Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Image requests

Obviously, we need photos for most of the individuals involved. We have images for Christie and Baroni. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline currently states: "August 28: Wildstein receives scenarios from Zipf and Riveria". What does this mean? And who are Zipf and Riveria? I don't see them mentioned anywhere prior. This statement needs context and clarification. Does anyone know anything about this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Taken care of. Wondering55 (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Delay

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-new-jersey-bridge-death-20140108,0,2864014.story#ixzz2pvflGHRX

The delay in the case of the woman’s death “was one of four such delays reported by the EMS coordinator.”

74.60.161.158 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

And elsewhere...

Whereas it normally takes about four minutes to respond, it took EMS seven minutes to respond to the situation involving an unconscious 91-year-old woman. She later died of cardiac arrest at a hospital. Favia, however, did not say that the woman's death was directly due to the delays. Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/christie-bridge-scandal-lane-closures-ems-2014-1

This article appears a little slanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.193.86.172 (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Explain. --talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.101.122 (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

At the time of my comment, it was not mentioned in the article that the death was not blamed on the delay. It is now present in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.193.86.172 (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

YWondering55 (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Investigation

I believe I heard that the State's Attorney (or perhaps it was the U. S. Attorney) would be starting an investigation into this issue. That should be added into the article. There should be plenty of sources. See [1]. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:PUBLICFIGURE suggests that this would be appropriate as long as there are multiple reliable sources. "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." 24.151.116.25 (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow you. This has nothing to do with an allegation. It has to do with the federal government opening up an investigation (i.e., to look into the matter to see whether or not there is an allegation to be made). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I am agreeing with you. Just saying that you should have multiple reliable sources. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

YWondering55 (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Nicknames for the scandal

I'm not sure we should include "also known as Bridgegate, Bridgeghazi" in the lede. It seems a bit sensationalistic and doesn't really impart knowledge about the subject. It also creates a precedent for adding even more inappropriate nicknames like "fat and furious". - MrX 04:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd tend to disagree. The general public and the media (overwhelmingly) seem to be referring to this as "Bridgegate", and not as "the Fort Lee lane closure scandal". As such, it is not inappropriate in the lede. Other less common names ("Fat and Furious", etc.) do not belong in the lede. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess I can understand alternative names that are broadly used in the media, but Bridgeghazi does not seem appropriate by that standard. That said, it was removed so I withdraw my objection.- MrX 04:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "Bridgeghazi" does not belong in the lede. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

YWondering55 (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Other local Fort Lee entrances

"Background" section now has: "There are other Fort Lee street entrances [in addition to the infamous Martha Washington Way entrance], which do not have dedicated toll lanes, to the lower and upper levels of the bridge."

Disregarding cases like the irregular Wide Load entrance for Authorized Vehicles Only direct from Hudson Terrace http://goo.gl/maps/fYZAF , I know of two additional entrances from surface streets in Fort Lee.

One is a turn-right from Center Avenue northbound http://goo.gl/maps/n1NHt to the main upper level toll plaza.

Another is a bear-left from Kelby Street eastbound http://goo.gl/maps/vxqQD to the lower level toll plaza.

(BTW, US-9W southbund traffic that wants the bridge is led to that fork on Kelby Street. Cash customers are advised to bear right, toward the Martha Washingtom Way entrance, during the overnight hours when lower level plaza is EZpass only, but sign is hard to digest in a hurry, probably leading some daytime Cash customers to Martha Washington Way.)

Are there additional local entrances from the streets of Fort Lee?

Do these two (or more) bear explicit listing in the article? Or should we specify "There are two other...." JackGavin (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Other" is certainly acceptable. What I don't know, and perhaps you do, is whether those were active or impacted by the closure? And then we'd benefit from a reliable source since there's so much focus on the three lanes.Mattnad (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, acceptable, but vague. The two "additional" entrances would not be directly affected by the MWW constriction, but the gridlock reportedly affected the whole area, so folks probably could not get to the two additional. JackGavin (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a third "other" entrance, in the far northern part of Fort Lee (about three-quarters of a mile north of the bridge), from Hudson Terrace northbound or southbound http://goo.gl/maps/ylfEG leading to the Palisades Interstate Parkway southbound toll plaza, and then to the upper level. This is so far north (and away from primetime Fort Lee) that I thought it was in Engelwood Cliffs, but it's in Fort Lee by a margin of less than 2 blocks. JackGavin (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Can his Background section of the article at least be updated now to simply state there are "three other Fort Lee street entrances, which do not have dedicated toll lanes, to the lower and upper levels of the bridge."

I do not think we need to call out the location of each of these other entrances, which were NOT included in the conspiracy to close dedicated toll lanes at Martha Washington Way. Remember, this section is just for a very general background of key relevant info for those unfamiliar with the general area traffic infrastructure and the state politics. It is not intended as a detailed section for everything related to this topic. Readers can go to the wikilinked articles if they want more details from this background section.

If someone finds a source that confirms that any or all three of these entrances were impacted by the traffic gridlock, we can always include that later in the Events section. I am guessing that the 2 closest entrances were most definitely affected. Wondering55 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone explain why the fact that there are additional Fort Lee entrances to the bridge apart from the entrance where the two lanes were closed in this incident is such an important point for this article? The article isn't about the George Washington Bridge per se, or about the Port Authority, or about Northern New Jersey traffic patterns. Presumably, most Wikipedia users reading the article won't care about all the various ways motorists and pedestrians can access the bridge from Fort Lee. So why do they need to be told this information? Whether other entrances remained open or not does not alter the fact that the closure of those two particular lanes had a major impact on traffic flow within Fort Lee. And why is it so critical that the other entrances be mentioned in the lede, which should be a summary of the most important points of the article? Dezastru (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Gov. Christie famously said he was "sauced" that Fort Lee had "3 dedicated lanes". (Less publicized was that this was 3 of the 29 total operating toll lanes, not 3 of the 7 lanes crossing the bridge, nor 3 of the 12 toll lanes visible in most television coverage.) From the Governor's comment came discussion of those 3 lanes as not truly dedicated to Fort Lee, but accessible from all the surrounding towns, via surface streets (avoiding highways). In this context, knowing the other available non-highway entrances in Fort Lee may give a better-balanced view of the importance of the 3 lanes. It could be moved out of the lede, as far as I'm concerned. JackGavin (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. Providing that context for the disagreement over how many lanes are "fair" for Fort Lee access seems to make more sense. But the article doesn't really explain that issue at this point. Dezastru (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dezastru that the fact of additional Fort Lee entrances to the bridge in the lede tends to obfuscate rather than enhance. If it can be removed, then i think we should. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

After the latest updates, the lede identifies fairly simply that the toll lanes were closed for one particular primary entrance that serves local traffic from Fort Lee and the surrounding communities. It helps people quickly understand what was the source of the local traffic rather than having them trying to figure out or speculating where it was coming from, which they might assume was coming from multiple locations. It also avoids any confusion that this source of traffic was coming from "Local" lanes vs. any "Express" lanes of any of the controlled-access highways.

The number of intertwining roads and entrances to the GW Bridge is confusing enough without further confusing and obfuscating readers about the source of the local traffic for the dedicated toll lanes that are part of the focus of this article. The lede does NOT mention anything about other multiple local entrances. I am not sure the basis for any confusion.

The Background section provides further details with a Google satellite map view about the exact location of the Fort Lee entrance and the 3 local-access lanes. There is a very brief sentence in the Background section about "other" local Fort Lee entrances, which do not have dedicated toll lanes, for some clarification and better understanding for readers not familiar with the GW Bridge location.

It was very clear from the Assembly Transportation Committee presentations and testimony that I listened to that many of the committee members were confused about the sources(s) (some thought there was more than one source) of the local traffic for these dedicated toll lanes. They first had to understand that there was a single location; and its location and the source of the local traffic that used the local-access toll lanes, before they could fully understand the traffic problems that were caused, and better reflect on the contradictory testimony of Bill Baroni and unsubstantiated explanations offered by Port Authority officials. It took two hearings and multiple questions from committee members, and multiple testimony before a lot of questions were finally answered.

The lede needs to initially make mention of the single entrance for the local traffic that was affected by this whole traffic fiasco. I am satisfied with the current presentation in the lede that has undergone multiple revisions while this issue has been discussed in the Talk section.Wondering55 (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The lede needs to initially make mention of the single entrance for the local traffic that was affected by this whole traffic fiasco.

Why is that?

There is a temptation to keep adding more and more info to the lede, but the lede is one place where less is more. It's supposed to summarize the key points of the article. It's not the place for piling on minutiae. The level of knowledge of details required by a state legislator who is investigating the matter is much greater than what is appropriate for someone reading an encyclopedic summary. Any additional details that need to be covered can be covered in the Background section of the article.

The article currently says:

The traffic problems occurred after two of the three local-access toll lanes for the George Washington Bridge were shifted to use by main highway traffic.... The George Washington Bridge, which is managed by the Port Authority, connects New Jersey and New York City and is the busiest motor-vehicle bridge in the world. During peak hours, three of the bridge's upper level toll lanes are reserved at a primary street entrance for local traffic from Fort Lee and surrounding communities, while other lanes carry traffic from state and interstate expressways and the New Jersey Turnpike. On September 9, 2013, this particular Fort Lee entrance was unexpectedly reduced from the usual three lanes to only one toll lane based on orders of two Christie-appointed officials at the Port Authority.

What's wrong with:

The traffic problems occured after two of three local-access lanes for the George Washington Bridge were shifted to use by main highway traffic.... The George Washington Bridge, which is managed by the Port Authority, connects New Jersey and New York City and is the busiest motor-vehicle bridge in the world. During peak hours, three lanes at one of the acces points to the bridge are reserved for entry of local traffic from Fort Lee and surrounding communities, while other lanes carry traffic from state and interstate expressways. On September 9, 2013, the usual three lanes at this local-acess entry point were unexpectedly reduced to a single lane on orders of two Christie-appointed officials at the Port Authority.

The second version makes the main points: 3 bridge access lanes are ordinarily reserved for local traffic coming from Fort Lee and surrounding communities, but on Sept 9, those access lanes were reduced to a single lane. No need to go into details about the upper vs lower levels, or the toll lanes, or the primary vs alternative Fort Lee entrances. In the end, what's essential is that access was cut by 2/3 at a major local entry point, causing massive congestion. All the other info can be provided in the body of the article, mainly in the Background section. Dezastru (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Tweak the second version to:

The traffic problems occurred after two of three local-access lanes for the George Washington Bridge were shifted to use by main highway traffic.... The George Washington Bridge, which is managed by the Port Authority, connects New Jersey and New York City and is the busiest motor-vehicle bridge in the world. During peak hours, three toll lanes at one of the street entrances to the bridge are reserved for local traffic from Fort Lee and surrounding communities, while other lanes carry traffic from state and interstate expressways. On September 9, 2013, the usual three toll lanes for this local-access entry point were unexpectedly reduced to a single toll lane on orders of two Christie-appointed officials at the Port Authority.

It is important to note that it was the "toll" lanes that were reduced from three to one. This avoids any further confusion since the actual traffic lanes from the Ft. Lee entrance to the bridge were reduced from three to two. The last point about reduction in the traffic lanes themselves is inconsequential and does not need mentioning in the lede or the background section.

The current Google map citation, which should remain in this updated version, in the lede clearly highlights the lanes from the Ft. Lee entrance to the toll lanes at the bridge. Readers can zoom in the satellite view or local street view to see even more.Wondering55 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A shorter version could be:

The traffic problems started on the morning September 9, 2013 after two of three toll lanes for the George Washington Bridge between New Jersey and New York City were shifted from dedicated use for a Fort Lee entrance for local area commuters during peak rush hours to use by the main highway traffic.

Details about the George Washington Bridge and the Fort Lee entrance would be addressed in the Background section. The lede, which already references the Port Authority would indicate it manages bridge traffic.Wondering55 (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The shorter version tries to cram too much into a single sentence, so not an improvement. Dezastru (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have revised the article to incorporate the point that the specific lanes involved are toll lanes. It is not necessary to say "at one of the street entrances" because it has already been stated that it is local traffic (which pretty much by definition will be via a street entrance). Dezastru (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Completed Wondering55 (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Bridget Anne Kelly

The article currently states: Bridget Anne Kelly (Deputy Chief of Staff to Governor Christie) was fired by the governor based on her August email to David Wildstein advising him that it was "time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee". I am not sure that this is correct. Christie said he fired her "for lying", without mentioning what it is that she lied about. He was very careful (and crafty) in his wording, so as not to bring in any mention of the emails and the bridge closures. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. (How do sources report on this?). Dezastru (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much as I stated above, with that sort of wording (more or less). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Completed Wondering55 (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis in lede: Baroni and Wildstein resigned after ...

This statement in the lede needs clean up: "Two of Christie's appointees, David Wildstein and Bill Baroni, resigned after their assertions that the lane closings were only part of a traffic study were challenged by sworn testimony by Foye."

It's true that their resignations occurred chronologically after Foye gave testimony challenging the claim that the closures had been for a traffic study. But the way the line is written implies that they resigned because Foye had challenged the claim, which is not supported by the two cited sources. The first source doesn't even mention Wildstein and Baroni. Dezastru (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made an initial revision of the section to minimize the problem. The section will probably still need a little work to meet WP:BLP requirements for sourcing. Dezastru (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Completed Wondering55 (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

David Wildstein seeks immunity

David Wildstein has offered to shed light on the scandal, if he is given immunity from prosecution. See source: David Wildstein, player in NJ bridge scandal, will talk for immunity. This needs to be added into the article. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you identified this item and its source, what is holding you back from including it in the article? Is it a question of where to insert it? I would suggest a new section at the beginning of the Investigations section. How about titling it "Immunity from prosecution"? Or if there are really not enough news reports to support a separate subsection at this point in time, just include this item at the end of the initial paragraphs at the top of the Investigations section. It can potentially blossom into its own subsection later. Wondering55 (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. To answer your question: I spotted the news, and I thought it was important. I did not have the time to add it into the article (properly), since I was in a rush. So, rather than risking that I'd forget about it, I inserted the relevant info on this page, hoping that another editor would be able to insert it into the article properly. If no one else does, I will do so when I have a few free minutes. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I just added this information in quickly, in the section that you suggested. Hopefully, another editor can improve/flesh out the wording a bit. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting it started. I was wondering when someone would start the news about this.Wondering55 (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I also was wondering the same thing! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal is quoted with saying the following:

Alan Zegas, an attorney for Mr. Wildstein, said Friday that his client intends to comply with the broader subpoena within reason. Mr. Zegas said Mr. Wildstein wants to testify before the legislative committee—if Mr. Wildstein is granted immunity from federal and state prosecution. "There is a story to tell," he said. "He would be happy to talk about all he knows."

