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Evolving positions on gun control and abortion

I think it will be very useful to note the evolution of Christie's views on gun control and abortion. For example that he was pro-choice and pro gun control early in his career (1994-1996). This is well documented in the book "Chris Christie The Inside Story of His Rise to Power" by Bob Ingle and Michael Symons. [6], as well as recent reports such as [7] and [8] Cwobeel (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It is biographically relevant to include information about Christie's political position in his early career, so please do not delete any such information. Thanks. Cwobeel (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Flyer

Olivia Nuzzi from Politico.com recently dug up a flyer from Christie's 1995 State Assembly campaign. The image is here http://images.politico.com/global/2014/02/13/christiead.png - What are the guidelines for uploading posters? Cwobeel (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a Fair Use discussion at File talk:Chris Christie State Assembly 1995 campaign flyer.png. Cwobeel (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Scope of Christie investigations include all abuses of power - therefore section needs updating and broadening

I broadened and updated the Fort Lee lane closures to reflect the current term for the scandal and also to include other controversies. Both the super-committee and the US attorney are looking into "abuses of power" and these are not closed-end investigations. There is also a congressional investigation. This section should not be narrowed at this point. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The additional content you've added are all based on allegations, which are not even directly related to Christie. You continue to remove content that is relevant and sourced (like the fact that the Sandy investigation was instigated by Frank Pollone, a Democratic politician and known Christie critic). You also persist in adding the "Bridgegate" tag, despite the fact that it's not neutral and there's clear consensus against it above. CFredkin (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you decided to use the talk page because this is where the discussion belongs. If you'd like to add a sentence that shows that most of the super-committee are Democrats by an 8-4 margin with a reference, that's fine with me. The Sandy allegations are the subject of US investigation and do relate directly to Christie's office. These aren't rumors, they're the subject of federal investigations. So taking them out is not an option. The reason I've referred to it as Bridgegate is because that's the common parlance in the media and it tends to be reported with the other scandals. The alternative is to have separate sections on each investigation which would make the negative allegations much lengthier in this article. Again the scope of the subpoenas in the super-committee include anything related to abuse of power. The US attorney investigation includes both Sandy and Bridgegate but is not limited to them. I think this should come to a vote before changing things now. Thank youScholarlyarticles (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The following is not relevant to Christie:

On January 10, 2014, e-mails subpoenaed by the Port Authority suggested that Christie administration officials conspired to create traffic jams on the George Washington Bridge while undertaking elaborate efforts to hide apparently political motives. E-mails showed that Christie appointees at the Port Authority pursued a campaign of intimidation against those who raised safety concerns about the lane closures. [119][120][121][122] The scandal came to be known as Bridgegate.

The only bit of the following that is not an unsubstantiated allegation is the reference to the Sandy investigation:

Following the Bridgate revelations, and increased public scrutiny, a number of questions emerged concerning the Christie administration's use of the office of the governor. Civil [123] state, federal[124] and media investigations of the scandal grew to highlight other possible abuses of power. These include: misuse of federal Sandy hurricane relief funds for what appeared to be political or possibly commercial motives, strong-arm tactics against a mayor who declined to endorse Christie for re-election, terminating respected state prosecutors for pursuing an indictment against a Christie allay, [125] and other acts of political payback.

In light of Bridgegate, Christie's killing of a years-in-the-making effort to build a bridge between New York and New Jersey (called ARC) gained new traction. The Christie administrations' stated reasons for his actions came under sharp scrutiny in 2012 when a non-partisan agency determined his stated reasons to be specious. Questions about whether Christie planned to pocket billions of dollars in building funds to use for New Jersey building projects that provided political benefits to his administration, and came at the expense of New Jersey transit and economic interests were resurrected in late January as the behaviors of Christie appointees and their activities at the Port Authority came under increased public scrutiny.[126]

A federal inquiry of whether Christie misused Sandy relief funds for commercials to advance his gubernatorial reelection began in early January. On January 18, 2014, allegations surfaced that Christie's appointees (including the Lieutenant Governor) threatened to withhold federal Sandy relief funds from Hoboken unless its Mayor Zimmer approved a Governor-favored private development project there.[127] [128]

The following is redundant with earlier content:

strong-arm tactics against a mayor who declined to endorse Christie for re-election

A federal inquiry of whether Christie misused Sandy relief funds for commercials to advance his gubernatorial reelection began in early January

Here you continue to add a reference to Giuliani that's not relevant, while removing references to the fact that Christie hired the attorney to respond to the investigation and also conduct an internal audit:

Christie hired New York attorney Randy Mastro on January 16th to represent him in his capacity as governor. Mastro, an attorney with the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher was described by the New York Times is an associate of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.[129]

The following is unsourced and potentially redundant:

As of January 26, 2014, the US attorney for New Jersey and a super-committee of State Assembly and State Senate members in consultation with a federal prosecutor are investigating alleged abuses of power of the Christie administration including lane closures on the George Washington Bridge and misuse of federal Sandy hurricane relief funds.

