Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie/Archive 1

Scandals and Controversies

This is carried from the "Bridgegate" Talk page Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion.

Instead of a separate new Scandals/Controversies page as earlier proposed there, these subtopics will be presented here, at Governorship of Chris Christie#Administration scandals and controversies.

For subtopics that are large and already have their own page (like Bridgegate), the subtopic's section on the Governorship 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 how the Mayor Fulop story now is), the subtopic's section on the Governorship page will have the complete entry, until such time as the subtopic has grown big enough to warrant its own page. We do have to beware of WP:TOOLONG on this Governorship 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 (eg 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 in the Governorship page section will be organized and grouped in some fashion. We may establish that organization ad hoc, as entries are added, but discussion about organization is invited anytime.

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

• YBridgegate
• YMayor Zimmer (Hoboken)
• YMayor Fulop (Jersey City)
• Prosecutor Ben Barlyn (Hunterdon County) (reported by NorthJersey.com, NJ.com, and MSNBC, and edtorialized by the Star-Ledger twice)
• Governor Codey (loss of police protection, and firing of 2 of his allies) (reported by NJ.com)
• Carl Lewis (reported by TheGrio.com)
• Alan Rosenthal (redistricting) (reported by New York Times) (obit by Star-Ledger)
• New Jersey Network demise (reported by MSNBC)
• PA bridge/tunnel toll increases (as reported by NJ.com (Star-Ledger) and NorthJersey.com (The Record))
• YARC Tunnel cancellation and funds shifting
• YSandy tourism/campaign advertising
• Sandy no-bid trash contract (reported by NJ.com); investigated by DHS auditor and OK'd at state level, though local govt questions remain (reported by The Star-Ledger).
• YSandy 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)
• YSupreme 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 and GOPAC to end-run around contribution limits (reported by Matt Katz of WNYC and The Star-Ledger), and cited by call to investigate Bergen County Executive's donors (as reported by The Star-Ledger)
• Christie administration pushed PA to hire his old law firm, with no competitive bidding (reported by The Record)
• Christie's extremely close, questionable connections to for-profit prison operator Community Education Centers (reported by prizewinning series "Unlocked" New York Times)

Everybody is invited to add checkmarks to the bullet list above as subtopics become covered, or to add links to fresh details.

An overview of Christie administration scandals was reported by NewRepublic.com.

I will begin adding some of these subtopics, not necessarily in the given order. Anybody else can jump right in, too. Thoughts on additional subtopics, or the presentation organization, are invited. JackGavin (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't intended to be a collection of every allegation against Christie and has administration. That would definitely create WP:undue.CFredkin (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If there are notable topics, these can and should be added; the notability can easily be assessed by the prevalence of published reliable sources. Not sure if each one of the items above is worthy of it's own subheading but some may be (others can be summarized in a sentence or two). We can start slowly and build from there. Cwobeel (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, there are many article focused specifically on controversies of political figures, for example Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies, Political scandals during the Obama administration, PRISM (surveillance program), 2013 Department of Justice investigations of reporters, 2012 Benghazi attack, Air Force One photo op incident, and several others. Some of these started as sections on the main BLP, and later on developed on their own articles, very much along the lines of what we are doing here. Cwobeel (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I have updated my bullet list above with checkmarks for topics that have been covered. Everybody is invited to likewise add checkmarks there, as more subtopics come online, or to add links as new details hit the news. JackGavin (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The bullet list above was last updated by JackGavin (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

NJT and Sandy

This recent edit [1], removes content on the basis that the text does not match the source. Rather than deleting outright, would it not be much better to make any corrections needed to fit the source?

This is the text that was deleted:

The agency remained reluctant to release information regarding the decision and was sued the newspaper the The Record which confirmed that NJT had not followed it's own flood plan.

And this is the source: [2] Cwobeel (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Mass Transit Super Bowl

This paragraph is not nearly notable enough to warrant mention in an article on Christie's governorship. This article is not intended to be a laundry list of every negative thing ever mentioned about anything done by someone in the executive branch the New Jersey government during Christie's administration.CFredkin (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