Coasterghost (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Completed Wondering55 (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"Officials expressed glee"

The first sentence of the fourth paragraph of the "Closure" subheading reads "Officials expressed glee about the traffic jams caused by the lane closures." Should this be reworded to more neutral language? Something like "Officials seemingly expressed glee about the traffic jams caused by the lane closures."? Boyhominid (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote it as follows: Test messages suggest that officials expressed glee about the traffic jams caused by the lane closures. Is that good? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good. Thanks for your edit. Boyhominid (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

To go from somebody smiling to someone expressing glee, which implies overabundant joy, seems to be a stretch of the imagination. In addition, this smiling comment was limited to two individuals. What do you think about changing the text to:

"In response to seeing a September 10 e-mail from Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich to Baroni that indicated his frustrations about the traffic problems, two Christie appointees expressed satisfaction about the effects of the traffic congestion."Wondering55 (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I think that your proposed language ("expressed satisfaction") is minimizing things. Reliable sources are stating "expressed glee", so we can stick with that. My above edit said that the emails "suggested" glee. I think that's pretty neutral, and not favoring one side over the other. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Change it to something else besides "glee". perhaps "took pleasure" or another emotion that you can think of. From a neutral standpoint, one cannot infer someone is taking "glee" based on their simple statement "Is it wrong that I'm smiling". One cannot simply state with certainty or inference that everybody, who smiles, is expressing glee, which implies overabundant joy. I have seen many reliable sources, including The Record, that did not attribute "glee" to those published communications. Just because a news reporter expresses something in an article, does not necessarily make it true, particularly when we can see for ourselves the actual communications, upon which any reporter made their reported description.

Hopefully, we can come to mutual agreement about the emotion expressed. If not, why not just leave in the stated facts about the communications, as currently shown after the first sentence, and remove the first sentence. Let readers draw their own conclusions from the facts. Wondering55 (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I was going to heed your second proposal, about removing the first sentence altogether. But, it didn't sound quite right in the context of that paragraph. So, I changed "expressed glee" to "were pleased", per your first suggestion. Is this satisfactory? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Good description update with a neutral point of view. If the first sentence had been deleted, I was going to suggest a replacement lead-in sentence that indicated the cited text messages were in response to the two officials seeing a September 10 e-mail from Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich to Baroni that indicated his frustrations about the traffic problems. Wondering55 (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Great; glad we can agree. I think the current wording is fine and addresses both our concerns. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Completed Wondering55 (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Breadth and title of the article: Questions

The article now includes reference to multiple investigations at the state and federal level of abuse of power . The subpoenas have been directed not only to the Governor's office but to his campaign office. We've already added the allegations about Mayor Fulop. Given the allegations that have surfaced about misuse of Sandy money for campaign-type commercials and the recent allegations about withholding of federal Sandy funds from Hoboken [[2]], contingent on Mayor Zimmer's approval of the Governor-favored development project there, it seems to make sense to change the title of the article. Fort lee lane closures seems too narrow.

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 and the documents under subpoena is the question of whether the Christie administration misused government resources and power. It might make sense to change the name of the article to Bridgegate (or something else) to include all the scandals and investigations stemming from the original Fort Lee closures. Thoughts?.Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you make many good points. I agree that the current title is too narrow; the article (mirroring information in the media) has evolved beyond the closing of the lanes. It has evolved into a "whole bunch" of allegations against the Governor and his administration, stemming from the Bridgegate episode. Off hand, I can't think of an appropriate title. "Bridgegate" seems as narrow as the current title, no? I don't think that the term has evolved in the same way that "Watergate" has (at least, not as of yet). I think that, today, most people think of "Bridgegate" as the lane closure issue; few would apply that to the extension of other scandals. I can't think of a good replacement title, at the moment, however. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I think Bridgegate would do for now. Even though narrow, it's the most popular term for the collection of allegations. Todays revelations of Mayor Zimmer, linking the Governor directly to threats to withhold Sandy relief funds from Hoboken unless the mayor approved a private real estate development, combined with today's stated intention of the Assembly and State Senate to investigate Zimmer's claims makes it much less a Fort Lee lane closure issue. Given that subpoenas have gone both to Christie's campaign office and to the Governors office to investigate abuse of power, it's not a just traffic issue anymore. (BTW when I tried to add Zimmer's allegations it was taken out, an edit with which I disagree.) As the scope of all these official investigations refer to abuse of power, I think all the media investigations into abuse of power are all relevant and should be subsumed under one name - like Bridgegate. The other problem with Fort Lee lane closures is that it's narrow and ambiguous: The lanes weren't dedicated Fort Lee lanes --75% served areas outside of Fort Lee. I feel that anyone looking for encyclopedic information on this scandal would be more likely to look under Bridgegate than Fort Lee lane closures. Thoughts? Scholarlyarticles (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most/much of what you said. I think the current title is too narrow and needs to be changed. I think that this article should cover the lane closure issues as well as all of the other issues and scandals that have sprouted from the lane closure revelations (i.e., all of the "abuse of power" allegations). You added in Zimmer's allegation, and it was removed. I saw that. I agree with you; I disagree with the removal. Like I said, this article should cover all of the abuse allegations, not just those specifically related to the lane closings. I can live with a new title of "Bridgegate". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the edit that removed your Zimmer allegation. So, it's back in the article. Perhaps you (or someone else) can add in some transitional sentence (somewhere), such as: "When the issue of the lane closures was investigated, other scandals and allegations started to surface unrelated to the lane closings, but related to the administration's abuse of power." ... or something like that, stated more eloquently, of course. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look at it and see what I can doScholarlyarticles (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I added in a prefatory statement. Another editor can go in and "clean it up" a bit, if desired. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.Scholarlyarticles (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

As a practical matter, expanding the article to cover all allegations of abuse of power of the administration will run afoul of WP:TOOLONG before long:

A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes.[1] At 50 kB and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style - see WP:SIZERULE for "a rule of thumb".

This article's readable prose as it stands is already roughly about 7,500 words long (excluding references and the tables), and is likely to continue to grow just from coverage of developments related directly to the investigations into the lane closures. So the prudent approach would probably be to stick to information directly pertaining to the lane closures in this story. If additional accusations arise in whicn the parties making the allegations say that they are coming forward because of the lane closures revelations, or if other questions of possible wrong-doing arise as a direct result of the investigations into the lane closures, then it would make sense to mention those in the article briefly. However, those other allegations or questions should be probably be covered in greater detail elsewhere, if they warrant more thorough coverage than just a sentence or two in this article. (One of the problems is that with each allegation, there is likely to be a Christie administration response – or non-response – which will also need to be mentioned. Adding all of that in quickly increases the size of the article.) Dezastru (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It will probably be a lengthy group of investigations and scandals. I'm not a lawyer but I think that the coverage of the various allegations could reasonably follow the structure and scope of the state, federal and media investigations which are in flux, and don't show hard boundaries between the various scandals precisely because of the nature of the allegations.Scholarlyarticles (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dezastru. Covering all of these other allegations will dilute the focus of this article on the Fort Lee toll lane closures. We can always have an article redirect for "Bridgegate (New Jersey)", if the article title is not changed. The Fulop section is valuable since it provides info, which supports a widely held hypothesis that is directly related to this article, that Christie officials were meting out political retribution for not supporting Christie in his re-election.

There could be a whole host of separate conflicts, involving the Christie administration, because of further investigations. There are reports that there will be further inquiries into the reasons and potential political conflicts for the GW Bridge toll increases. This article should not attempt to address any scandals, which do not touch directly in some way on the facts or specific accusations being presented in this article about the Fort Lee toll lane closures.

Misuse of Sandy funds for advertising, which predated this Fort Lee scandal, and withholding Sandy funds if a mayor did not award a contract to a preferred Christie developer should not be included in this article. It would be better in the Sandy or Christie articles, which can make mention that that this Fort Lee scandal made it easier for the Hoboken mayor to make her statements seem more believable. Readers coming to this article would NOT be coming to this article to read about Sandy storm issues.

The dedicated toll lanes that were closed were for local traffic from a Fort Lee street entrance so that the current article title is OK.

It is true that the special investigative committees in the NJ legislature are attempting to broaden their inquiries. Perhaps, there will need to be another article about those broader inquiries. For now, let's keep the focus on the Fort Lee toll lane closures in this article. Wondering55 (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is any argument for keeping the article title, but making it more descriptive/accurate, it should be revised to "Fort Lee toll lane closure scandal" or "Fort Lee toll lane closure scandal (George Washington Bridge)". The current title with Fort Lee "lane closure" could be referring to any street lanes in Fort Lee. It was the "toll lanes" that were closed to local traffic and reused for the major highway traffic. Wondering55 (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Any extensive additions about Sandy storm related issues to this article need to be held in abeyance until mutual agreement is reached. The original brief reference to charges by Mayor Dawn Zimmer that surfaced after this scandal broke has been edited with some clarifications. If there is an interest in reporting further about the extensive background and follow-up investigation regarding this matter, it should be included in the Hurricane Sandy article, where it would be of most interest to readers on the Sandy storm.

If there is a lengthy group of investigations and scandals, which are separate from the Fort Lee scandal, it should be addressed in a separate article with wikilink to this Fort Lee scandal. We need to avoid WP:TOOLONG and getting off-topic of the specific interest in the Fort Lee toll lane closure scandal. Wondering55 (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Discussions continue at Proposing new Purported Christie Retribution page below. Wondering55 (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Alleged or "for sure"

So the lead starts with "...political appointees conspired to deliberately create a traffic jam...". There are so many ongoing investigation efforts, is this confirmed or beyond a doubt? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The investigations are about the details, who else was involved, and whether there were criminal acts requiring further action. That *some* appointees were involved in a conspiracy is not disputed or "alleged." We should make sure we keep any conclusions narrow to what has been presented as known fact. Mattnad (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Unless those allegedly involved in the "conspiracy" have admitted their involvement, or unless they have been convicted, we're still at the alleged stage. For Wikipedia itself to take the position that there actually was a conspiracy in this situation is not "keeping our conclusions narrow." Famspear (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, even the statements in the article that such and such a person sent such and such an Email are really only allegations at this point. Even the existence of the copies of the Emails (which I have seen on the internet) do not, in and of themselves, necessarily prove that the Emails were sent by the parties alleged to have sent them -- or that they were sent at all. The fact that a given assertion is based on a reliable source, and is properly included in the article, does not necessarily mean that the assertion is established as fact.

If I were the attorney for Ms. Kelly or Mr. Wildstein, I would be advising such persons not to make any statements to anyone at this point without good assurance of immunity from prosecution. At this point, I would (among other things) be scouring the New Jersey and federal criminal statutes for all possibilities. If I were one of those individuals, I might not currently be in a good position to "dispute" whatever allegations are made against me. I would want to withhold comment until advised to do otherwise by my legal counsel.

For example, the fact that Governor Christie fired Ms. Kelly and gave his reasons in a press conference does not necessarily mean that the allegations against Ms. Kelly, whatever those allegations may be, have been established as fact. Governor Christie may (or may not) strongly believe the allegations are established as fact -- but as Wikipedia editors we for sure need to be careful about this kind of thing -- especially when the living parties involved (such as Kelly, Wildstein, etc.) not only have not been convicted of anything and have not admitted anything, but have not even made a statement about the matter yet. Famspear (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have to think like attorneys for the defense. Reliable sources including major news outlets can provide guidance on how to present this. Should we be more cautious than major news outlets? If so, why and what guidelines should we follow. Mattnad (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is not a court of law. There has been absolutely no dispute that Kelly authored the email. Reliable sources reporting on the story have attributed the email to her. So until she, or her representative, denies that she authored the email, we should not be using allegedly. On the other hand, "allegedly" is appropriate for the article if it says that Christie aides and associates used the traffic study as a pretense to create a traffic jam. That allegation has not been proven. Dezastru (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dezastru's above post. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to be a "court of law." I'm not saying that there is an ongoing dispute about whether Kelly authored the Email (there isn't). I'm saying (as a former broadcast news reporter and as an attorney) that the fact that she has not said anything one way or the other about it (so far) should induce us to be careful. We're still early into this story. As far as I can tell, we have reliable sources that a copy of an email that purports to be from her has been produced. How exactly was it produced? By whom? I know of no reliable source that asserts that someone has confirmed that she is the author. (Perhaps Chris Christie said so in the news conference he gave??) I would prefer that Wikipedia be a bit more cautious than my colleagues feel we need to be on this specific point -- not because I think she's going to deny that she sent the Email, but rather because my sense is that we need to walk a fine line. If there is a reliable source that affirmatively asserts that she is the author (and at this point we should be able to locate one, or maybe there already is one in the article and I've just overlooked it), that would be fine with me, even though Kelly herself is silent so far. Maybe what we need is a more specific sourcing. Or, if the Kelly Email was produced by Wildstein, for example, and we have a reliable source that reports this, I think that would be sufficient. (In effect, we would have a source asserting that Wildstein is asserting that the Email was received from Kelly.) However, consensus among my colleagues appears to be that the article is OK as is. Famspear (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not challenging any of the content, I was unsure of what was being claimed when I read it because of the phrasing. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the specific sourcing I discussed above regarding authorship of the Kelly Email, I now see a supporting citation to at least source that was already there, in the body of the article: the Kate Zernike report from the New York Times, January 8, 2014. I had overlooked it. Sorry 'bout that.... Famspear (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree we need to be careful. But I think it's not controversial to say the closure was improper and ordered by political appointees at this point. What we need to make sure is that we're not being conclusive on the actual reasons. There's some interesting notions that could be confirmed that the real message to Fort Lee's Mayor is that a major investment project depended on bridge access could be imperiled. Mattnad (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Resolved. See also Conspired to create traffic jams below. Wondering55 (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

NYT release

I already dropped a Why tag into the lede . . . reading further

I think a significant event is being missed in the lede and timeline. In the middle of the prose it reports

The New York Times published e-mails and text messages on January 8, 2014, tying Christie's deputy chief of staff, Bridget Anne Kelly, to the closure. The content of the released communications indicates that the lane closures were ordered with the knowledge that they would cause a massive traffic jam.

From afar, it looks like THAT exposure set much of the later developments in motion. The lede and timeline mention those further events, but not the cause. Trackinfo (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The lede and timeline address the key activities that started around the time of Kelly's Aug. 13, 2013 mail that caused the scandal to unfold. At this point, no one has any certainty on what were the preceding events that caused Kelly to issue that e-mail. Anything prior to that time period is part of the speculation that is briefly touched on in the lede and in the corresponding section about various speculations. The Investigations section addresses the media investigation that fully broke this story on January 8, 2014.Wondering55 (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Y January 8 release of communications that disclosed the widespread nature of the conspiracy was added to Timeline section. Wondering55 (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Traffic study

First, more information from testimony provided by Port Authority staff in the initial legislative inquiries into the bridge lanes closures and from the subpoened documents should probably be incorporated into the article. Information, for example, reported in an article published by The Record December 9, 2013 may be important for a fuller understanding of the events surrounding the controversy.