Finally, once again, the term "Bridgegate" is not neutral and multiple editors have pointed that out. Please stop adding it to the article.CFredkin (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the term Bridgegate does not belong in the article--not just because it's non-neutral, but also because it's non-encyclopedic. TheScotch (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@CFredkin Bridgegate is a term we use in the main article. See: "The Fort Lee lane closure scandal, also known as Bridgegate,[1][2][3] is a U.S. political scandal in which staff members…" page. As to the rest of your argument, it would help if you'd put links to the diffs rather than cut and paste. You've referenced sections that I haven't added. We've tried to update the article to reflect what is currently common knowledge, allegations in the media. This does not need to be litigated to be summarized. I think you've confused "substantiated" with "litigated." The section on the scandal needs to be more complete and it's problematic when people continue to take out facts that people expect to see in an article about Chris ChristieScholarlyarticles (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Here's a diff for you right here. I believe it includes all your statements that I referenced above.CFredkin (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Scope of Christie investigations include all abuses of power" — under U.S. law a person is innocent until proved guilty. Unless Christie is convicted of a crime, unsound or unproven allegations, including those under the nexus of guilt by association, however timely, really don't belong in an encyclopedia (online or elsewhere). I'll have to take a look at previous NJ Governor Jon Corzine's Wikipedia article (Corzine having cost taxpayers infinitely more than Christie, although he faces no punishment, or derision from Bruce Springsteen). Quis separabit? 23:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that anyone is guilty. But if there is an ongoing investigation about a possible abuse of power, and that is described as such in reliable sources, we can report what (and how) these sources refer to the investigation. Cwobeel (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement about erosion of political standing on the lead

CFredkin keeps deleting from the lead the well reported erosion sustained by Christie due to the Fort Lee lane closure scandals. His argument is that this is based on polls, and polls change. My view is that no matter what, even if the polls change again, it is biographically relevant that Christie sustained a political erosion in his standings and in his 2016 prospects. There are hundreds of sources that describes this fact. I will dig a few of these are re-add to the lead. Cwobeel (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Polls are by definition a snapshot of opinion during a short period of time. They are not suitable as a basis for adding content to the lead of the bios of public figures.CFredkin (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I will re-instate the edit and use sources that don't refer to polls. There are literally hundreds of these. Cwobeel (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I don't believe any conjecture is appropriate in the lead.CFredkin (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

These are not "conjectures". They are views reported in multiple reliable sources, and as such required for WP:NPOV. Bios are not just about facts, but also about opinions. Cwobeel (talk)

Opinions may be suitable for the body of a bio, but not for the lead. They are certainly not required.CFredkin (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I take exception with your editorial behavior. If there is material in the article that is well referenced to reliable sources, you just can't delete it without a discussion. If you made a bold edit, and you get reverted, the protocol is to discuss, not to delete again. Cwobeel (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not everything that appears in the press belongs in a WP:BLP and not everything that appears in the body of a WP:BLP belongs in its intro. In a WP:BLP the burden is on the editor adding or restoring content to justify its inclusion in the bio. In my opinion, you're the one making a bold edit here.CFredkin (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The bold edit was yours, when you chose to delete an entire sentence from the lead that has been there for a very long time, just because you did not like an addition I made. Cwobeel (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

So what I'm understanding from your argument is that describing the opinions of Christie a potential 2016 candidate is not a notable thing to be included in the lead of Christie's biographical article? If that is what you are arguing, I think you need to rethink that and come up with a better argument. Cwobeel (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say that? Please re-read the thread more carefully. I said that I don't believe that conjecture is appropriate for the intro of a WP:BLP.CFredkin (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you guys decide, there should be no footnotes in this lead. Wikipedia articles either have a lead that is fully footnoted, or have a lead with no footnotes. Either way is acceptable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course we can place opinions in the lead! Refresh your knowledge here: Wikipedia:Lead#Biographies_of_living_persons Cwobeel (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe your reference supports my points.CFredkin (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

How? Can you explain how it supports your point? Cwobeel (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It says: ".... let the facts speak for themselves."CFredkin (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice cherry pick... here is what it says: When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves Cwobeel (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

So, how exactly does that support your point?CFredkin (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your argument above is that [you] don't believe any conjecture is appropriate in the lead. You also argue that Opinions may be suitable for the body of a bio, but not for the lead. But the sentence in question is not a conjecture, but rather the opinions reported in reliable sources about Christie's potential run for President, and a controversy and its impact on his political standing. After all, this is a biography of a political figure. Cwobeel (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

On what basis can you claim: "Christie sustained a substantial erosion in his political standing..."? As far as I can tell, it's based on a poll for a very small timeframe and statements made by some media pundits. What qualifies them to make that assessment? And why should their opinions be included in the intro? Do they speak for the American public?CFredkin (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the "American public" (whatever that means). This has to do with the many, many sources that describe Christie's potential 2016 candidacy and how that potential has been undermined. Cwobeel (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd appreciate other people's comments, as I don't think we can resolve this in a back-and-forth between us. Cwobeel (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I ask again...What qualifies these media pundits to make that assessment? And why should their opinions be included in the intro?CFredkin (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Pundits? Do you consider the Associated Press, CBS News, USA Today, PBS, Rasmussen, and many, many others, including even GOP donors to be “pundits”? Let's ask other editors to comment. Cwobeel (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I would provide here the standard definitions of "pundit" and "conjecture". However that would only obfuscate the fact that you still haven't answered my questions.CFredkin (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, in BLPs and in any other article we report what reliable sources say about the subject of the article. It does not matter if you believe these sources are pundits, or if you believe that these views are conjectures, analysis or anything else. Here we have an article of a very high profile politician, who is considered by an abundance of sources to be a potential nominee for President, so we describe that in the lead. This same politician is embroiled in a controversy related to his administration as Governor of NJ, and there are abundant sources across that describe the impact of the controversy on his standing as nominee. And you are arguing that these two facts are not suitable for inclusion in the lead? Please... Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I ask again...On what basis can you claim: "Christie sustained a substantial erosion in his political standing..."? As far as I can tell, it's based on a poll for a very small timeframe and statements made by some media pundits. What qualifies them to make that assessment? And why should their opinions be included in the intro?CFredkin (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Polls aside, there are many sources (some of which I added to the body) that describe the impact of the scandal on his political standing. If you want, I can pull a few more. Cwobeel (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Since Christie is a national public figure, it's not surprising that there might be more than a few people that have an agenda when expressing an opinion about him publicly. Who knows what the agenda might be for the sources you've listed? That's why their opinion about any potential implications for his national standing is suspect and should not be included in the intro to his bio.CFredkin (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few, including foreign press, and even Republican-related sources:

• Christie facing more ‘Bridge-gate’ fallout [9]
• New Jersey bridge scandal snarls Christie’s 2016 ambitions [10]
• Chuck Todd: GOP Donors Say Chris Christie's 2016 Hopes May Be 'Done' [11]
• Christie Traffic-Jam Crisis Poses Test of 2016 Prospects [12]
• FBI and US attorney to probe bridge scandal looming over 2016 GOP hopeful Christie [13]
• Christie donor Ken Langone on fallout from bridge scandal [14]
• US: New “Bridgegate” allegations push Christie closer to political disaster [15]

The goal should be an informative, well-balanced article. Not trying to see how negative-sounding it can be made. Several policies and quality considerations should guide us, wp:npov, (in principle and in detail) wp:blp, wp:notthenews (with weighting by that) degree of relevance, try to find / use quality sources (with objectivity and expertise on the topic) in addition to just meeting the floor or wp:rs. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you. And what we have in the last sentence of the lead is just that. Here is the sentence as it stands now: Christie is widely viewed as a possible presidential candidate in 2016. As a result of the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, Christie sustained a substantial erosion in his political standing, although the investigations are not yet complete and Christie denies wrongdoing. Well balanced and factual. Cwobeel (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO that sounds problematic in a few areas. The last two sound like an incriminating sounding way of saying that so far nothing has been found indicating that he had a hand in or know about it; those two phrases imply the opposite. (the first implies that there are preliminary findings of guilt of him, the second is basically sounding like the only indication of lacking of anything indicating his guilt was his personal claim of innocence. Also selecting a recent (and possibly short term) dip in popularity for inclusion in the lead IMO is undue for the lead of a BIO. North8000 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you then propose an edit that is better balanced? Cwobeel (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(added later) You called my bluff  :-) So much easier to just comment!  :-)  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of getting to a mutually satisfactory outcome here, I propose that the existing content be replace with the following:

"As Governor, Christie took responsibility for the politically-motivated Fort Lee lane closure, which was initiated by a member of his staff and political appointees, but has denied any personal involvement in their activity. Christie is widely viewed as a possible presidential candidate in 2016."CFredkin (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the attempt made in good faith above, but that sentence is contradictory to WP:NOR. To start with, we don't know yet the real reasons for the lane closures, and we don't know who gave the order (Kellly wrote that text message, but we don't know who told her to do so or if she did that on her own), and it misses the fact that his political standing suffered because of the scandal. Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your first concern above is valid. How about the following:

"As Governor, Christie took responsibility for the politically-motivated Fort Lee lane closure, but has denied any personal involvement in the scandal. Christie is widely viewed as a possible presidential candidate in 2016."CFredkin (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't know yet if it was politically motivated. What about this:

Christie took responsibility for the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, but denied any personal involvement. Christie was widely viewed as a possible presidential candidate in 2016, but his political standing suffered as a consequence.

Cwobeel (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

How about this, then:

"As Governor, Christie took responsibility for the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, but has denied any personal involvement. Christie is widely viewed as a possible presidential candidate in 2016."CFredkin (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

We just need the bit about his political standing suffering as a result of the scandal. That is a fact, like it or not... Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this:

As Governor, Christie took responsibility for the Fort Lee lane closure scandal and denied any personal involvement, but his political standing suffered as a consequence. Christie is widely viewed as a possible presidential candidate in 2016.

Cwobeel (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, any reference to his political standing following the scandal is pure conjecture at this point.CFredkin (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, that is not "conjecture". That is the pervasive view of literally hundreds of sources including Republican-leaning and foreign press, and as such we can (and should) report it. (Neither is conjecture that he is viewed as a possible 2016 presidential nominee) Cwobeel (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think User:Cwobeel's last version is reasonable, at least temporarily. The effect on the governor's political standing has become too significant and well-sourced to leave out of the intro. It is hardly just "conjecture" at this point. The one thing I think is missing from Cwobeel's last version is any sense that this whole thing is still going on. The sentence makes it sound like this is something that happened, he took responsibility, it is over now, and he is suffering the consequences. There is no mention at all of the investigations, both legislative and prosecutorial, which really have just barely begun. By the same token, one might quibble with the statement that the governor "took responsibility", which as written sounds like a point in his favor. Let's find out more about what really happened, and we'll know better whether such a statement is really appropriate. But I think it might take some time to get consensus on any more than what Cwobeel has written. So for now, I support that wording. Neutron (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