May I ask to go easy on the delete button? If there is text that may be not suitable, we can discuss before deleting. Cwobeel (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, as we discussed previously, I'm following WP:BRD.CFredkin (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I could revert per WP:BRD, but prefer to discuss first if you don't mind. You said in your edit summary that this is not notable enough, can you expand on your thinking? Cwobeel (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Super Bowl traffic is mentioned in passing in articles regarding the fact that Weinstein is resigning. The other references are to an inquiry by an Assembly committee chaired by a prominent Christie critic, in which Super Bowl traffic is again mentioned in passing. The mentions reference the fact that the traffic delays were attributed to mistaken estimates of volumes by the NFL and NJ Transit. This definitely does not seem notable as a scandal or controversy for the Christie administration.CFredkin (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Super Bowl was an extremely high-profile event garnering world-wide attention and meant to be a gem in Mr. Christie's crown, having worked hard to bring it to the state. Instead, the international media broadcast Twitter accounts w/ "New Jersey sucks". Christie backed Weinstein after the Sandy flood loos, and despite calls for Weinstein's immediate resignation after the Mass Transit Super Bowl, the administration backed him only later to announce that he was leaving the agency. The overcrowding and delays are subject to yet another investigation into a NJT fiasco under on Christie's watch.Djflem (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Epic transit delays in New Jersey, mass transit meltdown, fans curse Jersey, fans trapped for hours ……not notable?????

‘Mass-Transit Super Bowl’ Hits Some Rough Patches in Moving Fans
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/sports/football/mass-transit-super-bowl-hits-some-rough-patches-in-moving-fans.html

Mass transit meltdown on the way to the Super Bowl
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20140203_Mass_transit_meltdown_on_the_way_to_the_Super_Bowl.html

Security, Crowds Delay Fans’ Trip to Super Bowl
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303442704579359043995105418

Angry Super Bowl train passengers curse NJ over delays, overcrowding
http://www.nj.com/super-bowl/index.ssf/2014/02/super_bowl_train_passengers_furious_with_packed_rail_cars_delays.html

Reports: Epic transit delays in New Jersey
http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/super-bowl/post/_/id/1032/reports-epic-transit-delays-in-new-jersey

Super Bowl 2014: NJ Transit riders complain of heat, overcrowding
http://www.nj.com/super-bowl/index.ssf/2014/02/super_bowl_2014_nj_transit_riders_complain_of_heat_overcrowding.html

Super Bowl: More train problems as announcer asks fans to stay in MetLife Stadium
http://www.nj.com/super-bowl/index.ssf/2014/02/super_bowl_more_train_problems_as_announcer_asks_fans_to_stay_in_metlife_stadium.html

Super Bowl 2014: Transit woes plague ride home
http://www.nj.com/super-bowl/index.ssf/2014/02/super_bowl_2014_hows_your_ride_home.html

Super Bowl's mass-transit vision at risk after commuter mayhem
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-superbowl-transit31-20140131,0,7656275.story

Super Bowl chaos: Officials plead with 28,000 train-bound fans to stay inside MetLife Stadium after Super Bowl despite having hours to react after pre-game transit disaster
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550797/Super-Bowl-chaos-Officials-plead-28-000-train-bound-fans-stay-inside-MetLife-Stadium-Super-Bowl-despite-having-hours-react-pre-game-transit-disaster.html

Mass Transit Strains Under Super Bowl Crowds
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Super-Bowl-Transit-Train-Problems-Crowds-MetLife-243249801.html

Super Bowl fans trapped for hours at MetLife stadium
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/super-bowl-travails-worth-fans-heading-nj-article-1.1600009

Transit woes, mild temps mark NJ-NY Super Bowl
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/2014/02/03/transit-woes-mild-temps-mark-super-bowl/CKHmYbScz6T1Rc23xPz5FL/story.html

Frustrated fans cry foul over ride to Super Bowl
http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/super-bowl/frustrated-fans-cry-foul-over-ride-to-super-bowl-1.6928341

OK. Point taken. I'll self-revert. However I believe some trimming/editing is warranted.CFredkin (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

State control of the public schools in Newark

We ought to add a section about this issue. I will start collecting sources. Cwobeel (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Newark Public Schools

Newark is one of 31 "Abbott", or "SDA district" which requires the state to cover all costs for school building and renovation projects in these districts under the supervision of the New Jersey Schools Development Authority. Newark Public Schools population is about 40,000, about half of what it was in 1970. Many of the departments buildings are under-utilised. State-appointed Superintendent Cami Anderson’s new restructuring plan, One Newark, calls for closing many of the district’s failing schools and striking deals with charters to occupy many more. The proposal has been with opposition from parents, teachers and politicians. State Senator Ron Rice (D-Essex) and Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-Mercer) have introduced legislation that would require the local school boards approval before closing.