Christie administration officials have said the exercise was a simple study to see if re-assigning lanes dedicated exclusively to local traffic would speed up wait times for other drivers.

Item above currently addressed in "Christie response" December 2 sub-section. Wondering55 (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Cedrick Fulton, the agency’s director of tunnels, bridges and terminals, testified that Wildstein called him on Friday Sept. 6 to inform him the lane shift would begin the following Monday. Fulton said that was unusual, given that planning for traffic disruptions on major facilities typically starts years in advance.

Updated "Assembly Transportation Committee investigation" to include above info. Wondering55 (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Fulton and [Robert Durando, the bridge manager] said Wildstein told them he would inform the executive director of the lane shift. But he did not, according to testimony.

Updated "Assembly Transportation Committee investigation" to address missing info from above. Wondering55 (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

When he ordered the study only days before it was to go into effect, Wildstein, according to testimony, instructed the bridge manager [Robert Durando] not to tell anyone about it — not even Fort Lee police, who records show, quickly complained the resulting delays could slow emergency vehicles.

Item above currently addressed in "Events" and "Closure" sections. Wondering55 (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

In his 35-year career, Durando, who called the request “odd,” said he has never been instructed not to tell a host town about an event that would disrupt traffic so significantly. He has been general manager of the bridge for 11 years and was general manager of the Holland Tunnel for two years.

He said Wildstein told him “it would impact the study” if people knew. “[Wildstein] wanted to see what would naturally happen.”

Updated "Assembly Transportation Committee investigation" to address missing info from above. Wondering55 (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Durando took a long breath and remained silent for more than 10 seconds when asked if he had feared losing his job. “I was concerned what Mr. Wildstein’s reaction would be if I didn’t follow his directive,” he said.

Dezastru (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Item above currently addressed in the Dec. 9 hearing in "Assembly Transportation Committee investigation" Wondering55 (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Second, the current part of the article discussing a traffic study report needs to be more carefully written to comport with sources and avoid editors' own interpretations of what has been reported. A paragraph in the WP article reads as follows:

After a review of traffic camera video recorded during the closure, the Port Authority estimated that Fort Lee traffic spent an estimated 2,800 additional hours in traffic on the first day as a result of the closure, while traffic on the mainline of the roadway saved 966 hours. However, the agency did not have the technology to count the vehicles which were backed up. In addition, stationing more employees to manage the congestion was estimated to cost $600,000. The results of the traffic study were "to be determined".

The source cited for that paragraph is Akin, Stephanie (January 10, 2014). "Breaking news: Thousands of documents released in Christie GWB scandal". Bergen Record. Retrieved January 11, 2014.

The relevant text within that source appears to be:

Baroni also produced a Powerpoint report, dated Sept. 12, assessing the benefits of the reallocation of toll lanes. The report says that cars going through the mainline toll lanes saved ”966 vehicle hours of reduced delay.” But the Fort Lee cars experienced “an additional 2,800 vehicle hours of delay.” “Even if queues are half those estimated, the additional delay would still far exceed the savings of mainline traffic,” it says. “Conclusions TBD”

As far as I have been able to tell, the cited source does not state that the 966 and 2,800 hour were based on a review of traffic from the first day of the lane closures. Where is this information coming from?

In addition, the statement in the current version of the WP article which reads "stationing more employees to manage the congestion was estimated to cost $600,000" is somewhat misleading, as the source says, "The agency brought in an extra toll booth worker, who was paid overtime, to man the one toll booth that was handling all the traffic from the Fort Lee lanes.... In one e-mail, the Port Authority general manager estimated that the additional toll worker would cost the agency $600,000 in 'currently unbudgeted annualized expense.'" Dezastru (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I updated the "Closure" section with info about Durando's $600,000 annual estimate based on his Sept. 11 subpoenaed e-mail and a news media report, and the vehicle-hour delays and time savings based on media news report, including subpoenaed Sept. 12 PowerPoint document. For each of the other six cited statements at the beginning, I indicated where they are currently addressed or where I provided an appropriate update based on citations.

Y:I believe all issues raised in this section have now been addressed. Wondering55 (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)\\

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Fort Lee lane closure scandal → Bridgegate – See above discussion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment this really is WP:RECENTISM since it is in the news right now, and has no history before this year. The existing gate has had an article for a while, since 2008. So Bridgegate (politics) or Bridgegate (New Jersey) would be the more typical location before long term usage comes into effect (if this scandal blows over, then there's no long term effect; especially if Christie doesn't run for President) -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose using gate is not common for articles. For example, we don't use Attorneygate and Climategate has been rejected numerous times for that very same reason (one of the main reasons being WP:NDESC and WP:NPOV.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - the current name is more encyclopedic than a nickname. Mattnad (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Its made up by some members of the media, particularly those trying to inject POV beyond the actual facts. "Gate" is trying to add the Watergate connotation . . . that every scandal is a "gate." Bridgegate already takes you to the disambig page. That's enough for them to find the article here. Trackinfo (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Agree-In favor of moving- I think the crux of the matter is: what is this article about now and where do we think it is going? We've already added the Fulop allegations - allegations that fall under the rubric of abuse of power apart from traffic issues. With the Zimmer allegations linking misuse of federal funds to the governor himself, and with the various investigations of it being covered by the same bodies investigating the Fort Lee closures, and given scope the subpoenas - covering both the Governors office and the campaign office and including all information related to the abuse of governmental power, it rises to the level of a "-gate" in my opinion. In other words, it's well beyond traffic lane closures. I think the WP:recentism principle that applies here is - in ten years will the non-traffic issues be significant or will we be more likely to think of this collection of investigations and scandals as Fort Lee lane closures? To me it looks like a -gate.The alternative of making separate articles for each alleged abuse seems too onerous, especially because they're being investigated together. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Agree – Support Moving: – I agree with Scholarlyarticles's post above. Years from now, it will be the "abuse of powers" issue that will remain. The lane closure issue was merely a catalyst that opened up the can of worms. They are all being investigated together. It would not make sense to have a separate article for each "mini"-scandal. The over-riding scandal (Christie and his aides abused the power of the Office) is what is truly of note. The lane closure just happened to be the first that opened up the Pandora's Box. I think the article will/should grow into the over-riding scandal, not just the lane closure scandal. As such, it needs a more appropriate title than the current narrow one. If we don't like "Bridgegate", we can do something along the lines of a more generic "2014 scandals alleged against Christie" (or something worded better), that encompasses all of the scandals that flow from the lane closing scandal. As an analogy: the lane closure was the tip of the iceberg (i.e., many other allegations); we should concern ourselves with the iceberg, not just its tip. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think we should be naming this based on what we think will happen 10 years from now. It could range from a full blown scandal that is still known as bridgegate for years to come or it could fizzle out like other scandals. The way I see it is that it should not be Wikipedia making that determination first. People have tried to make a similar argument regarding using the name Climategate but that fizzled out significantly quite quickly. I am in now saying that I know that this will happen here but simply pointing out that there have been cases where editors have proposed names of this nature thinking that there would be a long-term scandal regarding an issue when in fact it never really panned out. I think we should wait some time to see if bridgegate does have staying power. Also, to avoid misconceptions there are several cases of scandals with gate that don't using it relating to Deomcrats. For example Anthony Weiner sexting scandals is not titled Weinergate, nor is the White House FBI files controversy titled Filegate, and finally the Lewinsky scandal article is not at Lewinskygate, Sexgate or [Zippergate]] --174.93.163.194 (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

""Years from now, it will be the "abuse of powers" issue that will remain."" That sounds like WP:CRYSTAL to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

As we speak, the issue is about the general abuse of power/bullying by Christie and his staff. The bridge closure is less of interest than the broader over-riding pattern of bullying and abuse of power. Hence, the various investigations broadening their scopes. This is right now, today, as we speak. My point above is that it will also be the case in the future, seeing as that is the case right now. Also, I suggested that the title needn't necessarily be "Bridgegate", but rather some generic "2014 Christie scandals" or such. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME more reliable sources are using the words "Fort Lee", "lane closure" and "scandal" then they are for "bridgegate" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose We need to heed WP:TOOLONG since this article will definitely morph into much too long of an article, which would require extensive rewrite of the lede and too many overlapped subsections, if we cover every separate investigation, including more complete background and responses and follow-up actions by all of the affected parties, beyond the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, in this article, which so far is almost 8,000 words. The Fulop allegations were included in this article because they directly support the allegations for the Fort Lee scandal that Christie administration officials targeted mayors that did not support him in his 2013 re-election. There are relevant issues of abuse of power and potential criminal investigations in this article that are directly specific to the Fort Lee toll lane closure scandal. Extensive details about different allegations by Mayor Zimmer regarding Sandy storm relief would be better focused in the Hurricane Sandy and Hoboken, New Jersey articles.Wondering55 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

How is the Fulop scandal/allegation different than the Zimmer scandal/allegation? Why should one be included and one not? You say that the Fulop scandal concerns Christie administration officials targeting mayors that did not support him in his 2013 re-election. Well, broadly speaking, that says that the Fulop scandal involves retribution and reprisal when Christie doesn't "get his way" on matters. Which is exactly what the Zimmer allegation is. What's the difference? Why should we include one yet exclude the other? We are splitting hairs to pigeon-hole exactly what specific "favor" it was that Christie "wanted and did not receive", thus incurring his wrath and his reprisals. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, broadly speaking all of these issues are about the Christie administration bullying other government officials. If we tried to have one article about Christie administration bullying, we could literally write a book about it. We have to create shorter articles within the context of Wikipedia's own policies (See WP:TOOLONG and other policies that have been wikilinked by others) about how articles need to be presented. We are not splitting hairs. A Wiki story about the Sandy relief fund scandal could be separate without ever mentioning this Fort Lee lane closure scandal. I don't think we should start including in this article the stories about every official that comes forward, just because they felt empowered due to the timing of their accusations. The Fulop allegations need the support of the Fort Lee scandal since they both involve mayors that appear to have been targeted for retribution for NOT supporting the governor in his re-election. More importantly, the Ft. Lee lane closure communications include a reference to Mayor Fulop in relation to also targeting Mayor Sokolich as part of the Fort Lee scandal. There is NO reference so far to Mayor Zimmer in the Fort Lee lane closure communications. It is also possible at some point in the future that even the Fulop allegations, which might include much more extensive details, might need its own article with a Main article redirect from this Fort Lee lane closure article. Let us keep this article focused on the Fort Lee lane closures, which also identifies any abuse of power related to that incident and targeting of a mayor for potentially not supporting Christie in his re-election or other substantiated reasons for these closures. Wondering55 (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There are good points here but I think one of the main problems one has in separating the articles is that their subject is not separated in the investigations. For instance the US attorney for New Jersey called Zimmer into his office on Sunday within 24 hours after her revelations to get her documents and story. This and other subjects are becoming intertwined in a federal probe. It's all about abuse of power. I think JAS has an apt point that Fort Lee was just the tip of the iceberg. Or rather, it was the thread one pulls on that begins to unravel the fabric of retaliation and corruption in Christie's administration. I don't think it would have made sense to call the Monica Lewinsky affair Monica-gate or even to call the Weiner scandals Weinergate precisely because they were so specific. But I think the original Watergate may be a good model for this article. You have a special prosecutor, a US attorney, and a couple state agencies, an event that started out to be fairly minor in relation to the entire scandal (inappropriate lane closures at Fort Lee) but grows into a series of investigations of government corruption. What is being investigated now is not just traffic closures. It is about how Christie abused government power and funds. Many of the people involved such as Samson and Stepien overlap the various investigations or scandals. And when the answers from the 20 subpoenas come back, it's probable that what will be on trial (and what the nature of the subpoenas signal is now on trial) is the machinery of Christie's government and campaign offices in which these people served multiple functions. The term Bridgegate isn't optimal but it's the most common term used to refer to the whole thingScholarlyarticles (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The different accusations are being separated in the investigations. Any federal probe and state investigations would keep the Zimmer accusations completely separate from the Fort Lee scandal since they are two completely different set of circumstances. Otherwise, they would be accused of prejudicial interference. Just because they involve some of the same people, does not mean that the investigations are "intertwined". The current Watergate article focuses around the Nixon's administration cover-up and related actions taken against the Democratic National committee related to the original break-in to the Democratic National Committee. It does not go off on any major tangent to any of the other political accusations that were made against the Nixon administration, even though the accusations involved some of the same individuals. The Fort Lee scandal is really not the tip of the iceberg to other political accusations since for those who closely follow New Jersey politics, it has been well known that the Christie administration has engaged in a variety of political retributions and abuse of power. They are just getting more publicity now that Christie has received national spotlight attention, particularly with his potential run for president. The original toll lane closures actually were the tip of the iceberg to the Fort Lee scandal of an illegitimate "traffic study", and political cover-up and abuse of power directly related to the toll lane closures. The article for the Fort Lee lane closure scandal needs to remain focused on that. A new article should be created to address other political accusations, including Mayor Zimmer's, that are NOT directly related to the Fort Lee scandal. Wondering55 (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too cute. A nickname that is unlikely to last. Too likely to be misrecognized as a generic topic related to gates on bridges. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Internationally, the current title is recognisable, the proposed nickname is not. Andrewa (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Main Chris Christie article

A few more eyes are needed for coverage of the summary of this topic at the main Chris Christie article. Dezastru (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The summary section for this article on the main Chris Christie page has not kept up with the developments in this subarticle. I have tried to address that with edits today, but there are disagreements among editors as to what information is appropriate for the main article and what the length of the summary should be. Additional input for that article would be welcome. Dezastru (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's because anytime anyone tries to update it with any facts about the investigation, someone there takes it out. I tried a few times to update it and people kept removing the most innocuous and uncontroversial facts. You should have a look at the history. Finally I just gave up. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I spoke too soon. I went over there and noticed the same thing was happening to your work so I reverted the editor who deleted it. I hope s/he doesn't delete your work again.Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

My restoration of your work was reverted within 1 minute. A few more eyes are definitely needed over there. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Motives

Since this is such a political topic, I wished to post here rather than just editing the article directly. Several media sources have discussed possible motives for the bridge closure. The motive(s) behind the closure is a very important part of the story. It has been suggested that the closure was just to embarrass Fort Lee mayor Mark J. Sokolich. However, other theories have been advanced by popular media. Especially significant is Steve Kornacki of MSNBC's Up (TV series) who mentions, "Kornacki explained that there is currently a billion dollar development project in Fort Lee, right next to where the lane closures occurred. The project is a keystone of Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich's tenure." The project is known as "Hudson Lights" and it is also strange there is no Wikipedia article on Hudson Lights that I can find. The same land upon which Hudson Lights is planned for was part of a bribery scheme attempting to bribe the then mayor Burt Ross in the 1970s [also not mentioned in any Wikipedia article].