So maybe this would work to address your comments: As Governor, Christie took responsibility for the Fort Lee lane closure scandal and denied any personal involvement, but his political standing suffered as a consequence during the ensuing investigations, which are ongoing. Christie is widely viewed as a possible presidential candidate in 2016. Cwobeel (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cwobeel, anytime that any official or politician has anything that brings negativity even near them happen, their popularity takes at least a short term dip. I don't see the need or information value to give this such prominence as putting it into the lead. There have been lots of well-covered events where his popularity has jumped upward, and we are not noting those upward jumps in the lead. Also, there will soon almost certainly be a time when his popularity rises, if only due to passage of time from the bridge scandal and the dip, and I don't see a need to put that into the lead. North8000 (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This is what I think: Even if it ends up being a temporary dip, it will remain a notable event in the chronology. Cwobeel (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The thing is that there are also pundits saying that they don't think it will hurt Christie's standing (or may even help him), as long as no new evidence emerges. At this point, it's just opinion. There's no doubt it's significant, but the impact remains unclear.CFredkin (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If it is significant, we report it, including alternative views. Do we have a comparable number of sources that claim that his standing is improved or not diminished by the scandal? If so, let's find the wording to describe it. Cwobeel (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Polls are pretty much ephemera in their very nature. We can make a broad statement, as in my proposed edit, but when we allow any BLP of any person from any party to be used to cite ephemeral material, we run the risk of violating policy. I once ran into an editor who only allowed polls favouring his candidate (for who he was an official campaign worker) to be placed into articles, and I found that quite an affront to reason and logic, and we must absolutely avoid any temptation to do so here. We can not be seen as favouring or disfavouring any person in any BLP, and especially during the wondrous political "silly season" . Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not about polls, Collect. There are literally hundreds of sources that describes a fallout as a politician as it relates to his 2016 aspirations. We have been engaging here in a constructive discussion, and there you go into making a substantial edit without even attempting to engage? What kin d of collaboration is that? Cwobeel (talk)

And this is indeed cute: According to polls, has reduced his approval rating in New Jersey, really? So here you decide to quote state polls and exclude national polls. This is really confusing and does not make an iota of sense. Cwobeel (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am not talking about polls, but if you insist: Cwobeel (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Jan 30 2014 “Governor Christie is now seen favorably by only 35 percent of Americans, and his unfavorable score has doubled to 40 percent. Last June, a Gallup poll showed him at 52 percent favorability.”
• Jan 21, 2014 ’’Overall, Americans who responded to the survey are divided on whether Christie would make a good president: 35 percent says yes; 36 percent say no. In November, 49 percent said he would make a good president and 31 percent said he would not.’’
• Jan 28, 2016 ’’The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, out Tuesday, found a sharp drop in support for the New Jersey governor since the Republican was embroiled in a scandal resulting from a multiday traffic snarl near the George Washington Bridge. In the new poll, more Americans view Mr. Christie negatively than positively, by a margin of 29%-22%. That’s a swift reversal from October when an earlier poll found 33% of the respondents viewed him positively, compared with the 17% who viewed him negatively.’’
• Feb 2, 2014 “Clinton leads the Republican governor by 16 points, 55 percent to 39 percent of the vote among registered voters, a poll by CNN/ORC released Monday shows. In a December CNN poll, Christie held the lead over Clinton 48 percent to 46 percent.”
• Feb 6, 2014 ‘’A Quinnipiac poll in February of last year showed 74 percent of voters approved of his performance. That number dropped 19 points to 55 percent in a poll released Jan. 15.”

Again: Polls are intrinsically ephemeral, BLPs are encyclopedia articles. They also tend to be labile, and thus of value, at best, only for the moment they are taken, subject to statistical errors. BLPs are not campaign venues. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE read the thread above. I am not arguing for inclusion of ANY polls. That was your addition (which you did without any discussion), not mine. And BTW, the NPOV tag is explicitly designed for the purpose of eliciting a discussion and not about "shame". Putting it back until the dispute is resolved. Cwobeel (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually the bit about popularity was not added by me [16], but I referred to the body of the article for sourcing the sentence. Cheers -- but when you assert a person added something not already in the article, read the damn article first. Collect (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The removed sentence

The removed sentence was: "As a result of the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, Christie sustained a substantial erosion in his political standing, although the investigations are not yet complete and Christie denies wrongdoing." How about if we make it more concise (less weight): "The ongoing investigations about the Fort Lee lane closure scandal pose a challenge for Christie, who denies wrongdoing." That's a change from 29 words to 18 words.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for the suggestion.CFredkin (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. Here is the full sentence:

The ongoing investigations about the Fort Lee lane closure scandal pose a challenge for Christie, who denies wrongdoing. Christie is widely viewed as a possible presidential candidate in 2016

Would you like to do the honors including removing the POV tag? Cwobeel (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's see if User:Collect is ok with this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Collect went away for awhile. I'll make the change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not actually live on a computer <g> Collect (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I just want to apologize. I did not mean to remove that sentence a second time from the lede. CFredkin explained in his edit summary that the sentence in question is not OR. I think what happened is that there must have been an edit conflict (although I don't remember seeing the message), and that's why it happened. The edit in question was much larger than just removing that sentence again. I suspect it was an edit conflict. Apologies, again. Quis separabit? 01:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Accepted edit as reviewer

A few minutes ago I accepted an edit (only as) per the reviewer criteria. (e.g. not vandalism etc.) This does not necessarily indicate support of the edit or review per other criteria. North8000 (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Poll Data

user:Cwobeel, Way to cherry pick your poll data. 1) The existing list of poll data for NJ going back to 2010 all references approval ratings; 2) approval ratings are much, much more commonly referenced for incumbent politicians; 3) the source you referenced included an approval rating of 53%, but you included the favorability rating of 46%. I won't bother speculating why.

I tell you what.... I'll propose the following: For the sake of constistency of survey methodologies, I think we should replace the Jan 2014 Quinnipiac poll for NJ and the Rutgers poll with Jan 2014 results from PublicMind, which show an approval rating of 48% for Christie.