• Augenstein, Seth. ratings "Newark's kids' conditions improving, but they still lag behind rest of NJ: report". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved 2014-02-06. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
• "STATE-OPERATED NEWARK SCHOOLS FACE STAGGERING $57 MILLION BUDGET DEFICIT". Education Law Center. April 4, 2013. Retrieved 2014-02-01.
• McGlone, Peggy (December 18, 2013). "Newark school restructuring includes plans to put charters in district buildings". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved 2014-02-01.
• McGlone, Peggy (February 12, 2014). rebuilding funds "$100M for Newark school construction waits for approval". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved 2014-02-01. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
• Giambusso, David (February 22, 2014). "Newark mayoral candidate Shavar Jeffries hits superintendent, opponent in rollout of education plan". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved 2014-02-01.
• Mueller, Mark (February 25, 2014). "Newark schools chief warns of massive teacher layoffs; wants pink slips tied to performance". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved 2014-02-01.

Secret rail station

Why is this section noteworthy for this article?CFredkin (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion - New Jersey Transit

The article has various subsections related to issues with New Jersey Transit. The relationship to Christie's governorship is tenuous at best.

The purported connection offered by the editor is, "As Governor, Christie is in the board of NJ Transit, so this is applicable..." Well, no... not really.

It's noteworthy that the issues are (for the moment) described in voluminous detail on the Christie governorship page, but get little or no coverage even on the New Jersey Transit page. That's because they really aren't noteworthy, even in the context of NJT, let alone Christie's governorship.

Most significantly, there's nothing that ties the NJT issues to Christie's governorship. Unless there's something to add to make this other than completely irrelevant or UNDUE, the subsection should be deleted. John2510 (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see how a decision regarding storage of locomotives during Sandy by the director of NJT reflects on Christie's governorship. I also don't see how Super Bowl transit issues reflect on the governorship, particularly since they were a result of poor estimates by the NFL. Finally (as noted above), the Secret Light Rail Station subsection doesn't seem noteworthy at all.CFredkin (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

?? Are you familiar with the NJT? The NJ Governor and lieutenant governor chair the board of the NJT. http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servlet.srv?hdnPageAction=CorpInfoTo Cwobeel (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

As stakeholders in NJ TRANSIT, State residents are represented by a seven member Board of Directors, appointed by the Governor. Four members are from the general public and three are State officials. The agency is structured to encourage broad public participation in the formation of transit policy for the State. NJ TRANSIT's board meets monthly at NJ TRANSIT headquarters in Newark. The Governor can override board actions by vetoing the board meeting's minutes.[3]

There. Cwobeel (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If these issues aren't significant enough to be discussed in any length in the NJT article (and they aren't), why would they be significant enough to be addressed in a article about Christie's Governorship?

Is there even a source that attempts to connect up any significant relationship between these issues and Christie's governorship... or is that a personal conclusion?John2510 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

????? The NJT is managed at the highest level by the NJ state government. They appoint all board members, and the board members select the executives. In addition Christie has veto power on any decision by the board. That is all what is needed to include material about the NJT in this article. Cwobeel (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If you need other sources, see [4], and [5] Cwobeel (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Commuters and transit advocates have some advice for Veronique Hakim, Gov. Chris Christie's nominee to head NJ Transit [6]. Do you need anything else? Cwobeel (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The cited sources don't describe the NJT issues that have been added to the article as being issues of the Christie governorship. You're personally making the connection because of his authority over NJT... but the sources don't. Again, if they aren't significant enough issues to be discussed at length in the NJT article, they're certainly UNDUE here. John2510 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That is nonsense. The NJT is an agency of managed by NJ state government. Cwobeel (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not part of the Governor's administration. The NJ Transit web site states that it is "New Jersey's public transportation corporation".CFredkin (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the sources I provided? NJT commissioner is appointed by the board, and the board is appointed by the Governor of New Jersey. Commissioners submit their resignation to the Governor of New Jersey, Mr. Christie. See [7]. So, how can you argue with s straight face that NJT is not related to the subject of this article. Or is it simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Cwobeel (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

My highlights: The executive director of New Jersey Transit is resigning, bringing an end to a four-year run pocked by the agency’s often-maligned performance during Hurricane Sandy and the recent Super Bowl in East Rutherford, N.J. The director, James Weinstein, 67, will be replaced by Veronique Hakim, the executive director of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, Gov. Chris Christie announced. In an email sent to colleagues on Tuesday, Mr. Weinstein said he had submitted his resignation to the governor, effective March 2. Since joining the Christie administration in 2010, Mr. Weinstein, the former New Jersey transportation commissioner, was known as a loyal cabinet member. [8] Cwobeel (talk)