Rachel Maddow offered a different possibility: that the closures could have been part of a feud over state Supreme Court nominees.

While I understand that there is no evidence yet on these theories, this is part of the story and should be included as a separate section. Fanra (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Done. Section created, and I concur Hudson Lights could be covered either in its own article or in Ft Lee. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A section examining the political motives of those promoting this silly nontroversy should also be included :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.74.234 (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! Wikipedia article on this scandal has made the news

Congratulations to all contributing editors! Not only are we documenting and consolidating reliable sources and news about this scandal, but we have become the news, as noted in the news article below, which was recently added as a citation source to the article. Wondering55 (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Bridgegate now has its own (extensive) Wikipedia entry

It gives credit to the importance and public interest for this article and the extensive knowledge and ability to work together that has been displayed by our contributors. Wondering55 (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wondering55 (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Impeachment

Several weeks ago, I had added a well-sourced quote that Wisniewski mentioned Christie's possible impeachment. I can't seem to find it, anymore. Has it been moved? If so, where? Has it been deleted? If so, why? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not have any info about page edits on the subject of Impeachment. As I recall it, the thrust was something like "Wisniewski raised the issue of impeachment".

The initial news coverage that I saw at the time, if I remember it correctly, had a reporter explicitly asking Wisniewski, "Is impeachment a possibility?" and Wisniewski answering something that was not a flat "No." If this was indeed the way impeachment was first raised, then I'd say the reporter raised it, not Wisniewski. JackGavin (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Wisniewski gave a quote. It stated, in paraphrase, "If Christie knew about these shenanigans, then it is an impeachable offense. I find it very hard to believe him when he says that he did not know about this issue until just this morning, as he claims." It is irrelevant as to who first raised the issue, Wisniewski or a reporter. He offered the quote, nonetheless. And, it was in many sources. I will go look at the edit history now. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I found it. It was merely moved to a new section; it was not removed completely. Here is the exact text: He also raised the issue of the potential for Christie's impeachment if Christie was aware of his aides' actions.[97] In doing so, Wisniewski called it "unbelievable"[98][99] that Christie did not know anything about his aides' plans, stating: "It's hard to really accept the governor's statement that he knew nothing until the other morning".[97] This now appears immediately prior to the sub-section entitled Special Legislative Investigative Committees. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The Huff Po report [97] never says "Wisniewski raised". However, in the NBC story (that I reached from Huff Po page), the NBC video does say "Wisniewski raised". The video clip of Wisniewski does not show the reporter's question that provoked the quote. I'd say "Wisniewski addressed the issue" would be solid. JackGavin (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Resolved Wondering55 (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Involvement in cover-up

Wondering, please provide specific references from source indicating that Drewniak, Samson, and Comella were actively involved in cover-up. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There are two separate issues. I have been trying to make a distinction in the article between a cover-up of planned actions for the toll lane closures and suppressing public disclosures during and after the toll lane closures.

There were the internal plans to deliberately cover up and and not inform officials within Christie's office and the Port Authority of the plans and real reasons for the closure of the toll lanes. So far, it appears that Bridget Kelly has been the primary culprit within Christie's office, as further investigations are needed.

Then, there were the internal plans to cover up and deliberately not inform local officials or the public about the planned lane closures. So far, it appears that Bridget Kelly has been the primary culprit within Christie's office, as further investigations are needed.

Finally, there were the internal deliberations to either not respond or provide very limited responses to multiple inquiries by the media and government officials, while the lanes were closed and in its aftermath, including the Assembly hearings. Here, it appears that Kelly, Drewniak, Comella, Stepien, and others were involved in Christie's office and Samson, Baroni, and Wildstein were involved at the Port Authority in commenting in some of the related events about the appropriate responses or non-responses based on subpoenaed communications. Many of the citations already in the article either make specific references to these names or report in general that multiple advisers, staff, or officials within Christie's office were involved. There is no question by any reliable reporting that this phase is not only limited to Bridget Kelly. A summary statement in the lede needs to be revised since it is not accurate since it only assumes that Bridget Kelly (A senior Christie advisor) has been the only one identified in all of these activities:

A senior Christie advisor, as well as his senior appointees to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (which manages the bridge traffic), were alleged to have been involved in covering up these actions and/or suppressing public disclosures.

I am proposing to revise this summary statement in the lede with bold highlighted text (which would be removed in the article itself). Details about specific individuals are then addressed in the relevant sections of the article. If you want to split up this sentence to generally describe who is involved in the cover up and then who is involved in suppressing public disclosures, I would be OK with that. However, I was just trying to avoid having more text that would be duplicated with two sentences. Let me know what you think:

Some of Christie's advisers and staff, as well as his senior appointees to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (which manages the bridge traffic), were alleged to have been involved in covering up the plans to create traffic jams and/or suppressing public disclosures to the media and government officials during and after the toll lanes were closed.

Thanks for sharing your rationale on this. I agree with the distinction you're making. My concern though is that the phrase "suppressing public diclosures" sounds like they were hiding information. The information I've seen regarding Drewniak, Comella, Stepian, and even Samson makes it seem very plausible that they had no idea about the political motivations behind the closure. (It sounds like you agree with that statement.) So if they legitimately thought the closure was due to a traffic study, then not responding to allegations seems like a reasonable PR strategy. It doesn't necessarily mean that they had information to hide that they were intentionally not disclosing.CFredkin (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The subpoenaed e-mail communications showed a clear disdain for elaborating or even providing any responses to the many media inquiries on the conflicting and improper actions that caused this problem in the first place. Many media reports have described these actions as part of the cover-up. I have tried to make a clarifying distinction with "suppressing public disclosures to the media and government officials" (If you have another proposed description, let me know) since they were trying to hide or not be forthcoming with information that could be even more embarrassing. Whether or not they believed there was a traffic study, it was becoming clearer that they were aware that past protocols for notifying the public, local officials, and key executives within PA and Christie's office had been violated and the toll lane closures had caused unnecessary and significant problems with public safety, schools, and commuter's time. They had a real scandal, which could not be swept under the rug just by stating or thinking it was a traffic study. Wondering55 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

How about this:

A senior Christie advisor, as well as two senior appointees to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (which manages the bridge traffic), were alleged to have been involved in initiating and then covering up these actions. Others in the administration and at the Port Authority neglected to respond as the scandal developed.CFredkin (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I updated it to:

A senior Christie adviser, as well as his two senior appointees to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (which manages the bridge traffic), were alleged to have been involved in initiating and then covering up these actions. Other staff/advisers in his governor's office and at the Port Authority were alleged to have been involved in condoning or making efforts to minimize public disclosures as the scandal developed. Wondering55 (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I also included in the article in the Investigations section that "Samson warned that Foye is "playing in traffic, made a big mistake" in regard to Foye's September 13 e-mail, since it was leaked to The Wall Street Journal, ordering the reopening of the toll lanes to local traffic" as reported in The New York Times citation. If you have any further questions about how or why to include this, please let me know.

OK. This seems fine to me. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

My concern here is similar to that I expressed above. Samson's comment seems like it could easily be a reaction to Foye claiming that there was no traffic study, when Samson believes that there was.CFredkin (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Samson's reaction, as I described, was because the e-mail with its very embarrassing criticisms was leaked to the Wall Street Journal. This is clearly indicated in the referenced citation. Any further speculation would need to be sourced. On further thought, I would propose to update the article statement as noted below.

"Samson warned that Foye is "playing in traffic, made a big mistake" in response to the leak to The Wall Street Journal of Foye's September 13 e-mail, which had his criticisms and response to first finding about the closed toll lanes on September 12." Wondering55 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

For now, I'm ok with this. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

For now, I would be OK with your recent updates in the "Assembly Transportation Committee investigations" section to make a very general sentence that covers both Christie's office and PA appointees involvement before the above highlighted statement about Samson. Wondering55 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what section you're referring to here. But it sounds like we're basically in agreement.CFredkin (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Y Resolved Wondering55 (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Relevant items for inclusion in the Timeline section

Various statements were deleted today due to no citations or as not being relevant. I will eventually provide needed citations, most of which are already in the article in various other sections. I have reinstated the Timeline section the way it was before these deletions were made.

If there are any questions about whether some of the current statements should be deleted due to whether they are relevant or not, please let me know. Wondering55 (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Y I have provided all statements with relevant citations through the latest noted events of Feb 3, 2014. Wondering55 (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I've removed content from politickernj.com and collegedems.com, as they are not reliable sources.CFredkin (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is http://www.politickernj.com/ not a reliable source? Cwobeel (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

After further consideration, I agree that politickernj might be considered reliable. I've self-reverted.CFredkin (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I added the collegedems.com content back. It is the website of the College Democrats of America, a national organization and branch of the Democratic National Committee. The website is a reliable source for purposes of ascertaining the national organization's opinion, although it would not be for statements of fact. Given that it is included as one organization's opinion, it is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.104.22 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The Collegedems web site doesn't meet the editorial control and fact-checking criteria for reliability per WP:reliable. Regardless of reliability, a statement from the Collegedems is not relevant to this article.CFredkin (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I just read that link and found this: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..."." This falls into that category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.104.22 (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If this is relevant and notable, you should be able to find a secondary source for it.CFredkin (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Notability is a policy for whether or not ot have an article, not whether to include a well-sourced fact in an already notable article. It is not relevant. 108.28.104.22 (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Many people and organizations have expressed opinions about this issue. Not all of them are worth noting in this Wikipedia article. If this one is, you should be able to find a secondary source for it.CFredkin (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel like your argument amounts to "I don't like it." You've used three separate policies in an attempt to justify removing the reliably sourced response and now you are demanding a far higher threshold to justify inclusion than any policy requires. 108.28.104.22 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your feelings have nothing to do with it. Collegedems.com is of questionable reliability for the reasons I stated above. And this statement is only relevant and notable if it's mentioned in a reliable secondary source. Many statements have been made about the scandal. Not all of them are relevant and notable to this article.CFredkin (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, nit pick at my word choice: your argument boils down to "I don't like it." You've cycled through 3 policies and now you're just making assertions without anything to back them up. 108.28.104.22 (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I believe you're the one being vague here. There are no indications that collegedems.com has the editorial control and fact-checking that exist in a professional publication. In addition, as I've said repeatedly, if this content is truly significant, it should be referenced in a secondary source. In some cases primary sources are ok. But in a case like this where there are so many sources of commentary, it's reasonable to expect a secondary source to indicate significance for inclusion. Otherwise, you should be prepared to support me when I add a tremendous amount of additional commentary to this article from primary sources.CFredkin (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that the College Democrats of America is a "professional publication" with "editorial control and fact-checking." Rather, it is a notable national organization which commented on the scandal and therefore merits inclusion. It's website is a reliable source for that purpose. If you want to include more commentary from notable organizations or individuals, go for it. 108.28.104.22 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Newsbusters is as reliable as politickernj.com and MSNBC, and it's definitely as reliable as collegedems.com. This is particularly true since the NewBuster article is referenced in the CNN article by Navarette.CFredkin (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposing new Purported Christie Retribution page

I agree with the "Breadth and title" discussion that we want to keep the Bridgegate page fairly lean on tangential items, since there will be plenty of core info.

Right now, the Bridgegate page gives big coverage to the Jersey City Mayor Fulop story, and almost none to the important Hoboken Mayor Zimmer story (which has equivalent tangential connection to Bridgegate, in my opinion).

I suggest that we move the bulk of Retaliation against Jersey City Mayor Fulop elsewhere, and I suggest it be to a new Purported Chris Christie Retribution page, which would then also be a suitable place for the Zimmer story.

Then, the Bridgegate page would give a blurb about Fulop and Zimmer and allegations of retribution in general, and direct to the new page.

There will be additional candidates for mention on the new page, such as former Gov. Codey's loss of police protection (and firings of two people connected to him) after a perceived slight. New cases may come to light as folks are emboldened to report.

These may add up to a pattern of behavior by Gov. Christie or his administration, and thus reflect on the plausibility of possible Bridgegate motivations, but we do not need the full litany on the Bridgegate page. JackGavin (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support the idea of creating a new article to cover various allegations and any resulting investigations – to the extent that they may warrant fuller treatment than will fit in the main Christie bio page or a Governorship of Chris Christie page (does one even exist?). Also agree with moving most of the material on Mayor Fulop's allegation there. Not sure about that proposed title (Purported Chris Christie Retribution) though. Dezastru (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A Governorship of Chris Christie page does exist. I would still have a dedicated Purported Chris Christie Retribution page (I'm open to a different title), and a brief section on the Governorship page, with links back and forth. JackGavin (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Create a separate page, with whatever title is agreed upon, to identify Chris Christie Administration Political Retributions. It would include a link to the Fort Lee Lane closure scandal article, which has extensive information to stand on its own. As Dezastru states, the purpose of a new article is simply to make it easier for readers who are interested in becoming better informed on these topics to be able to readily find the information. The Fort Lee scandal article will eventually have too much information, just about the Fort Lee scandal, to roll into a combined article about all of these other accusations.

If we kept the current article as one article to include every single topic of accusations, including all of the details from the Fort Lee scandal, it would IMMEDIATELY exceed Wikipedia's recommended length for a single article. Heed Wikipedia's policy about WP:TOOLONG.

Right now, Bridgegate is a media-coined term that refers to the scandal directly related to the Fort Lee lane closure scandal because it was an easy association since it involved an administration-wide scandal with closing lanes (a "gate") to a bridge. It is not being used to describe every single accusation of abuse of power by Christie's administration. Furthermore, many of the accusations that could come forth are related to activities, some of which that have been previously raised, that began well before the Fort Lee scandal and are not directly related to that scandal. Even though it may involve some of the same individuals, these other accusation are each being addressed separately.

Issues related to accusations, which have no involvement with the Fort Lee scandal, by Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer should be in the new article, along with links and related info in Hoboken and Hurricane Sandy articles. Fort Lee lane closure article does not need to identify every single accusation that was brought up after this scandal became major news.

Mayor Fulop's accusations, which need to be mentioned in the Fort Lee scandal article, have a clear direct involvement with the Fort Lee lane closure issues since his name was mentioned in relation to similar actions against Mayor Sokolich, who is a key figure in this scandal. Full background information about the Fulop accusations can be included in this new article. Wondering55 (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Only problem is that the Fort Lee scandal would fit nicely into Purported Chris Christie Retribution page. See my note above but the way the investigations are unfolding is that that the various abuses are being grouped together. They are being investigated together. Many of the various Christie players who have been subpoenaed serve multiple functions being at the Port Authority, working on his campaign, or working in the government office and so the whole affair is quite interrelated. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Bridgegate would warrant a brief section on the Purported Chris Christie Retribution page, with "Main article: Fort Lee lane closure scandal" pointer given there, to point back to here.