If that doesn't work for you, I'm going to argue that we should be using the approval rating data from Rutgers for consistency with earlier surveys.CFredkin (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ahem, I though you were the one cherry-pinking :) Please re-add the approval rating of 53% that I missed. Cwobeel (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, one representative survey for a timeframe is sufficient. Otherwise the list will quickly become unwieldy.CFredkin (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The McClatchy/Marist poll is the latest poll and the only one performed in February, so please undo your revert. May I suggest to go easy on the revert button? Thanks. Cwobeel (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The reverts tend to pile up when one's trying to keep others' POV-pushing nonsense to a minimum.:) It doesn't matter to me which national poll gets included. But it should be only one.CFredkin (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No need to revert, we have made good strides in discussing stuff. And I would also appreciate no name calling, as anyone could argue the same POV pushing from you. To your point, you argued above that we should keep one survey per timeframe, so please undo your revert so that we have February there. Also, please re-add the other one you removed, but include the approval rating I missed. Thanks Cwobeel (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Having polls for consecutive months (or the same month) is definitely WP:undue, unless they show a significant change in status.CFredkin (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that does not make sense. Why will be be undue weight? Consider this: If the February poll data was positive for Christie, would you have made the same argument? Once you answer that question honestly, please undo your revert. Otherwise our collaboration here will not be fun at all. Cwobeel (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There you go with another sarcastic comment. I'm not kidding. If you keep that up, things are going to get ugly here in a hurry. In any case, if Jan poll data indicated a significant drop and then Feb data indicated a significant increase (or vice versa), of course I might argue that that should be noted. But including multiple polls from closely spaced intervals that show relatively consistent results is definitely WP:undue. Did you notice that the state polling results are only listed annually (unless there was some significant change)? (Frankly I'm not convinced there should be multiple results shown for 2010, even with the significant change.) If we started listing poll results monthly, his bio would quickly become consumed with them.CFredkin (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(Sorry, it was not my intention to upset you). The problem is that the two polls measured different things: One polled the presidential capabilities of the candidates, and the other polled a straight Clinton vs Christie match-up. Cwobeel (talk)

OK. I understand. Thank you. I'd like to propose that we pick a polling entity and a key metric to report on here. Otherwise editors will be adding their favorite metric from their favorite polling entity, and the section will get out of hand. For his role as governor, approval ratings from FD PublicMind have been reported consistently, which I think seems reasonable. At the national level, obviously we can't report approval ratings since he doesn't hold a national office. We could report presidential favorability, overall favorability, etc. I don't think I really have a strong opinion on that. However I don't think we should be reporting on standing versus other politicians at this point. It's far too early and presumes who his opponent would be. I also don't have a strong opinion on the polling entity except that it should obviously be neutral. Quinnipiac seems pretty prominent, so personally I'd be ok with that. I'd also suggest that we keep commentary (either positive or negative) to a minimum in this section. What do you think?CFredkin (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thank you. Cwobeel (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Per this agreement reached, I have added the new FDU PublicMind poll. Tiller54 (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I believe you're the one who initiated the sarcastic commentary. So how about keeping that to a minimum?CFredkin (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure which sarcastic comment I made. But if I did, I am sorry. Cwobeel (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I oppose ephemera in BLPs, and polls are the epitome of ephemera. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agreee with including short summaries of polls on a BPLs of politicians. Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is information about the actions of Christie administration officials appropriate for the article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm closing this per a WP:ANRFC request. Consensus is that the bridge lane closure political scandal should be covered in the article, but it's not clear from this this discussion to which extent it should be covered. (I note that there is currently an extensive section about it, Chris Christie#George Washington Bridge scandal.  Sandstein  19:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Should the article include information about actions taken by Christie administration officials, such as their involvement in the George Washington Bridge lanes closure and in the distribution of Hurricane Sandy recovery funds? Dezastru (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

As evident from the preceding discussion on this Talk page, there is a disagreement over whether information about actions of Christie staff and administration appointees should be included in the article.

One point of view holds that the article should follow the lead of reporting by reliable sources on Chris Christie, which have focused almost exclusively, as he has entered his second term as governor and has become chair of the Republican Governors Association, on his administration's involvement in the George Washington Bridge lanes closure, including his statements and actions related to the lanes closure controversy. The coverage by reliable sources has also focused on the investigation launched by the US Department of Justice into an allegation by a mayor that the administration threatened to withhold federal funds unless the mayor backed a real estate development project favored by the administration and that the lieutenant governor had said the message had come directly from Christie.

An opposing viewpoint is that because the subject of the bio article is Chris Christie, no information about Christie staff or appointees can be included in the article, with the exception of information directly describing statements or actions taken by Christie himself. This viewpoint also holds that the mayor's allegation that the administration threatened to withhold funding should not be mentioned in the article because Christie has not himself been accused of directly having threatened to withhold funding.

Please begin your comment with Support or Oppose (meaning whether you support or oppose including information about Christie administration officials in the article), followed by your reasoning. Dezastru (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Suggest just a few sentences on the bridge controversy and then linking that article for other details. This is a bio article on Christie. IMO what other parties (not Christie) did should be in the article on the bridge controversy and not in this one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There is unanimous agreement that there should be a few sentences on the bridge controversy with a link to the other article for additional information. The purpose of this RfC is to decide what the scope of those few sentences in the Christie article should entail. Is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline that says the sentences in the bio article on a government official should not include information about the actions of administration officials? Should the information in this Christie article mention that a federal investigation has been opened to determine whether officials in his administration may have misused federal Hurricane Sandy recovery funds? etc. Dezastru (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear here, there are already 3 paragraphs of content on the scandal in the article. What you're proposing above would amount to at least 5 paragraphs of content. Not a few sentences.CFredkin (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I proposed a version of the section that would be 3 paragraphs long.[17] You rejected it with the argument that information about Christie administration officials is outside the scope of a biography on Christie. The purpose of this RfC is to determine whether that is a valid basis for excluding information from the article. Dezastru (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The wording of this is non-neutral and mal-formed. The RFC should be just a neutral statement of the question. In the above, the poster (a person from one side of the debate) has included their argument for inclusion in the RFC and then a "straw man" wording of an argument for the opposing view. Also suggest leaving the arguments out of the RFC and put those in the responses. North8000 (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No one has actually responded to the RfC yet, so the language can be modified. What do you feel would be a neutral RfC question? Dezastru (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Two ideas:

• Move your statement of your argument for inclusion to the responses and delete your statement of the argument for the "other" (exclusion) side.
• Delete your statement of the argument for the "other" (exclusion) side and let CFredkin write that. (of similar length)

Also suggest narrowing the question to just bridge related. Right now you sort of have two different questions there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk)

I am willing to consider rewriting the RfC text. Let's clarify a few things, though. There are three separate but related questions to be addressed in the RfC:

(1) For a BLP about a government leader, is the argument that 'actions of officials in the person's administration cannot be mentioned because the bio may only contain information about the actions taken directly by the leader himself or herself' a valid basis for excluding information from the BLP?

(2) Should this specific BLP include information about Christie administration officials involving the bridge lanes closure?

(3) Should this specific BLP include information about the Justice Department's investigation into the mayor's statements about Christie administration officials and the distribution of Hurricane Sandy recovery funds?

The first question needs to be answered so that going forward we can avoid disagreements over the legitimacy of this particular exclusion argument should any other noteworthy information about actions of officials in Christie's administration arise. Otherwise, we will likely be right back arguing over this same point in the future.

The second and third questions deal with the specific content topics that triggered the invocation of the argument addressed by the first question. What if the RfC consensus is that the article may include information about Christie administration officials and should include information on their involvement in the bridge lanes closure, but the issue of mentioning the Sandy recovery funds investigation is not addressed in the RfC? In that case it is pretty much guaranteed that some editors will then object to mentioning the Sandy funds issue in the article (as has already occurred), leading to yet another impasse. Better to settle all of these questions at one go based on input from the wider community than to draw out the same disagreement for months and months.

I tried in good faith to present both viewpoints neutrally. If North8000 and CFredkin (and possibly others) feel that the original background statement is not neutral, please propose how you would reword it, showing the actual text you would use instead. Let's at least agree on what it is we disagree on before we proceed with the RfC. Dezastru (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. You unilaterally initiated a RfC using non-neutral language, and now you want to have a discussion regarding what it should be about?CFredkin (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't having a discussion the best way to come to an agreement? I am asking how you would reword the language of the RfC. If we agree on how to reword it, then we can proceed. I honestly don't see what I said that was not neutral, so I am interested in hearing your perspective. Dezastru (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to have a discussion regarding what should be included in the RfC, wouldn't it make sense to have it before the RfC is submitted?

IMO, the first question you're proposing above is not appropriate. It appears that you're fishing for blanket approval to add whatever you want to this article moving forward. I would suggest the following wording for the other 2 questions:

(2) Should this WP:BLP include information about the actions of Christie administration officials involving the bridge lanes closure?

(3) Should this WP:BLP include information about the allegations of misuse of Hurricane Sandy recovery funds by the mayor of Hoboken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFredkin (talk • contribs) 18:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Number 1 is sort of straw man wording, implying that the question is whether or not inclusion is absolutely prohibited by policy. #2 & #3 are vague to the point where they could be a blank check for over-additions. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that North's concern is a potential issue, even for my suggested wording of #2. I think more editing for specificity is probably necessary.CFredkin (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I was not asking how to reword the 3 questions I listed above. Those 3 questions are what I believe are the basic issues (however you want to word them) that need to be addressed in the RfC. The material I was asking you to suggest a rewording for was the RfC question, which is currently:

Should the article include information about actions taken by Christie administration officials, such as their involvement in the George Washington Bridge lanes closure and in the distribution of Hurricane Sandy recovery funds?

and the background statement, which is currently:

As evident from the preceding discussion on this Talk page, there is a disagreement over whether information about actions of Christie staff and administration appointees should be included in the article.
 One point of view holds that....
 An opposing viewpoint is that....
 Please begin your comment with Support or Oppose....

Dezastru (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

While I hear your concern about the first of the three questions I listed, this question must be addressed because it deals with the central point of controversy about what kind of information is appropriate for this article. Almost every editorial disagreement involving the article for the better part of the past 6 weeks boils down to a disagreement over this one issue. Dezastru (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Without getting into which specific sentences or facts should or should not be in the article, as a general matter there should be summaries of the major controversies, including the lane closures and alleged misuse of federal funds. The fact that much of this content concerns the actions of the governor's staff members does not mean that this material must be excluded from the article. The staff members were appointed by him to be part of his administration, and their actions (and Christie's reactions to them) will inevitably have an impact on his political future. On the other hand, there does not need to be a tremendous amount of detail. There is also an article on Governorship of Chris Christie that should (and does) have even more detail, and then the article on the lane closure controversy itself. Neutron (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