You've offered no sources that suggest this material is relevant to Christie's governorship - only your personal view that since Christie has ultimate responsibility for NJT, it SHOULD be significant. You've also offered no explanation for why it should be included here, when it isn't important enough to warrant significant coverage in the NJT article. Is there any, or is this ripe for deletion? John2510 (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course I did. I provide numerous sources, but you seem to simply ignore them. This is not about Chris Christie the person, for that there is the biographical article Chris Christie. This is about the Governorship of Chris Christie, and anything related to his appointees, their actions, and any successes or controversies related to entities under the control of the state of NJ government during Christie's tenure can go into this article. Cwobeel (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It does not belong to the NJT article, because this event took place during the Christie administration, the subject of this article. Cwobeel (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"...anything related to his appointees, their actions, and any successes or controversies related to entities under the control of the state of NJ government during Christie's tenure can go into this article."

Anything "can" go in this article, but not everything related to his appointees is noteworthy to his governorship and, so far, you seem to be the only one in the world who thinks these things are significant to his governorship. If we included everything every one of his appointees did (for good, bad or indifferent), the article would be many times its current size, and quite useless.

Since it "does not belong in the NJT article," it sure doesn't belong here. John2510 (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

By your argument, the entire article needs to be deleted, which is of course a red herring. Cwobeel (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, but good sources have to connect the materials up as significant to the topic (not an individual editor). It's basically OR. I'm deleting per the (albeit limited) consensus here. If you you can develop a consensus that sources find these issues as significant to Christie's governorship, it can be revisited. I welcome the POV analysis, as this NJT material certainly smacks of a POV initiative. John2510 (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the repeated claims that the information is not included in the main New Jersey Transit article please see where it is and in the other appropriate NJT articles: New Jersey Transit#Repair, recovery and resiliency projects, Hudson Bergen Light Rail#17th and Clinton, Hoboken, Meadowlands Rail Line#History. Djflem (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

For the first cited article, the material is quite different from what was offered here. Notably, there's no discussion of fault or responsibily (which is what arguably, and very remotely, ties it into this article). For the other two sources, they serve well to prove my point that they weren't important enough to make it into the NJT article (and they didn't). It's not signficant enough to be in the NJT article, but it's supposedly important enough to be in the article about the governorship of the person who appointed the person who acted on behalf of NJT? That doesn't make sense. Certainly, we would expect events signicicant to NJT to get much more coverage in the NJT article than in this article. The lack of coverage (or at least signficant coverage) suggests that it would be extreme bootstrapping to put this in the Christie governorship article. John2510 (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I simply don't get it. Why do you have such aversion to include material that is factual, backed by reliable sources? Just because you consider it "negative"? The consideration here is about completeness: does the article about the the Governorship complete without relevant information about the authorities under its control? If that is the case, why is there material about the PA and not about the NJT? Cwobeel (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how many more ways to say it. It simply isn't sufficiently related to Christie's governorship to warrant inclusion in this article. Not every factual, well-sourced thing belongs in WP. It's an encyclopedia, not an archive. Not everything that happens, good or bad, under a governor's administration belongs in an article on the administration. Let's say one of Christie's appointees gets a commemorative plaque from some organization in recognition of his work. There's an mention of it in a newspaper. Well, it's factual, and it's well sourced, and it relates to the administration. Does it belong in this article? I'm guessing not. It's not sufficiently signficant to the article's subject. Let's say there's a WP article about that appointee, and IT doesn't mention the plaque. Well, that would tend to suggest the whole factual, well-sourced thing isn't really very signficant in the great scheme of things, in ANY context.

We all have our political bents, but I'm not opposed to including a good scandal (real or alleged). Bridgegate definitely belongs here, and I would defend it against exclusion (though perhaps not reduction). The NJT stuff just doesn't rise to that level - in the opinion of any hertofore identified source.