If the Fulop and Zimmer and Codey and other stories eventually each deserve their own dedicated page (and a link to each with a "Main article" pointer from its Purported Chris Christie Retribution page section), that's also fine.

One of key points of Purported Chris Christie Retribution is to have a listing of all purported examples of this type of alleged abuse of power, together in one place, to help one judge whether there is a pattern. JackGavin (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with including a brief mention of the Fort Lee Lane Closures incident and directly related investigations on the proposed page, with a link from there back to this article. When Scholarlyarticles says that the Fort Lee episode would fit nicely on that page, he or she seems to not be considering how unwieldy that Purported Chris Christie Retribution page would end up having to be.

However, I would disagree with the notion that the purpose of having all allegations listed in one place is for judging whether there is a pattern. The purpose is simply to make it easier for readers who are interested in becoming better informed on these topics to be able to readily find the information. There is a fairly complex and growing morass of allegations and investigations underway; having a single page to cover them makes it just a bit easier to process the information. Dezastru (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that everything should be in one place and also with Dezastru that it's getting lengthy. To make the article more concise, we might want to shorten some parts and lengthen others as things emerge. Obviously the Hoboken issue that has Federal criminal implications is given short shrift if we're trying to cover abuses of power. To me the title isn't as primary as identifying what we're trying to describe. JAS suggested 2014 Chris Christie Investigations. I think Chris Christie Retributions that JackGavin suggests is also descriptive. I like Bridgegate. In any case, I think we should decide fairly soon what this article entails because it's hard to try to conceptualize it's elements and therefore edit it without doing so. I have a suggestion. What would folks think of adding the following sentence at the beginning of the article where we refer to Bridgegate: "The term Bridgegate is used to encompass an array of alleged abuses of power undertaken by members of the Christie administration which began with the discovery of a conspiracy by his administration to create traffic jams on the George Washington bridge."?Scholarlyarticles (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I do indeed like that proposed sentence to be added as an intro. I'd make two suggestions, if I myself were going to "tweak" it. (1) Change the word "which" to "that". (My personal pet peeve.) And more importantly, (2) can we get the words "Fort Lee" somewhere in there? The use of the words "George Washington Bridge" and no mention of Fort Lee right off the bat is somewhat confusing, if a reader is reading an article entitled "Fort Lee lane closure scandal". If we change the name to "Bridgegate" or whatever else we decide, then my second point is moot. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As I state above in support of a separate article, Bridgegate is a media-coined term that refers to the scandal directly related to the Fort Lee lane closure scandal because it was an easy association since it involved an administration-wide scandal with closing lanes (a "gate") to a bridge. It is not being used to describe every single accusation of abuse of power by Christie's administration. Wondering55 (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I see both points. If we decide on using the preface approach that I've outlined, it would be a temporary compromise measure to respond to the in-flux situation. I would use the edits that JAS recommends. To Wondering55's point, I don't see this as being the structure of the article when the investigations are completed. For now, the investigations are amorphous and shifting. It was just a day ago that a super-committee combined the investigation of the Assembly and State Senate. The Super-committee said it will investigate Sandy in addition to the GWB closures and is unsure about whether to investigate the Hoboken claims. Two days ago the US attorney started interviewing in Hoboken and has launched an investigation of those and other claims. You can see the obvious problems with separating anything at this point.

Regarding names, I think JackGavins idea of Chris Christie Retributions makes some sense. However, the problem is we don't really know the motivations yet. The strong-arming that apparently occurred could have been to pressure public officials to participate in commercially lucrative real estate deals or any number of things. So it's hard to separate these things under a clear label based on motivation. We could do one article on Hoboken, one on Sandy etc. The problem with this is that the "Response and Reactions" section would become complex, needing to reproduced for each section. For instance, if Christie is removed as Chair of the Governors Association that be need to be reproduced in each article. Also the "Time Line" section and the 'key players's section would likely overlap. But we don't know at this point how they would overlap. The fact that Bridgegate is the current media-coined term I think is a good thing. We would just be putting a definition of how we're using it at the top for clarity. Obviously, I won't do anything until there's consensus.Scholarlyarticles (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

All reports about the joint committee that I have seen, and more importantly the actual January 21 press conference announcement for this committee by leaders of the NJ legislature and the joint committee, indicated that the joint committee remains focused solely on the Fort Lee bridge scandal. In fact, the leaders at the press conference indicated that the super committee is NOT addressing Mayor Zimmer's accusations about Sandy relief for now. Even if the investigations become more comprehensive about other accusations, I still see a dedicated article about the Fort Lee lane closures and a separate article that highlights all of the other investigations since there is simply too much information to cover in one article. Once again, Bridgegate is about the Fort Lee lane closure scandal and nothing else.

If concerns about overlapping of related Wiki articles were a real problem, then many Wiki articles would be very long combined articles without any Main Article redirects. Wiki editors have to deal all the time with what information needs to be duplicated or not duplicated in linked articles. I do not see all the Reactions and Responses needing to be duplicated in each article. Officials' responsibilities and experiences overlap all the time and Wikipedia does not create combined articles just in order to eliminate worries about overlapping. If we were writing a book, then we could combine everything, but we are writing Wikipedia articles that have always adhered to its policy about WP:TOOLONG. Hopefully, we can reach consensus fairly soon if there needs to be a separate article. Wondering55 (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

How about titling the new article Investigations of Governor Christie's administration? That way we do not imply any blame in the title for any conjectured reasons, including political retributions that can be described in the article itself. It would have a main redirect to this article for the Fort Lee lane closure scandal. I included "Governor" in the title so that we do not need to rename it after he is elected President and we start the debate all over on whether to have one or two articles about all of the investigations in both of his administrations that cover the very same people. Wondering55 (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The Codey story is a "retribution", but I do not know of any current or impending investigation of the Codey story. And there might be any number of investigations that are unrelated to retributions. I do not object to "Investigations" as a topic, but there is still a separate need for "Gov. Christie's (purported) Retributions". I like the "Gov" you suggest in the title. JackGavin (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

How about a new article, Christie Administration Abuses (Governor of New Jersey)? "Abuses" could be replaced with "Retributions". If preferred, include "Chris" at the beginning of the article. There would also be a section for "Investigations" to cover Mayor Zimmer's allegations, including the background, in more details. The Fort Lee lane closure scandal would be briefly mentioned with a Main Article redirect to this current article. Codey, Fulop, and other stories could be included in their own sections. The article itself would address whether the items are alleged or proven. [

An alternate would be to include other accusations of these abuses in the current article Governorship of Chris Christie, which still appears to have plenty of room to expand. The Fort Lee lane closure scandal would still have a Main Article redirect to this current article. If the governorship article grew too big due to reporting on these additional accusations, we could then decide on creating a new article, as I suggested above. Wondering55 (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"[NJ] Gov. [Chris] Christie Administration Abuses", laid out as you describe in your upper paragraph, would be fine with me. I think the list of purported abuses would be too much for the existing Governorship page, but I guess it could be started there until it grows too big. Here's another candidate for an entry on whichever page, which is not currently an investigation: the Demise of New Jersey Network (http://www.msnbc.com/up/watch/the-time-christie-took-out-a-tv-network-121423427538) JackGavin (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

In the area I deal with most of the time, we have Olympic Games scandals and controversies which is a highlight page, directing to individual pages discussing more details of each controversy. As this expands, each controversy could get explained in an article like 1984 Summer Olympics boycott. With the history of corruption in New Jersey politics, perhaps a greater article summarizing all of those stories could be created, redirecting to different articles about each incident. The Chris Christie Administration could just be a (currently contemporary) section. Trackinfo (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I just searched "Corruption in New Jersey" and there is plenty of content for such a summation article. For convictions List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes#New Jersey gives an overview.Operation Bid Rig is recent, lots of articles have sub-sections like Camden, New Jersey#Political corruption. We even have the business of each of the mafia families Genovese crime family#New Jersey, Gambino crime family#New Jersey, and the Lucchese crime family New Jersey faction, which might or might not be tied to politics. Trackinfo (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

How about we first have a separate article, Christie Administration Scandals and Controversies (Governor of New Jersey) or Governor Christie Administration Scandals and Controversies (New Jersey) ? This would cover a range of topics since all of the controversies might not involve corruption, abuses, or retributions. I think the title could start out with Christie's name rather than New Jersey or Governor since people would have their primary interest in finding out about issues related to Christie. If needed, his first name can be included in the title, although when referring to an administration, typically only the last name is used. The Fort Lee lane closure scandal would be briefly mentioned with a Main Article redirect to this current article. Wondering55 (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. "Purported" in the title of the article is strange to say the least. Much better is Wondering55's proposal, or something along these lines. Cwobeel (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I like Chris Christie Administration Scandals and Controversies or Governor Chris Christie Administration Scandals and Controversies as a title. This way it will be easy to find for people looking up the various scandals. Seems like the GWB lane closures should be in it conceptually. But either way I think it's good to have a page with a broad title. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Are we ready to vote on Chris Christie Administration Scandals and Controversies or Governor Chris Christie Administration Scandals and Controversies as a title for a new article? Fort Lee lane closure scandal would be included as a summary highlight with a Main Article redirect to this article. If there are any alternate suggestions before we proceed, let us know. Wondering55 (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm good with either of these titles for a new article (prefer with "Gov"). JackGavin (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've only barely followed this discussion but I wanted to chime in that any page that has "scandal" in the title will invite multiple title change discussions. I realize we dealing with a real-time event here and it may well be that an omnibus article on the controversies will be merited. I question whether having two separate articles (one for fort lee & and one for "other stuff") is really ripe yet.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Milowent - I like either of the titles Chris Christie Administration Scandals and Controversies or Governor Chris Christie Administration Scandals and Controversies but it wouldn't make any sense to separate Fort Lee lane closures because it's one of the biggest scandals of the bunch so far. Also, it's clear when you listen to the representatives, that super-committee hasn't narrowed the scope of their investigation to only include Fort Lee. It's their starting point and they aren't sure whether it will lead to other apparent abuses of power like Hoboken. It depends on what the subpoenas harvest. Likewise, the US attorney's office is clearly investigating the misuse of federal funds including Hoboken so there's not a good basis for separating the scandals by article. I realize that the Fort Lee article is pretty lengthy. Maybe it could lose some of the details. For instance, there's a section in which we recount what happened each day in December. When the scandal first broke, the day by day description seemed important. Maybe it's not as important now and can be consolidated. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I would not see anything wrong with the use of scandal in the title since some of the described events, particularly Bridgegate and Mayor Zimmer's allegations and evidence match up with the lede description in Wikipedia's Political Scandal ("A political scandal is a kind of political corruption that is exposed and becomes a scandal, in which politicians or government officials are accused of engaging in various illegal, corrupt, or unethical practices). Wiktionary defines scandal as an an incident or event that disgraces or damages the reputation of the persons or organization involved, which is applicable in these events.

The Fort Lee lane closure should remain a stand-alone article. It will still be identified in the proposed general article about the Christie administration as a highlighted item with a Main Article redirect to this article. Based on Scholarlyarticles previous comments and comments by others, I thought that was the direction of what was being accepted. Once a general article is created, it should create a full blown opportunity for editors to add individual events, including those that started way before the current publicized events, that would greatly expand beyond the capacity of the current article.

A general article will be good when some of these scandals are being investigated by the same authorities and involve some of the same personnel. However, that does not necessarily mean that all of the relevant information from every single investigation, even if handled by the same investigators, who will treat them separately, needs to be in the same general article if it means the general article will grow much too long. That is why Wikipedia has Main Article redirects for specific sections of an article. We also need to avoid reader confusion and overly long articles/sections when specific scandals involve completely separate events for unrelated reasons, such as the Zimmer and Bridgegate allegations.

It can be expected that the Fort Lee scandal will involve significantly more information from newly subpoenaed documents that are due by Feb. 3 and further testimony. There is already more information for Bridgegate that needs to be added based on the U.S. Attorney's efforts, which have now gone from an inquiry to a full blown investigation with subpoenaed documents. The Fort Lee lane closure scandal should remain a stand-alone article. It will still be identified in the proposed general article about the Christie administration as a highlighted item with a Main Article redirect to this article. Wondering55 (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Recentism does cloud our judgement. I would like to encourage, also, a general article on New Jersey Political Corruption under which the current developments can have small summations pointing to the larger articles. A little google has show this Wall Street Journal article from 2009 could serve as starting point. In the article, before Christie was elected, they mention his 130-0 conviction rate as prosecutor suggesting he might be different to what the article suggests is a way of life. The bribe drawer story is one that has caught my memory. I'm not from New Jersey, I'm not the right person to write such an article, but the information seems to be there ready for the writing. Trackinfo (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is a good one for thinking about how to organize a Christie scandals article [3]. In it, they refer mostly to 2 investigations-The George Washington Bridge closures or Bridgegate and the Hoboken investigation. The Washington Post separates the names. They say, and I agree that the Hoboken investigation is potentially much more serious. I think any scandals article should focus on these two which are being investigated together to some extent because of the scope of the subpoenas. And then the article would have small subsections related to allegations that are just scandals (that probably won't rise to the level of investigations) like Fulop and Codey and Carl Lewis etc. It will probably be a lengthy article as people will want to update it as findings emerge. In the long run it will probably be more condensed and lead to singular responses and judgments of the official/s involved (see Watergate scandals).Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a starting list of sections (shorthand nicknames) for the proposed new page, in no particular order:

• Bridgegate
• Mayor Zimmer (Hoboken)
• Mayor Fulop (Jersey City)
• Governor Codey
• New Jersey Network demise
• Sandy tourism/campaign advertising
• Sandy no-bid trash contract http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/03/ashbritt_ceo_faces_questions_f.html

I anticipate this list growing by the time the page would debut. JackGavin (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this assuming that there is a new page that contains all the major scandals? I wasn't sure everyone agreed. if everything is under one article under the heading of Chris Christie scandals and controversies I think JackGavin makes a good beginning as to what the subtopics would be. The way I see it would be:

Chris Christie scandals and controversies

• George Washington Bridge scandal (also know as Bridgegate)
• Sandy (Misuse of federal Sandy relief money)

Hoboken

No-bid contracts

Misuse of advertising funds

• Political Payback allegations

Governor Codey

Mayor Fulop

Carl Lewis

(I don't know enough about the New Jersey Network to know where that goes.) I'm not sure about the third category I proposed but I'm thinking of it as a general place to dump all the other stuff that is coming up that isn't at the heart of the federal and state investigations going on. I don't think the Codey or Fulop or Lewis situations would ever lead to charges on their own but do belong in a page on the scandals and bring context to the two major scandals.Scholarlyarticles (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone thinks that all of the relevant details just from the initial list of stories that have been identified can be included in one Wikipedia article without violating Wikipedia's WP:TOOLONG policy, then we are going to leave out a lot of interesting information and have a lot of unnecessary debates about what to include or exclude for some of the major stories. The Fort Lee scandal is a major story that will definitely have significant amounts of relevant items still to be added.