My concern with including the allegation regarding misuse of funds is that at this point it's based on nothing more than the claim of a Democratic mayor. I would agree that it should be included if/when there's some substantiation of the allegation.CFredkin (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The allegations (and current federal investigation) regarding use of Sandy relief funds go beyond just what happened in Hoboken. I think it deserves at least a brief mention in this article. Neutron (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there any substantiation beyond the claim of the mayor in Hoboken?CFredkin (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As you know (because you quoted it yourself in a previous section on this page), there is a federal investigation underway into whether federal relief funds were misused for commercials that were, allegedly, campaign ads. (Reporting on allegations against a public figure, when the allegations themselves are well-sourced, is acceptable under WP:PUBLICFIGURE Therefore, reporting that there is an investigation (citing sources) should be fine as well. In fact, virtually the same paragraph that you quoted earlier (about the investigation into both the Hoboken issue and the commercials) already appears in another article, apparently with the same sources. But I am not even suggesting that we need all that in this article. The investigations into the use of Sandy funds could probably be boiled down into one sentence. Neutron (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. Attorney for New Jersey is looking into the allegations by the Mayor of Hoboken. They may discover that she made the whole thing up. Or that she has absolutely no evidence to support her allegation. In fact, apparently the mayor's office has flatly refused to comply with requests under the New Jersey Open Public Records Act for her communications with groups like the Democratic National Committee and MSNBC. If the U.S. Attorney discovers that the matter is worth pursuing, then it will be reasonable to include it in Christie's [WP:BLP]].04:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I think the flurry of questions questions concerning abuse of power by Chris Christie are extremely relevant to an article about him. It seems remiss to exclude the hefty body of information about the way he conducted his administration (or, if you take his view, the way his administration conducted him) as well to exclude the complaints/allegations/stories about his strong-arm technics. In my view, this article should certainly touch on the GWB scandal, the Hoboken scandal, both of which are subjects of federal investigations, and for which the governors' office has been subpoenaed. It should also touch on other stories saturating the media which call into question the manner in which Christie wields power. To leave these out muddies the page and renders it misleading. Anyone looking at this page would be hard pressed to understand any number of facts that appear in the media each day, such as Christie being booed at the Superbowl or other politicians avoiding photo-ops with him. When last I looked this page still described Christie as "the leader of the Republican party." This is just one example of how omitting ubiquitous facts about the man and his administration shapes a page that reflects poorly on WP.Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC).

• Support. I think that although it is easy to put too much detail of a politician's administrative record into their bios, the paragraphs as they are written here do an admirable job. For a high ranking politician it is unreasonable to use BLP to exclude anything that does not directly mention them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Absolutely. The "bridgegate" scandal is a major national news story, and it impacts upon Christie in a very grave manner. I can't conceive of BLP being used to exclude such highly pertinent information. Coretheapple (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Bios of invidiuals who are primarily known for their work as political leaders should include the most noteworthy events of their political careers. Christie is primarily notable for being governor of New Jersey, as well as a leader of the Republican Party and a potential candidate for president or vice-president, so the major events of his governorship should be noted in his bio, especially any events that significantly impact his role as a party leader and likely presidential candidate.

The main argument raised in an effort to keep this information out of the article is based on the claim that events that Christie has not been proven to have had a direct hand in himself are not appropriate for his bio because these events "are not about him", which ignores the obvious fact that a person's life may be profoundly impacted by events that the person is not personally responsible for, not to mention that Christie himself has said he accepts responsibility for actions taken by members of his administration. Common practice on Wikipedia is to include mentions of major controversies affecting political leaders in their bio articles even in cases in which the leaders themselves have not necessarily been found to have been directly responsible for controversial actions taken by their subordinates or associates. (See, for example, the Wikipeda articles on Eliot Spitzer, John Major, Scott Walker, Kofi Annan, Hugo Chavez, Lula, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Jim McGreevey.)

The investigations into the controversies involving his administration's role in the bridge lanes closure and the Hurricane Sandy recovery response are unquestionably among the most noteworthy events of his political career – whether or not he has acknowledged having personally directed, or has been reported to have personally directed, the actions taken in these matters by officials in his administration and members of his campaign organization. Multiple reliable sources have described his favorability poll ratings as having "tanked" in recent weeks.[18][19] The state's largest newspaper has said its endorsement of his re-election was a mistake.[20] A lot of his party's current candidates for office are avoiding being seen in public with him, despite his now being the chair of the Republican Governors Association.[21] The sources say these developments are responses to the controversies involving members of his administration; they do not say that Christie himself is believed to have committed any crime, and neither does the text that has been proposed for the bio article.

Excluding information about significant government policy actions taken by officials within Christie's administration or campaign organization under the rationale that these matters are more appropriately covered in the related articles on the governorship or on the bridge lanes closure would be a violation of the prohibition against POV content forking. The details of these events are appropriate for the other articles, but neutral coverage of his political career requires that these events be mentioned in his bio as well. Dezastru (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Per Dezastru, couldn't put it better myself: "The investigations into the controversies involving his administration's role in the bridge lanes closure and the Hurricane Sandy recovery response are unquestionably among the most noteworthy events of his political career." Cwobeel (talk)

• Oppose. - Well, more like "support, with extreme reservation" really. It can become UNDUE very quickly. Not only is this Christie's BLP, but there are separate well-linked articles on BOTH his governorship and the bridge scandal, both of which are appropriate forums to discuss Christie's administration along with its trials and tribulations. While this is all very newsy, and certainly revs up the detractors, it remains to be seen where this fits into Christie's bio. It could be his defining moment (if as-of-yet-undiscovered evidence arises of his knowledge), or a complete red herring smear. John2510 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton bios, which are high-profile articles, both mention the Whitewater investigations and roles played by Clinton associates, the McDougals (who were convicted), although the Clintons themselves were never charged with any crime – the bio articles mention Whitewater even though there is a whole other article on the Whitewater controversy. The details of the affair go in the separate article, but the bio articles still mention the controversy surrounding the investigations because it was a major event in the Clintons' political careers. Dezastru (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