I stumbled across the NJT stuff and it immediately jumped out at me as not belonging. I hadn't looked at the PA stuff, or even the article as a whole. Maybe I will. If it's similarly inappropriate, it should be removed. John2510 (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• The NJT article proves nothing about any point you are trying to make. Because something is not included there that would or would not satisfy you has no relevance to this article. If you would like to discuss the inclusion of the material there please do so on the talk page of that article. As Wikipedia is a collectively-built encyclopaedia, and all articles are a work in progress, your expectation of a cross reference is misplaced and only indicates there is more work to be done to improve Wikipedia. This article is incomplete and outdated. Is there anything you would like to add (w/ references) or reorganise? Djflem (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Have restored section regarding train damage. It was clearly important to Christie as governor to meet with the editorial board of a major newspaper and make the announcement himself as to who was being held responsible and to defend his appointee. Djflem (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The New Republic Attack Article

The fact that The New Republic published an article attacking Christie is not noteworthy in itself. If there is information in the article that is notable, it should be published separately.CFredkin (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems very noteworthy to me. What is your criteria for "noteworthy", and how that criteria competes with Wikipedia's? Cwobeel (talk)

It should be noteworthy based on whether any of the content in the article is noteworthy for inclusion. If any of the content in the article is noteworthy, it can be extracted for inclusion in this Wikipedia article. If none of the content in the article is noteworthy, then the article is nothing but an attempted smear and not noteworthy in and of itself.CFredkin (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't follow. The material you deleted was extracted from that article, and that article represents research done by the source, which makes this noteworthy. Cwobeel (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What material are you referring to specifically? The only material appears to be the fact that the article itself was published.CFredkin (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If you insist, I will distill the information there and add it, but I can tell you already that you will not like it. Choose your battles, as they say. Cwobeel (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you summarize the article. I'm saying that if the article includes content that is relevant and notable for this article in Wikipedia, it should be included, with the article cited. The existence of the article itself is not noteworthy.CFredkin (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Article is not neutral

Several editors are deleting entire sections based on their assessment that these sections are not relevant to this article, bringing this article to a state that I believe contradicts WP:NPOV. Attempts to discuss have lead to a stalemate, some editors close to violating WP:3RR. For that reason I am nominating this article for a POV check with the hope to expand the number of voices weighing on this issue.

The deletions are in this diff [9] Cwobeel (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Also [10] Cwobeel (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not sure that "not relevant" describes the concern. It's a matter of them being WP:UNDUE.

You seem to believe that any (negative) action by a Christie appointee or agency is appropriatate to the Christie governorship article, even if not sufficiently significant even to make it into the article on the subject agency. That's simply not good editing. The fact that something is nominally "relevant" doesn't make it appropriate material. If it's not even signficant enough to make it into the agency's article, it sure doesn't belong in the governorship article.

The sources you've provided don't make that connection either. That they mention someone was a Christie appointee is quite different from saying his actions are an issue of the Christie governorship generally.

Further, if you look at the lopsided political balance of the materials you're posting about appointees, I think you'll find that your WP:NPOV accusation is the pot calling the kettle "black." John2510 (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You are asserting WP:UNDUE but I think you are confused about what that means. Undue weight does not allow you to delete content, unless the content is not supported by reliable sources. Per WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.. This means that information related to the governorship of Chris Christie, described as such on reliable sources can and should be included, unless these are tiny minority viewpoits. Neither you or I can delete content in this article that the sources describe as being related to the Governorship of Chris Christie, as that would be WP:VANDALISM. If this does not clarify it for you, I will then proceed with next steps in the dispute resolution process. Cwobeel (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I believe the excerpt you've provided supports John's point... It says that articles "...should include all SIGNIFICANT viewpoints published by reliable sources, in PROPORTION to the prominence of each viewpoint in the reliable sources." (emphasis mine) It doesn't say that ALL viewpoints published by ALL reliable sources should be included. Also, it's fairly silly to suggest that content which violates WP policy can't be removed if it's from a reliable source.CFredkin (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not arguing for all viewpoints, CFredkin. I am arguing for the inclusion of relevant viewpoints as reported by reliable sources. If you do some research you can find many more sources than the ones included in these now deleted sections. Cwobeel (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not everything that is well-sourced and "relevant" belongs in an encyclepedic article. Material has to be well-sourced and relevant, as an absolute bare minimum, to qualify for possible inclusion. If it passes that minimal test then the question, as CFedkin notes, is whether it is signficant to the subject. If it is, then the coverage must be proportional to its signficance. As I point out on the DR page, it's probably more precisely an issue WP:BALASPS.

The sources, and consensus about those sources, rule on the questions of signficance and proportion. If a meaningful number and class of sources were talking about the NJT issues as being a concern for the administration, then I would agree that they should go in. Passing references to Christie in the context of someone being a Christie appointee, that he's on the Board, etc. doesn't do that.