The Washington Post news article, which Scholarlyarticles just referenced as an example for the Wikipedia encyclopedic article, is just one brief summary news article from one newspaper about two different news stories that are under different investigations. It does not attempt to come even close to portraying what has already been addressed in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal article and what could be addressed in the Hoboken scandal. The newspapers have the luxury of writing multiple daily news reports that break up various stories. Any Wikipedia encyclopedic article has to cull the relevant details from all of these individual news stories. Newspapers summarize issues all of the time, but they rely on much more extensive individual articles that focus in much greater detail and provide the real value to those who want to know more. Otherwise, their readers eyes' would glaze over in trying to absorb the overwhelming amount of info that would be included in one grand collage of all of the stories.

Just look at what The Record has chosen to highlight about their news reports about Hoboken and Fort Lee scandals at http://www.northjersey.com/news/governor_christie_nj_gwb.html. Now, we would be including the relevant info in their news reports, plus other relevant info from other news media on just these 2 scandals, and then add information about each of the other controversies and scandals all in one article.

In addition, the current suggested list of stories above could be greatly expanded, even further, and would ultimately require redirects to separate Main Articles or subsections in other Wikipedia articles for major stories. Let's not reinvent the wheel. We already have The Fort Lee lane closure scandal article that currently can stand on its own and would ultimately need a Main Article redirect from the proposed general article. Wondering55 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess I was just using Watergate for my model. In that case, it was just the whole operation of the Nixon administration and how they abused government for their own interest that came out on the release of the tapes and not one specific thing that lead to the threat of impeachment.[4] We won't know for a while what the scope of each investigations will be. We just know what they're starting with. It looks like the US attorney will be covering both Bridgegate and Hoboken. As the subpoenas and the time frame grow, it's sure to become broader and it looks to me that there could well be general charges that cover abuse of power of the office of the government. Of course we don't know yet. I was thinking it might be premature to separate the investigations.

Nevertheless, I defer to the consensus which seem to be keeping the GWB or Fort Lee page intact except to shorten the Fulop section. Then we'd have a main page on the controversies that redirects here. Given the impressive amount of work already done on this page and the length issue, I could see this as a reasonable way of proceeding. I could see having a main page on Chris Christie scandals and controversies with the subheadings that give a summary of each scandal. The main controversy page could link to the current Fort Lee lane closure page -the name might be changed to George Washington Bridge scandal (Bridgegate) to match up with the name on the main controversies page. The main controversies page could summarize Bridgegate and everything else and link to more specific articles. That way if Hoboken gets bigger it would link to a page with a Hoboken title. Would this work?Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. We would have a general article, Governor Chris Christie Administration Scandals and Controversies. We could start off with the sections below based on what has initially been suggested. Sections can be added now or in the future, as deemed necessary for other proposed topics. There would be a Main Article redirect to this article for the GW Bridge scandal. I would envision the summary status of government investigations having a simple table indicating whether state, federal, or Port Authority investigations for each issue are Ongoing, Completed, or None, and if there are any Prosecution Charges (Yes or No) or Convictions (Yes or No) with a Notes Section. Details of any investigations would be included in the sections below it, unless there was a Main Article redirect for that section.

Contributors should provide feedback on general agreement for this latest proposal for a general article title and article arrangement. (Support or Oppose) (with any comments)

• Summary status of government investigations
• Bi-state agency (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey)

George Washington Bridge scandal (also known as Bridgegate)

Political appointees

Toll increases

• Hurricane Sandy relief money

Advertising funds

Hoboken relief (Mayor Dawn Zimmer)

No-bid contracts

• Political retribution allegations (miscellaneous)

Jersey City support (Mayor Steven Fulop)

New Jersey Network media news demise

Physical fitness ambassador program with Carl Lewis

Richard Codey (State Senator and former governor) Wondering55 (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you miss the Alan Rosenthal, redistricting retribution story or is it just buried in a title I can't understand? Trackinfo (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Wondering55's 26 January proposal, with one more subtopic for the new Scandals page: Firing of Hunterdon County prosecutor Ben Barlyn, and dropping of indictments against 3 Christie friends, reported by NorthJersey.com, NJ.com, and MSNBC, and edtorialized by the Star-Ledger. JackGavin (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• This story and Trackinfo's suggested story above can be added under sub-sections of Political retribution allegations. My proposed outline of stories and sections would be the beginning and not the end of all stories that could be included in the proposed article. Wondering55 (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I generally support the notion of one page with all the scandals and controversies on it with a link back to this page. It's become impossible to update the Chris Christie page. I was wondering if we could add the ARC project killing to the general page of Chris Christie Controversies and Scandals page. I wrote the following few sentences on the controversy which keeps getting removed from the Chris Christie page: In the wake of Bridgegate allegations, questions about 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 of 2014 as the behaviors of Christie appointees and their activities at the Port Authority came under increased public scrutiny.Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• The details of this controversy would best be addressed in the Wikipedia's article on ARC tunnel, which already touches on this controversy. A section could be added in the new article with a brief overview and redirect to that main article. Wondering55 (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Luke Warm Support - I have an issue with level of detail of the Fort Lee article. Wikipedia after all is not the news. We're building a catalog of every new bit of information here. I know this is not a popular view, but has anyone considered some consolidation of this article? It's really too detailed IMHO, which is related to the impetus to have a separate article. Mattnad (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Even with all of the relevant details in the current article, it pales in comparison to the actual details in the current daily news reports and past reports on this topic from an endless number of news media sources, the thousands of pages of subpoenaed documents, and the extensive hearings, investigations, and comments just by government officials looking into this major scandal, which deserves its own page, let alone outside officials who have their own perspectives. This article may eventually be consolidated somewhat, but it should not be shrunk to the point now where it would only be a relatively short synopsis of the tangled web of intricate, key relevant information, just so that it can be combined into a general article.

Governor Chris Christie Administration Scandals and Controversies article would still have a lot of info to deal with as the current proposed list of stories are addressed, and additional stories are added. Wondering55 (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I hate to say this because everyone went to such a great effort to make this page so detailed but I basically agree with Mattnad's point of view. It might feel like re-inventing the wheel to come back to this point, but in January every little thing that happened and each date seemed quite important. Now not so much. There are areas where we could shorten a couple paragraphs to "e-mails suggested that Christie officials conspired to create traffic jams on the George Washington Bridge and undertook elaborate efforts to hide apparently political motives." With adequate references these are no longer POV statements.

The exhaustive efforts to describe the George Washington Bridge is impressive but it's a bit like describing the duct tape on the Democratic Party door of the Watergate or Anthony Weiner's underpants. They seemed important at the time, but with some perspective it's only a small detail. I don't want to be the party pooper but I think, particularly in light of the multiple allegations, their interrelatedness and the open-ended scope of the US attorney and super-committee investigations -- the subpoena's cover anything related to the abuse of power-- we might be better off shortening all the information and finding a better framework. This would also make the article more readable. As it stands, it might be a bit tedious.

There could be a new framework with an introductory section about the GWB scandal and how this led to the questioning and re-examination, investigations of the Christie administration. Without such a beginning structure the article get tedious and bogged down in detail. For instance paragraphs such as the following could be fleshed out to the size of a WP article that follows the basic structure.

==The George Washington Bridge scandal (Bridgegate) and related controversies==

"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 by unauthorized lane closures 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. The scandal came to be known as Bridgegate.

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 state, federal 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, and other acts of political payback.

The story of Christie killing a years-in-the-making effort to build a bridge between New York and New Jersey (called ARC) also gained new traction. The Christie administrations' stated reasons for his actions came under 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.

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

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."

If we have a theoretical framework for integrating the scandals that conforms to their import and gravity then it will make things easier later on, for instance, if he has to resign from office or if he gets impeached. If he is impeached, I think it will probably be like Watergate where the articles of impeachment related to many of the acts. That's why people refer to all the scandals from the break in of Ellsberg's psychiatrists office, to the Watergate break-in, to using the IRS to harass people, etc. as Watergate. It's because their import and outcomes were intertwined. I know it would take a lot of work to pare this down, I think it is the best answer. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We either keep the insightful focus of a unique article on the Fort Lee lane closure scandal separate from any new proposed article about Christie's scandals and general controversies or we are going nowhere. If we keep going backwards to re-review issues that I thought had reached some consensus, then we are not going forward.

Even if we eliminated details about the George Washington Bridge, there is one small paragraph about the George Washington Bridge, one of the most important bridges in the world and the primary focus of the original plan to harm Fort Lee. I don't think there is any comparison to duct tape or someone's underpants, which were not the primary focus of the original plans for Watergate or Weiner.

The latest coming together by the news media and political adversaries to review and interconnect the bully and controversial tactics by Christie's administration has been repeatedly done by the news media and political adversaries over the course of Christie's administration. This is not some new revelation, and it should not be treated as such in any proposed new article. Wondering55 (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I just meant to clarify my thinking in light of the comment by Mattnad and in consideration of the prior discussion by JAS. I'd like to abstain from any vote here. For the record, it's hard for me to believe that these scandals are not all about abuse of government authority and that they won't ultimately be litigated together. It's not just the direction of the press, but it's the direction of the investigation. Just today a NYT story showed that Christie kept dossiers on all the mayors and knew their pet projects, adversaries and friends, which contradicts many of Christie's assertions that his appointees were acting on their own. In the last 24 hours, allegations that Christie's brother (as well as a mayor who supported Christie) benefited from Port Authority projects in Harrison, and that Christie used Sandy relief money for a multi-million dollar senior center not affected by Sandy, suggesting that Christie used Sandy money as a sort of slush fund. The NYT quoted a number of Democrats and Republicans, many of them Christie administration officials. People are leaking all over the place now. I just don't think this is a story about Fort Lee lane closures anymore and it would be hard for me, and I imagine for some others, to work on a story limited by such a framework. It's just my two cents but it shouldn't be dispositiveScholarlyarticles (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This pretty much has nothing to do with lane closures, at this point. This is all about abuse of governmental power, bullying, etc. The lane closures is almost an asterisk in the wider scheme and the bigger picture here. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, JAS. It seems that the resistance to putting all the scandals together under one heading is that we would have an article that's too long. However, we could easily pare this down. Even if we can't get it to the size of a typical WP article (it's already at least twice as long as the Watergate scandal article), I think it's better to have something that's conceptually clear than something that fits the length guideline.

The major legal/moral issues underlying the scandal cut across all the details of particular scandals being reported. They all seem to have to do with abuse of federal funds and government power for personal political and possibly commercial profit. This is true whether you're talking about GWB traffic jams, Hoboken, or Harrison, Essex County, Barlyn, ARC, and the new evidence that the Christie administration flouted the procedures for transparency. Since Wildstein's letter yesterday stating that Christie knew of the lane closings while they were happening, there have been new calls for impeachment. The State and Federal investigations subpoenas are so broad that the issues they will be looking at all involve abuses of power. (Two investigations are subpoenaing the Campaign to Re-elect.)

There are lots of laws that cover all of the scandals and the information harvested from the subpoenas will include anything having to do with abuse of power. How should we separate these all? The Super-committee will probably make these documents available as individuals are called into testify. It will be hard to separate the abuses neatly. In which article would Abuse of Port Authority Funds go? In which article would Christie being booed at the Superbowl belong? How about hearings related to abuse of power?

Another problem with confining the scope of the article to lane closures at Fort Lee is that anyone trying to find a summary of scandal on Google would have a hard time finding this Wikipedia page. This is a shame because there's a lot of useful detail here. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree. Related to the above discussion, the following Wikipedia article came to mind: Scandals and allegations of the New York City Police Department. This article addresses all of the scandals and allegations of the NYPD, throughout its entire 170-year history. As you can see, it then forks off into various other more specific articles. Christie's administration is only (barely) four years long, so certainly a similar article can be done for him. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This goes back to my original proposal. A general directory like page to direct to the individual subject articles. I also proposed a broader scope directory of New Jersey Political Corruption. Trackinfo (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If I understand what Trackinfo is saying correctly, I think it's in line with what JAS, I and maybe some others had in mind in having a general page that discusses the Chris Christie Scandals- We could call it The George Washington Bridge scandal (Bridgegate) and related controversies or [Chris Christie scandals and investigations (also known as Bridgegate)] or whatever. Then we'd have the whole thing here. But i think the first thing to do is to develop consensus on is whether we want the whole thing in one place. (The bigger article on New Jersey Political Corruption sounds like a good idea but is a separate issue that could be decided later.) If you look at the Saturday letter from Wildstein's attorney he's also hinting that Port Authority real estate projects were inappropriately divvied up or withheld based on political considerations. If true, the evidence for charges like bribery or misuse of federal funds will cut across the scandals and will be another element tying them together. As people quit or plead the fifth, or (if they) spill the beans on a variety of charges, it should all belong in one article. Should we have another vote now that more info is available on how to collate this morass of events sometimes known as Bridgegate? Scholarlyarticles (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Media news sources have been referring to Bridgegate only for the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, and not for any of the other controversies that have been recently reported. As I have stated before, many of these controversies have been reported before and occurred completely separate from the Bridgegate scandal and would need to be in included in a separate article about "Chris Christie administration scandals and controversies" without Bridgegate in the title. There are too many details about too many scandals to include it as part of the current article.

The legislative committee and U.S. attorney, who are the prime investigators of many of these scandals, are able to, and must, keep their investigations separate, even if testimony from one scandal is mentioned during an investigation of another scandal. The Wikipedia editors would best be served by following their lead. That would be why there could be the proposed general overview article, which would better be able to highlight any cross linking of raised issues between various scandals. The general article could include a directory or sections with redirects to individual subject articles, like the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, or relevant sections of other articles, such as Access to the Region's Core.

There is too much valuable information in the current article, which is an ongoing current event that will continue to grow, that should continue to focus on the Bridgegate scandal. Some of the information that is related to other scandals in this Bridgegate article can be relocated to a general article. Wondering55 (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Toobin’s article: BRIDGEGATE WILL BE A LONG ROAD FOR CHRISTIE [5] is worth a read. He explains a bit about the differences between the state and federal proceedings and why these investigations will likely take a long time. Toobin, a legal scholar, says: “This investigation began with the closure of the Fort Lee approaches to the George Washington Bridge, but it quickly came to include the accusation that the Christie administration used Hurricane Sandy aid as a lever, in Hoboken, to obtain approval for favored developers’ projects. That part of the investigation may lead nowhere—as may the whole Bridgegate probe. But this all takes time.” This article came out today. It seemed worth noting that the scandals are being investigated together and they are mentioned under the heading “Bridgegate” or Bridgegate and related scandals. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support I agree that the other controversies related to Christie's alleged abuse of power (Zimmer, the replacement of the Hunterdon County prosecutors etc) are serious and warrant a separate article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is now "rebooted" into a new Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion section, below. JackGavin (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Y See the referenced reboot below. Wondering55 (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Toll Lanes

I have given the total count of toll lanes as 31, consistent with http://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/gwb-facts-info.html

However, visible at http://goo.gl/maps/LJKD1 is the fact of only 11 lower level lanes, resulting in a true total of 30 rather than 31.