One distinction is that in Whitewater, Hillary was investigated directly for potential conflict of interest based on her legal work. She testified before a grand jury (although she was never charged). Currently the Sandy funding investigation is based on an allegation made by a mayor regarding a message that was supposedly passed along by the Lt. Gov. The investigation might determine that the whole thing was fabricated. I think if this gets to a grand jury, then it should be considered for inclusion in his bio. Perhaps a better analogy with the Clintons would be the allegation by Juanita Brodderick that Bill raped her.CFredkin (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Another example is the Dick Cheney bio, which mentions the Valerie Plame-Wilson affair, despite the fact that there is a separate article on the Plame affair and the fact that Cheney himself was never charged with any crime related to the matter. Dezastru (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's accurate, from skimming those articles. Certainly, the level of mention doesn't seem to rise to the level of being UNDUE. If you think that it does, the solution would be to make corrective edits on those pages. John2510 (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose with some reservation. Christie wasn't involved, charged or indicted, rather it was the dirty work of a rogue staffer. He terminated her employment. Indictments and verdicts are what matter, not allegations that are politically motivated, and trumped up by a frenzied media. If the general consensus favors inclusion, so be it, but any mention of it should be focused on how he handled such an unfortunate situation. The same applies to Hurricane Sandy. Politically motivated scandals that don't have any teeth simply don't belong in a bio. 174.32.160.43 (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)— 174.32.160.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support as a major scandal in news sources. This is especially important considering the chance he runs for president in 2016. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 02:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swordman97 (talk • contribs)

• Support per WP:LEAD which indicates that significant controversies should appear in the introductions of articles, not just the body. Given the very substantial amount of news and commentary, and from what I know of the story so far, I think the event qualifies. The bot sent me. EllenCT (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support It's necassary to mention but not write a whole book about. Limit it and link to the actual controversies seperate articles.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose the inclusion of information about Christie's staff or appointees in the article, with the exception of information directly describing statements or actions taken by Christie himself. I also oppose the inclusion of the mayor's allegation that the administration threatened to withhold funding should not be mentioned in the article because Christie has not himself been accused of directly having threatened to withhold funding. To include such information creates an open door for a politicized, POV driven, coatrack style BLP.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Support. Given that I didn't participate in this discussion, and given that review of the closure has been requested at WP:AN, FWIW I'd just like to add that this article should focus on Christie, his role, his statements, and his actions. Other stuff could be summarized briefly, and readers can get more info via the wlink in the hatnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I'm also coming here after seeing the post at WP:AN. This is a clearly notable scandal. I don't see any reason why information about actions of Christie staff and administration appointees should be excluded from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy emergency relief bill section

This section does not include any information about the recent reports about mismanagement of the Sandy funds, for example: [22], [23], as well as the Feds investigation [24] Cwobeel (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, any allegations or investigations here are only relevant to Christie's WP:BLP if evidence emerges to substantiate them.CFredkin (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't follow you. Are you arguing that an investigation is not relevant for a BLP? It is a fact that there is an ongoing investigation, and that fact is undisputed, so why the stonewalling about it's inclusion. The result of the investigation can be reported when that happens. Cwobeel (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm arguing that investigations into unsubstantiated allegations about actions by Christie's administration are not relevant to Christie's WP:BLP. If the allegations are substantiated and Christie is shown to have been involved, then I think you can make an argument that they should be referenced.CFredkin (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't get to decide what gets included. For that we need to rely on WP:BLP, which I suggest you re-read to better understand what our role is: To report and explicitly attribute what reliable, published sources say about the living person. Cwobeel (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Fort example, see "Feds investigate Christie's use of Sandy relief funds" [25]. Please tell me why that is not relevant to this article? WP:BLP says that we can and should report what this and other sources say about Christie. Cwobeel (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The investigation was initiated at the request of a Democratic state legislator who's a prominent critic of Christie. At this point, his allegations are unsubstantiated. If the allegations are substantiated and Christie is shown to have been involved, then I think you can make an argument that they should be referenced. Not everything that gets published about a public figure is relevant and notable for their bio, even if the source is "reliable".CFredkin (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I posted that in the Governorship of Chris Christie article, but I am still unconvinced it should not be reported here as well. I'll think about it. Cwobeel (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Also missing are the numerous reports about his high-profile meeting with President Obama on the aftermath of Sandy. Cwobeel (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't there a huge photo of that meeting in the Wikipedia article? Please feel free to stick a footnote or two in the caption, and then remove your POV tag (or vice versa). We're trying to be concise here, and a picture is worth a thousand words.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Without any reply, the POV tag should be removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Once we add some material about the linked articles at top of that section, then you can remove the tag. but not before. Cwobeel (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean the linked articles at the top of this section. I will look into it. But just to be clear, your criterion for removing the tag is incorrect. According to the template documentation: "This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

"There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

"It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

"In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have now looked into it. I searched for "Hurricane Sandy" and "investigation" using Google News. What I found is that the articles are all from January. There's no continuing coverage, and the media is apparently waiting for the results of the investigations. This seems like a perfect example of material that belongs (if at all) in a Christie sub-article for the time being.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Not dormant at all. I have placed the tag back again. To remove it, we need to add a sentence or two describing the linked sections in the other article to avoid a WP:POVFORK: Governorship_of_Chris_Christie#Hoboken_Sandy_relief_funds_investigation and Governorship_of_Chris_Christie#Stronger_than_the_Storm Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The lack of inclusion of unsubstantiated allegations in a BLP is not justification for adding a POV tag.CFredkin (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Allegations that are reported in reliable sources are OK even in BLPs, and the POV tag is specifically designed to alert editors of issues with any article including BLPs. Cwobeel (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)