It's probably best this is in DR, and I appreciate that you've intitiated that. I'll live with where that takes us. John2510 (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can at least agree to disagree. I still believe that the NJT aspects covered before your deletion are pertinent to this article. Hopefully others will weigh in on this and provide additional arguments for or against inclusion. Cwobeel (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have re-witten the NJT train equipment section as it specifcally pertains to Christie. I have shifted the light ail station to the Hoboken section, because it specifically relates to the company that wished to develop the site to which Zimmer refers (and has been part of the media coverage regarding the issue).

The same objection applies here as when the content was included in your "Secret light rail section". The fact that it's related to the company that wished to develop the site to which Zimmer refers doesn't make it notable in the context of Zimmer's allegations. It has even less to do with Christie's governorship.CFredkin (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

While the Mass Transit Super Bowl might not be specifically related to Christie there should likely be a section about the Super Bowl: a nationally prominent event which he was involved in securing to bring to the state and a chance for him to shine. After the Fort Lee lane story broke, Christie was booed at an opening ceremony, shunned by stars and politicians at the game itself, and cursed by visitors to the state because of the train mess.Djflem (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

1) The transit issues during the Super Bowl were a result of poor estimates provided by the NFL. What does that have to do with Christie's governorship? 2) It's not clear why some people boo'ed Christie. It could have been due to the Fort Lee lane closure issue. In fact that was what was suggested by most of the media that covered it.CFredkin (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Link to Dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Governorship of Chris Christie Djflem (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Redundant content

The following statement currently appears twice in the article. I'm removing one instance....

On August 18, 2009, Christie acknowledged that he had loaned $46,000 to first assistant U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Michele Brown two years ago, while serving as her superior as the state's U.S. attorney, and that he had failed to report either the loan or its monthly $500 interest payments on both his income tax returns and his mandatory financial disclosure report to the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission.[7][8] In response to the disclosure of the financial relationship between Christie and Brown, State Senator Loretta Weinberg, the Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor, called on Brown to recuse herself from the task of retrieving U.S. Attorney’s Office records requested by the Corzine campaign under the Freedom of Information Act.[9] On August 25, 2009, Brown resigned from her post, stating that she does not want to be "a distraction" for the office.CFredkin (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Y Removed Cwobeel (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Meadowlands/Hoboken rail yard flooding and equipment damage

The loss of train equipment that cost the state lots of money and caused months of hardship for the residents of the state is not a minor event, and as important as the Hurricane Sandy itself. It was a scandal. which received national media attention for weeks during the governorship of Christie. There were call for the removal of the director of NJT, which at first refused to release information until required to do following a lawsuit. When finally released, the Governor himself, not the director of NJT, met with the editorial board of the Bergen Record to defend his appointee and to blame a low level employee for the disaster. In other words the Governor felt it important enough to appear himself to address the issue which had bogged his administration for a year. Djflem (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A lot of important things have happened during the Christie administration, and he may have commented on them, but until there is a source, other than editors, who say that the events were significant to the Christie administration, the material doesn't belong in this article. John2510 (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Where did you get that idea from? The only measure of significance we need is that an event, action, notable opinion, or fact has been reported by reliable sources. Arguing otherwise is in contradiction to editing policies. Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Events not remotely directly connected to Christie are not necessarily relevant to the article here. That is determined by WP:CONSENSUS and it is perfectly reasonable for discussions to be held as to whether or not something belongs in the article. Collect (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep. This is not an article on Chris Christie. This is an article on his governorship, so anything related to his administration, or the authorities under the NJ Governorship is appropriate for inclusion. Cwobeel (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Which clearly does not include "anything remotely connected to any New Jersey news that we can find" - and I disagree that everything he is remotely connected with is pertinent here. If a PA train crashes, that is so far removed from connection to this "administration" as to be ludicrous -- we are expected to use common sense in looking at consensus, and not say "well it is during his administration, and it happened in NJ, therefore we ought to give it lots of weight here." Collect (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Red herring. No one is arguing for inclusion of minutiae. Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:AGF -- a question was asked, I answered and now your best retort is the "Red Herring" bit? Nope -- if a topic is not rationally of significant importance to the article and supported by a consensus then it ought not be in the article. Cheers and please do not try the snarky bit again where I have been clearly giving constructive posts on the topic posed. You said "Anything" when it is clearly up to consensus to determine is any factoid is sufficiently relevant to the article. Collect (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No need to take it personally. Agree that material has to be supported by reliable sources, be relevant/significant, and that if anybody WP:BOLD an addition and it gets reverted, at that time consensus need to be sought. Cwobeel (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have a restored material and added additional refs with quotes. Chris Christie was not personally involved in the decision to leave trains in flood probes areas. He and his administration were directly involved in the cover-up after it: a) by not responding to record-requests until law suits forced them b) making claims that neither Weinstein or his office were aware of train movements leading up to the storm, c) claiming low level NJT transit employee was responsible but who could not be fired because he was a civil servant even though NJT employees are not civil servants. This was certainly a controversy that took place during the Chrsitie governorship/admin (and in which Chris Christie became personally involved). Djflem (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that NJT employees are not "civil servants" or is this just something you know is the truth? I fear you may be too close to the affair to understand why Wikipedia has certain strong policies in force. Meanwhile, I suggest that this is a "contentious edit" for which affirmative consensus is required and I ask you to self-revert pending determination of any such consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