I have contacted the PANYNJ for them to correct their website, but they have not yet responded to me. (Maybe they're busy.)

I will monitor their webpage, and if/when the correction is posted there, I will adjust "31" to be "30" on the Wikipedia page. JackGavin (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it the amount on the site now totals 31 (12 + 12 + 7). The article is already updated 24.185.57.12 (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Even though there are 11 toll booths, there are currently only 10 operating toll lanes on the lower level. One of the toll booth lanes is blocked off with white painted cross hatching. You can see part of the painted cross hatching in front of the fourth booth from the right in the picture of the cited website from above, http://goo.gl/maps/LJKD1. There is a portable electronic sign on wheels just in front of this toll booth.

Y I plan to update the article to indicate there are only 29 operating toll lanes based on the fact there are 12 on the main upper level, 7 for the Palisades Parkway, and 10 for the lower level. During testimony at the December 9 hearing by the NJ Assembly Transportation Committee, Robert Durando, the GW Bridge manager, indicated there are only 29 operating toll lanes. See page 130 at https://dspace.njstatelib.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10929/30031/b8512013a.pdf I will also include a Google map citation that clearly shows there are only 10 operating lanes on the lower level. We do not have to wait for the Port Authority to correct their page at http://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/gwb-facts-info.html Wondering55 (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

PANYNJ finally updated their web page http://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/gwb-facts-info.html to reflect 29 toll lanes ("Lower level" reduced from 12 to 10):

Number of toll lanes: 

Upper level: 12 

Lower level: 10 

Palisades Interstate Parkway: 7 

In their email to me, PANYNJ referred to the blocked-off lower level lane as a "barrier lane".

"The GWB Facts webpage has been corrected to show that the Lower Level of the 

George Washington Bridge has ten operating  toll lanes plus a barrier lane."  

Barrier between what and what? I'm not sure. JackGavin (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. At least, the GW Bridge fact page agrees with what bridge drivers knew for a long time. That there are only 10 operating lanes for the lower level toll plaza.

There is no mention on the GW Bridge fact page link, which you provided, of a barrier lane. In reality, the fourth toll lane from the right side is blocked with white cross hatching. It is used for a portable electronic sign that can display more information for drivers, such as at night when cash is NOT accepted. Wondering55 (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The GW Bridge fact page has an asterisk for the Palisades Interstate Parkway toll plaza. The note for the asterisk indicates: E-ZPass only overnight.

Jack, That fact page should also have an asterisk for the lower level toll plaza that would refer to the same note. Can you follow up with your e-mail contact at the Port Authority and ask them if they would make that update or is there a reason why they do not show the lower level toll plaza with an asterisk. Wondering55 (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll ask them to note E-ZPass hours for the lower level plaza. JackGavin (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Got a reply from PANYNJ in which they explain "barrier lane":

Regarding your question about barrier lanes; we have a barrier lane on the lower level toll plaza for safety.

Lane 66 creates a barrier between the 25mph lanes and the 5mph lanes.  Workers who may have to cross the toll

plaza  have the barrier lane as an added safety buffer.

Still waiting for their Marketing Department to consider E-ZPass asterisk on Lower lane count, on the PANYNJ web page. JackGavin (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Are we going to have to wait for a "traffic study" to get the Marketing Department's answer for an asterisk for late night traffic and will it involve any Christie appointees???? Wondering55 (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)\

Y Issues resolved. No need to hold this Talk section open while waiting for PANYNJ to update their web page, which would be nice to know but it is already used as a relevant citation in the article. Wondering55 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Traffic flow pattern illustration?

This set of pictures does a great job of illustrating the problem. I realize they are not copyright cleared to use on wikipedia. But an illustration could be generated that shows how the simple placement of a few cones is necessary for smooth traffic flow on that 3 lane ramp. Anybody able to take pictures of that cone pattern? Anybody want to tackle our own copyright cleared image with photoshop? Trackinfo (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Those images are already linked in the article from the Washington Post source. I agree that it would be best if a graphic that is free of copyright issues could be displayed directly on the Wikipedia article page. On a related note, care needs to be taken in how Google images are used to make points in the article, to avoid violating Wikipedia's policy prohibiting inclusion of original research and to ensure that the Google images used in the article accurately support statements made in the article. (On the latter point, for example, for each citation of a Google image it should be asked whether the Google image is static or dynamic. And if the Google image is a photo, is it certain that the traffic pattern that was captured on the date the photo was taken was the usual traffic pattern at the time being discussed in the article?) Dezastru (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Current Google map citations simply reference the cited items as to their physical locations, including the actual roads, that have not changed before or after the time of the Sept. 9 incident. If the locations of the cited entrance or toll plazas ever changed in the future, along with the referenced Google images, then we will deal with it at that time, just as we do for other articles when a citation is considered out-of-date. The current Google map images should not be considered original research. These type of Google citations are used liberally throughout many Wikipedia articles on roadways for displaying physical locations. They are not for displaying the actual traffic that occurred during the week of Sept. 9.Wondering55 (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's a sentence in the current version of the article:

"During peak rush hour periods, the three rightmost of these lanes (south end of the toll plaza) are ordinarily exclusively allocated for local traffic entering from Fort Lee and the surrounding communities by way of the Fort Lee entrance at Martha Washington Way (also called Park Avenue),[6] with local traffic segregated by movable traffic cones from the heavier traffic of the major highways."

The Google photo that is cited seems to my eye to show two toll plaza lanes receiving northbound traffic exclusively coming from Martha Washington Way, but also one adjacent toll plaza lane that appears to be receiving a combination of northbound traffic coming from Marth Washington Way along with eastbound traffic coming from a different source (looks like a maybe a blend of local-access traffic from Bergen Ave with mainline traffic from the expressway). So that photo doesn't quite seem to accurately support the statement in the article ("exclusively allocated for"). Dezastru (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"These type of Google citations are used liberally throughout many Wikipedia articles on roadways for displaying physical locations." It's one thing to use a Google satellite photo as a source for a statement such as the Empire State Building is at such-and-such intersection with geocoordinates xyz. That's different than using a Google satellite photo as a citation for a statement about traffic flow patterns at certain times of day ("peak rush hour periods"). For the latter, it would be best to confirm that a photo being offered as verification for a statement in the article about traffic flow at a certain time of day was in fact taken at that time (peak hours) discussed in the article. Dezastru (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

As previously stated, the intent of current Google citations are for identifying the physical locations, just like for the Empire State Building you referenced, of the cited Fort Lee toll plazas and entryway. They should not be associated with any claims about traffic flow. I have edited the section with the quoted statement above so that the Google map citation simply confirms the location of this entrance and toll plaza. I have tagged the statement above about traffic flow with the existing Washington Post citation, "For Christie, perhaps a bridge too far" that highlights the actual flow during regular rush hours and during the week of September 9. Hopefully, this addresses anyone's concerns.Wondering55 (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Much better now since your last edit. Dezastru (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Completed Wondering55 (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Can/should we use this map from State of NJ, showing approach roads to GWB (and local Fort Lee roads, and proximity to Leonia and Englewood Cliffs)? http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/enlarged_view_02.pdf Can we crop, enlarge, and mark it to highlight Martha Washington Way? Although it does not clearly illustrate the "3 lanes", it gives good overall picture of highway/local funneling of traffic, and back-up potential into Fort Lee. If we cannot drop in an image, we should at least link to it in External Links. JackGavin (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The External links currently has this image Composite aerial images of GW Bridge traffic flow around the upper level toll plaza, which shows typical examples of the traffic flow with three and with one toll lane at the Fort Lee entrance.

The Lede and background sections include this citation link, Satellite map of Fort Lee entrance at the GW Bridge upper level toll plaza, which could also be added to the External Links. I would think that should be sufficient since readers could pan in or out to see more. Wondering55 (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dezastru eliminated the external link to Composite aerial images of GW Bridge traffic flow around the upper level toll plaza since a Washington Post citation in the article already shows these images. The citations for these images and Satellite map of Fort Lee entrance at the GW Bridge upper level toll plaza are included in the first sentence of the lede right after "at a New York-bound, toll plaza entrance" and in the Background section. That should be sufficient for now. Wondering55 (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The Google link is an excellent view close-up of the access to the 3 lanes, with a lovely arrow. However, the NJ PDF would add a well-labeled wider view of the convergence of all the highways, and shows the precise extent of the PA jurisdiction (which is why they got to move the cones). It also gives better context for the back-up into Fort Lee, and proximity of surrounding towns. Perhaps the "traffic flow illustration" Talk topic was meant to discuss only the close-up view, and my suggestion is misplaced on the Talk page. Nevertheless, I think the NJ PDF adds value. My question remains about whether we are permitted to include it inline as an image (modified or as-is), since I think copyright is not an issue. The only current Fort Lee map image inline, the census map, does not show enough detail. If we do not include the NJ PDF as an image, then I still advise External Link. JackGavin (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The PDF image could be included with External Links as Jurisdiction map of roads leading to the GW Bridge (affected Fort Lee entrance at upper-level toll plaza shown next to Kelby Street). I don't think anything needs to be done to modify the image since my proposed title description should be sufficient. Any comments would be welcomed.

I do not know whether or how it could be included as an inline image. You would have to check with someone or one of the Wikipedia talk pages, who are more familiar with Wikipedia functionality. Keep in mind that an inline image in the article would have to be reduced to around 25% of its current size to fit in and then all relevant details would be lost in the initial displayed view in the article. I guess readers could click on the image for a larger view. Any comments would be welcomed. Wondering55 (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The NJ DOT has not yet responded to my copyright query (for direct image usage), so I'll put in an External Links line for now. JackGavin (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Y Issues resolved for now as External links were updated. Wondering55 (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Investigations

My understanding is that the Assembly Transportation Committee investigation and the Special Legislative Committees investigation are actually not distinct investigations, but that the former was subsumed by the latter. If this is the case, it's misleading to have distinct sub-sections for them in the "Investigations" section.CFredkin (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The article has been updated to indicate the New Jersey Legislative Select Committee on Investigations, which has a sub-section, took over the Assembly Transportation Committee investigation, which should remain a separate section. If you have any further suggestions, please advise. Wondering55 (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"Scandal"?

When does an incident become a scandal? Scandal is a rather loaded word...--ukexpat (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

When there are widespread media reports it is a scandal. 56 of the current news report citations in this article have "scandal" already in the title, let alone other media news reports that use "scandal" in the context of their news reports, even though the word is not in the news title. You can also check out Wikipedia's scandal and its dictionary meaning, all of which apply to this event. This event's classification as a scandal is well justified. Wondering55 (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100%. All sources are calling this a "scandal". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

JC Mayor section

The entire section about JC mayor should be consolidated and added to speculation section since it's based on the Fort Lee mayor endorsement theory and relative to the lane closures in that sense only.Djflem (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The JC Mayor section is already under consideration for relocation to the proposed Governor Chris Christie Administration Scandals and Controversies page. The consolidation of the JC Mayor topic on the Bridgegate page would perhaps best follow thereafter, so detail is not lost. JackGavin (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

How about if we move the entire JC Mayor section to the end of the speculation section for now, as suggested by Djflem since this topic has been included in this article only in regards to validating the same speculated motive of political retribution against a mayor that did not support Christie for re-election. It also would avoid any confusion with readers following the events of the Fort Lee scandal, while getting sidetracked with the events of the Jersey City allegations about a completely separate story. We can then consolidate this topic at the appropriate time, as noted by JackGavin. Wondering55 (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

YJC Mayor section moved to the end of the Speculation section. Topic consolidated and the complete details relocated to Governorship of Chris Christie#Alleged retaliation against Jersey City Mayor Fulop. Wondering55 (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline is one of the best sections of this article and very informative. Would it be possible to convert it to a table layout for easier scanning/reading? We could have a date column, a content column, and a column with names of implicated individuals and organizations. Cwobeel (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(Also, this page is massive. Can older portions be archived?) Cwobeel (talk)

Archiving  Done or at least it should be when the bot gets around to it. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think a table would make it harder to read, to be honest. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel updated the 2013 section of the Timeline in a Table format with a date column and content column. I find this an improved format that should also be done for the 2014 section. Wondering55 (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Conspired to create traffic jams

The use of the term "conspired" in describing the acts of Christie's aides & Port Authority appointees who were directly involved in this episode shouldn't be a matter of controversy. The term comes directly from numerous sources.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Dezastru (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Completed Wondering55 (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It has been shown in subpoenaed communications and news reports that Christie aide, Bridget Kelly, and Christie's Port Authority appointees conspired to close the toll lanes. They have not just been accused, but have been shown in various communications to have conspired. This issue has been vigorously debated in past Talk sections and in a very long history of back and forth revisions of the article. I am revising the article to reflect this general past consensus since there was another article revision that some have only been "accused" of this. A separate issue that can be addressed at a later time, if it comes to fruition, is whether some people will be accused in a court of law about these activities. Wondering55 (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Directions in lede

The lede has a phrase "two toll lanes for this entryway were closed to" but the entryway is not identified. Looking at the maps I have seen, shouldn't Park Avenue be mentioned instead of the nondescript "this" as currently written? If I have the street identified wrong (because I've never been there) shouldn't the specific entrance be named? Trackinfo (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The text there now is:

...to create traffic jams in Fort Lee, New Jersey, starting at a New York-bound, toll plaza entrance to the George Washington Bridge.
The problems began on Monday, September 9, 2013, after two toll lanes for this entryway were closed to local traffic...

where "this entryway" refers to the previously established "New York-bound, toll plaza entrance" to the GWB.

The Background section gives all the necessary detail, including that Martha Washington Way is also known as Park Avenue.

The lede wording could be tweaked a little, but I would not advise loading it with the street names. JackGavin (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The entryway is identified with two citations right after "New York-bound, toll plaza entrance". They includes a Google map with the surrounding area with a highlight of the specific Fort Lee street entrance and an article with an illustrated composite view of the surrounding streets with versions of the affected Fort Lee entrance operating with 1 dedicated and 3 dedicated toll lanes. Along with more details in the Background sections that calls out the street names for the location of this entryway, this should suffice for the Lede section, which summarizes the most important key information. Wondering55 (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

All I am suggesting is the phrase be slightly modified to the specific location that is not identified in the lede. "The problems began on Monday, September 9, 2013, after two toll lanes for the Park Avenue entryway were closed to local traffic" In deeper argument, with Christie saying there were private entrances to the bridge, an identified public street is kind of necessary to make it clear. And yes, I know it is covered elsewhere in the article. "this" just seemed like it needed a specific identification for the large number of readers who do not read past the first paragsusinctlyraph. That is what the lede is for. Trackinfo (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Reading my own phrase, "to local traffic" would then be unnecessary. The lanes were closed. Period. That succinctly describes the functional technique used to cause the traffic. Trackinfo (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of readers will not understand the relevance of the street name and would not care to know that the "Park Avenue" entryway was the entrance that was affected when they first read the article. They are more interested in knowing that two local toll lanes were closed. For those readers that would be interested in knowing the particular entrance location, they can quickly get that information from the two citations, which are much more useful than a simple street name that most people have never heard of, that are shown right at the reference to "New York-bound, toll plaza entrance", which I will revise to "New York-bound, upper-level, toll plaza entrance" after considering your comments. In addition, mentioning the street name in the Lede will cause even further confusion since it is sometimes called two different names and has been known by a third name in the past. Complete details about the street names and toll plaza are included in the Background section for those with a need to know more. Wondering55 (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion

The "Proposing new Purported Christie Retribution page" Talk section has been quiet for a few days, and it seems to me like a good time to re-state my proposal, incorporating the comments above, so hopefully we can vote and get concensus.

(I initially posted this within the old section, but got no follow-up, so I'm moving it to its own new section.)

Please let us focus on the proposed new page, and discuss any general pruning or other edits of the existing Bridgegate page in a separate Talk section.

First, the current Fort Lee lane closure scandal (Bridgegate) page has more than enough substance to live on its own, and thus will remain essentially intact, except that the bulk of Mayor Fulop subtopic will move to the new page.

Second, a new Governor Chris Christie Administration Scandals and Controversies page will be created.

For subtopics that are large and already have their own page (like Bridgegate), the subtopic's section on the new page will have a Main Entry pointer (back to the main article), and a brief synopsis (perhaps based on the lede of the Main Entry page).

For subtopics that are smaller (as the how Mayor Fulop story now is), the subtopic's section on the new page will have the complete entry, until such time as the subtopic has grown big enough to warrant its own page.

It is recognized that some investigative overlap may occur, eg the US Attorney looking at Bridgegate and Hoboken together. This is not a compelling argument that some one huge page (today's Bridgegate) should fully capture all such subtopics. Instead, each subtopic should explain its entanglements, or refer to a special new subtopic which is (for instance) the wide-ranging investigation itself.

The subtopics on the new page will be organized and grouped in some fashion. Yes, I'm punting here. I don't want the overall yes/no to get hung up on competing layout propsals, which are worthy of discussion after we reach "yes" concensus.

Here is the working list of subtopic nicknames for inclusion, in no particular order, and not suggesting any particular organizational layout:

• Bridgegate
• Mayor Zimmer (Hoboken)
• Mayor Fulop (Jersey City)
• Prosecutor Ben Barlyn (Hunterdon County)
• Governor Codey
• Carl Lewis
• Alan Rosenthal (redistricting)
• New Jersey Network demise
• PA bridge/tunnel toll increases
• ARC Tunnel cancellation and funds shifting
• Sandy tourism/campaign advertising
• Sandy no-bid trash contract
• Sandy misappropriation (eg Belleville, New Brunswick)
• Sandy transparency: veto of one measure (reported by NJ.com), and breaching or foot-dragging of Integrity Monitor Act signed into law March 2013 (reported by MSNBC)
• Helicopter usage (eg reported by NJ.com)
• Supreme Court nominations (eg dropping Justice Wallace, reported by NJ.com)
• Christie urged reporters to "take a bat" to Sen. Weinberg (reported by NorthJersey.com (The Record))
• Highlands Council manipulations (op-ed by Elliott Ruga at NJ.com)
• Todd Christie real estate in Harrison (reported by NorthJersey.com (The Record) and Todd's employment by Ernst & Young, a Sandy auditor (reported by NJ.com)
• Pay-to-Play via "outside groups" like RGA to end-run around contribution limits (reported by Matt Katz of WNYC)

Please Support or Oppose this "Feb 12" proposal for new page creation (but postponing discussion of the organizational layout of the new page). This would leave the current Bridgegate page essentially intact. Thanks. JackGavin (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support – I support this. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - If this page is created, identify who will volunteer to take charge for creating the page. Should there be a starting group that works on a draft working page for review of the general set-up and initial topics, including any initial content, prior to its initial public release? Wondering55 (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to contribute, but I am not experienced in creating a new page, so I would not be the strongest one to lead that. BTW, you may be interested in a Christie Bullying Map and a commentary by Alec MacGillis, both from New Republic JackGavin (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support yes, good idea Cwobeel (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose -too broad and overreaching. Would it be list-class? Would need to be way too long. Why not choose one or two and see how far you go. What's a scandal? What's a controversy? Which has been investigated? Access to the Region's Core has an article. What's the scandal? The GAO report and the highway funding? Add info there and see how that flies w/ references and structure. That'll be day's work. Djflem (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Until recently, the national media's coverage of Chris Christie did not highlight any of these controversies, but instead covered the brand that Christie was promoting... a plain-talking, bi-partisan, get-things-done kind of guy. See MSNBC.

So, the first purpose of this new page is indeed to list the various controversies in one place, especially those tinged with abuse of power, that have flown beneath the radar for most folks outside of NJ. (Even for us locals, the entanglements and overlapping casts of characters get complicated.)

Most of the bullet items do not now have articles of their own, however, and we need some amount of verbiage for each to explain (and cite), so I don't think a List Class is the most appropriate presentation.

Another purpose is that the focused pages (like Bridgegate) will be less full of tangential matters (like the Mayor Fulop story).

To keep the new Scandals/Controversies page from becoming too large, a growing subtopic would eventually warrant its own page, and the subtopic's section on the Scandals/Controversies page would be reduced to a brief explanation, and refer the reader to that subtopic's Main Entry.

Part of the controversy around the ARC Tunnel specifically is indeed the perception that it was cancelled to divert a pot of money into the transportation trust fund for highway construction (to avoid a politically difficult rise in the gasoline tax), and not just the GAO's conclusion about the stated basis for cancellation (the cost overruns that NJ would bear). See Streetsblog and MSNBC. JackGavin (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

As it is also relevant here, I had mentioned this in a post above: Yes, I tend to agree. Related to the above discussion, the following Wikipedia article came to mind: Scandals and allegations of the New York City Police Department. This article addresses all of the scandals and allegations of the NYPD, throughout its entire 170-year history. As you can see, it then forks off into various other more specific articles. Christie's administration is only (barely) four years long, so certainly a similar article can be done for him. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

May I remind you? What does the above have to do with article? Can you take somewhere else please? Djflem (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This has to do with the Bridgegate article insofar as we get to prune the Mayor Fulop story, and prevent bloat from these other subtopics creeping in. JackGavin (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Governorship of Chris Christie#Administration scandals and controversies is now being utilized to add various scandals and controversies. Wondering55 (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

YThanks, I'll start making entries there (and I invite others to join in). Future duscussion of the layout and worthy subtopics will be on that Talk page (currently empty), rather than this one. JackGavin (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Haddon Story

The video cited to support that statement that Haddon stood by her story regarding Christie's phone conversation with Cuomo says that (in her opinion) Cuomo "danced around the issue" and "seemed evasive", and also that Cuomo said that they discussed the airports but not the GWB issue. Haddon didn't really indicate whether she stood by her story.CFredkin (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Are there any other sources than just that video? Cwobeel (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Starting around 7:28 of the video, Haddon answered Chris Hayes direct questions three times that she stood by her original Wall Street Journal report. End of story. No need for any additional sources or any confusion about what she clearly stated on the video. The general discussions that Haddon had with Chris Hayes, which led to her confirmation about standing by her story, actually start at 3:33 and 7:00 of the video, as currently shown in the citation. If you like, I can update the citation to clarify the time references. Wondering55 (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't listen past 7:00. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Recommended?

A recent edit states [23] that Wildstein was "recommended" to the PA by the Christie administration. But that is not what sources report. One example:

A former Port Authority employee told CNN that agency officials were told in 2010 they had to find a place for WIldstein at the executive level and the directive was coming from Christie's office. Soon after, the position was created specifically for WIldstein. When Wildstein started, Deputy Executive Director Bill Baroni, Christie's top appointee at the agency, introduced him to people as a good friend of the governor. [24]

Cwobeel (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A few more:

• Mr. Wildstein was a high school classmate of Mr. Christie’s who was hired with the governor’s blessing at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which controls the bridge. [25]
• Wildstein was hired by former Deputy Executive Director Bill Baroni, with the blessing of Gov. Chris Christie. Emails and other revelations now seem to indicate his job title may have been just a cover for serving the political interest of the governor.[26]

Cwobeel (talk)

And just one more, this time from Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak

He is there in that job because he is well suited to the task of playing a role in reforming the Port Authority in accordance with the governor's goals. If he's not liked for that role, and if he's accused of being zealous in that regard, then we plead guilty. [27]

I don't see any source describing Wildstein's hiring as a "recommendation". Cwobeel (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. In fact The Record article cited states: "...Wildstein, one of 50 recommended for jobs by the Christie administration".CFredkin (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's another statement from the CNN article cited: "A former Port Authority employee told CNN that agency officials were told in 2010 they had to find a place for WIldstein at the executive level and the directive was coming from Christie's office."CFredkin (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The article was revised to indicate that Wildstein was recommended by Christie, rather than just the Christie administration. Current citation for The Record clearly states that Wikldstein was recommended by Christie. See fourth paragraph in the citation that states "They believe the appointment of Wildstein and dozens of others recommended by the governor'".

Cwobeel provided a lot of other citations above that agree he was recommended by Christie and not just the Christie administration.

If you want, I can provide other citations that say the same thing, but I do not want to belabor the point. In fact, there have been several investigative reports, which are completely independent of the toll lane closure scandal, about the excessive PA hires, including Wildstein, that were referred and recommended by Christie as governor that far exceed any previous NJ governor.

While there may be some mentioning of the involvement of the Christie administration, ultimately the recommendations came directly from Christie as an overwhelming number of news sources have reported. Wondering55 (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if we're referring to the same statement in the article. In looking at the sources provided for the following statement, I don't see the sentence you reference in the 4 paragraph...

"David Wildstein, a local politician and political blogger who had known Christie during high school, was hired by Baroni based on the recommendation of the Christie administration in May 2010."

If we're going to include a statement that Christie recommended Wildstein for the job. We need a source that definitively states that.CFredkin (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The current article has a statement in the Background paragraph....

"David Wildstein, a local politician and political blogger who had known Christie during high school, was hired by Baroni based on Christie's referral and recommendation in May 2010."

The bold highlighted item is supported by the current citation, Ex-blogger is Governor Christie's eyes, ears inside the Port Authority, which in the fourth paragraph of the first page states:

"They believe the appointment of Wildstein and dozens of others recommended by the governor"

The confusion may be that the current url for this citation in the Fort Lee article goes to the second page, which did not have my referenced statement. I can update the url address in the article. Wondering55 (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Cwobeel (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Christie office internal investigation - conflict of interest

Article currently says, in the section on Legal representation, "Having one attorney acting in both roles (as the investigator and as the representative of some of the investigation subjects) presents the appearance of a conflict of interest", with a citation of an interview of a Georgetown law professor by MSNBC's Steve Kornacki. The statement is likely to be viewed as contentious by some readers, so it needs to be phrased in a way that communicates that Wikipedia is not taking a side on the opinion as to whether there does appear to be a conflict of interest. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Dezastru (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Based on the current cite, would "may present the appearance of COI" or "evoked complaints of COI" be sufficient? Or do you need more cites? "appearance of a COI" is already a big step back from "there is a COI". JackGavin (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Safest way to handle this would be to say that so-and-so said that it presents the appearance of a conflict of interest. Even better if you can find other legal authorities or prominent political commentators who have expressed the same opinion. Dezastru (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

YI updated Mastro's potential conflict to be investigating matters in Christie's office, while representing members of his staff based on the cited individual, Paul Butler (professor), a criminal law scholar, and another citation source. Wondering55 (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuits section

This article is much too long; I agree with the tag placed by Epicgenius. I would suggest a place to start trimming would be the lawsuits section. The article probably needs no more than a sentence or two mentioning that lawsuits have been filed. The first paragraph of the section in particular is a problem in that it cites a single source, which may be an indication of undue weight for the opinion of the author. Has any other source covered this background information in relation to the lawsuits? Also, while the author appears to be an expert, being a law professor, would a dozen other law professors agree with the author's opinions? Dezastru (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I edited the section in order to condense it. The opinion of the cited author for suing for economic losses, which are the primary claims being made by the plaintiffs in their lawsuits, is also backed by a cited NJ Supreme Court case in the article in regards to being able to sue for economic losses. Wondering55 (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If too long, some sections could be split to their own articles, and summaries preserved here. But I would strongly oppose any refactoring that would remove any content. Cwobeel (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Email message: "Is it bad that I am smiling about all this?"

There was an email message that stated "Is it bad that I am smiling about all this?" (or words to that effect). Was this attributed to any specific individual? Or not as of yet? I though it was attributed to Bridget Anne Kelly, but I am not 100% sure. Does anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

When the (redacted) Wildstein pages first hit the public, and the "Is it wrong that I'm smiling" message was discussed, there was doubt and confusion. Gawker.com. Later it became clear that it was Kelly. NJ.com JackGavin (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Purported call to Governor Cuomo of New York

Christie has denied that this phone call ever happened. What is Cuomo's "official" response to this issue? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not much. Watch the MSNBC interview with Heather Haddon, esp at 3:33 and 7:00 of this video. JackGavin (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Source

It looks like the url for the following source needs to be updated (or removed):

Ex-blogger is Governor Christie's eyes, ears inside the Port Authority". The Record (Woodland Park, New Jersey). March 4, 2012. Retrieved January 9, 2014.CFredkin (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Problem with url link seems to be part of same ongoing problem noted above in "Web difficulties at NorthJersey.com". I am able to access the url link with Firefox, but cannot access it with Internet Explorer. Leave the url, as is. Thanks for the notice. Wondering55 (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the cite URL http://www.northjersey.com/news/ny_metro/030312_Ex-blogger_is_Governor_Christies_man_inside_the_Port_Authority.html?page=all is being redirected by NorthJersey.com to a different URL (in that "temp" format) to a different story (a fire in Passaic). I had audited all of Bridgegate's NorthJersey.com URLs yesterday, and fixed a few. They were all working (going to the correct stories) as of yesterday afternoon. Let's give it a little time, and see what shakes out. JackGavin (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)