All the claims about them not being "civil service" trace back to relying on the CSC website <g> and nothing else. The NJT employees are members of a union with a strong union contract requiring administrative hearings which may be contested. Christie could not, under the union contract, summarily dismiss anyone at all. The union does not define their employees not under the contract as "at will." Hope this helps a bit. Christie could not fire any employee under that contract. Collect (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are you cherry picking that particular point? Please address the broader picture.Djflem (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Applies to this article. Where there is debate about inclusion of new material, the onus is on those seeking to add the material which has been contested to obtain a consensus before re-adding it. Some appear to have forgotten this rule, but it is one. Cheers -- removed without prejudice as to any future consensus thereon. The comment "edit summary with no explanation as to removal of information" was less than helpful here, especially since it is clear to anyone that there is decidedly a discussion ongoing. Collect (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Three points:

• Here is link to dispute resolution and previous discussion to which John2510 appears to refer in his edit summary. which has clearly been misinterpreted on his part since there not consensus to remove material. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Governorship of Chris Christie
• WP:BLP Does not apply here as this is NOT a biography.
• Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching consensus through editing. Three editors have edited to include material. Any discussion which one editor would like see removed, but has been unable to develop consensus/or gone to dispute resolution to do so.

Claims that there was consensus to remove this material are invalid, as is claim that this article is a biography. Please clarify your reasons for removing material that satisfies Wikipedia:Verifiability.Djflem (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that WP:BLP requires consensus for inclusion of contentious material. The claim that there was "no consensus to remove" is 180 degrees away from policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh and by the way -- WP:BLP applies to all mentions of living persons anywhere at all in Wikipedia. Period. Collect (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you got that completely wrong. This is not an article on Christie as a person. This is an article on the Government of New Jersey, specifically the executive arm. Not a BLP and not even near one. Cwobeel (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And even if you would call this a BLP, the burden of evidence is WP:V, which is fully satisfied in this instance. Cwobeel (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to every single page on Wikipedia without exception -- your parsing that this is "not a BLP" is errant. Collect (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Side Note: The DRN case that was recently filed (seen here) to discuss this article was closed without discussion. Though three participants made opening statements there was no discussion or resolution. One editor chose not to participate and the filing party said the issue was being resolved on the talk page. As a result, I closed the case at DRN without prejudice. If discussion doesn't work out here it can be refiled at DRN or WP:Mediation etc. As a further aside: discussions at noticeboards and DRN etc. are not binding. However, it is generally expected that clear consensus is to be respected in whatever forum it emerges.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC

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

---

[11] is a large edit in an article subject to WP:BLP. Is there a consensus for inclusion of that material? Collect (talk)

• Support inclusion of the material in the diff provided. While there maybe some needed nuances in terms of the summarizing of the sources and their weight in the context of the entire article I see no ground for the wholesale removal of this content. Note: I'm not saying there are any issues with that content. Just saying, that tweaking of the content may be a valid discussion but not the complete removal of it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Note The material basically was present in the past -- this edit added a great deal - I suggest you read the status quo ante before simply saying the material belongs -- some does, and some does not. The intrinsic issue is not, and has never been, "complete rmoval of the material". Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I don't understand how WP:BLP would be pertinent to this material. It has no BLP implications whatsoever. Agree with Keithbob that it might require some tweaking, but that in the main it belongs. BLP applies to situations in which contentious material is unsoruced or poorly sourced. In this instance we're talking about widely publicized actions by public officials. If we are going to invoke BLP in this manner then there would be no contentious material about any public official, and we might as well rename the project Saccharinapedia. Coretheapple (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of added' material The claims are clearly about "living persons" hence, despite arguments that the policy only applies to BLPs, WP:BLP does apply. The status quo ante fully covered the affair. Collect (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• arriving here from BLPN Support -- there's no problem with WP:V here and no coherent rationale for excluding it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Like Keithbob, I do believe the edit contains some problematic wording (esp weasel word "claimed") but should be improved rather that deleted wholesale. Like Nomoskedasticity, I arrived here via BLPN. Cheers. Arbor8 (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion and clean-up. Djflem (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• I am not seeing any evidence of how this is a BLP issue. If it needs trimming due to WP:UNDUE then it could probably be trimmed quite easily.AIRcorn (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It's coatrack material. To the extent this article exists as a coatrack is problematic and material such as this only further detracts from the article by minimizing the broad role of governing to the narrow topic of a BLP, Christie. --DHeyward (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Not so much no the BLP issue as WP:UNDUE. John2510 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Just clean up and tighten a bit. Cwobeel (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Given the relatively tenuous connection to the Christie administration.CFredkin (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:BLP does apply. I think there is an undue weight issue WP:UNDUE. I might support inclusion of this material if it was substantially reduced. JamesRoberts (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - Per John2510 - More a question of what is due rather than a BLP issue. Sandy caused ~30 billion worth of damage in NJ. 100 million worth of damage to the rail system seems like a footnote relating to actual storm itself. It doesn't seem super relevant to Chris Christie's governorship. That said, I do like the material in the diff in question, and it seems like it ought to go somewhere. NickCT (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - But with strong emphasis on significant revision of the material, such as minimizing POV and cutting it down for accessiblity. Floatsam (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

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

discussion

The claim was made that there is a specific consensus here for inclusion of this large edit. I have not found such a consensus, and suggest that if there is one, that it be included, and that if there is no consensus for inclusion, that it be excluded per WP:BLP. [12] shows the status quo ante,which was a much shorter version of this edit which did not make claims which would be contentious per WP:BLP and, I suggest, does not furnish "consensus" for the much larger edit, and for which I find no evidence of "consensus" at all. I further suggest that this edit be deemed "contentious" for its claims about living persons. Collect (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing contentious about that material. These are facts related to the subject of this article. reported by reliable sources. As for consensus, we ought to look for consensus on why to delete well sourced and relevant material, and not the other way around. Cwobeel (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Three editors have determined that there is consensus for inclusion of the material (thru additions, edits, and reverts). Please explain why you do do not believe so. Please explain the claim that it is contentious. Djflem (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There appear to be more than three editors around in this world -- why do you feel that three editors is sufficient to assert a strong consensus? I note the DR/N discussion said absolutely nothing at all about any "consensus" whatsoever, so we can drop that bit. Do you honestly feel three editors can override Wikipedia policies, for example? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, Wikipedia generally considers that of editors deem a edit or claim to be "contentious" that it is "contentious." Dictionaries generally aver that if something can cause an "argument" that it is "contentious". Your deeming that a claim is only contentious if you find it so, is not supportable. At this point, I suggest the edit is, indeed, contentious both by dictionary usage and definition, and by Wikipedia usage. Collect (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This was talked to death a while back, which is what led Cwobeel to claim a WP:NPV violation and submit if for DR. He's apparently now decided, along with Djflem, to declare the DR "resolved" and edit war instead.

While WP:BLP may be a good reason to exclude this material, I think an even more compelling reason is that it has very little connection to the Christie governorship. If that were just my opinion, that would be one thing - but I think we need to look at the sources. None of the sources discuss the issues in terms of being scandals or controversies for the governorship. Those who have supported inclusion of the material decline to address that, and instead merely argue that THEY think it's signficant. Maybe we should leave it in, and change the topic heading to, "Random things that Happened During the Christie Administration that Mention Him." John2510 (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Of the four editors who have commented on the material, three have found that it is appropriate for inclusion. One, User:John2510, has removed material but has offered no explanation though he appears to be referring to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 89#Governorship of Chris Christie, you will note, was closed. (It is old news and has been addressed). He gives no rationale for his action making less than constructive edits with vague summaries and allusions to the past DR, and or to a future DR, which he has yet to initiate. He has not engaged in a discussion of the merit of the material on the talk page, thus adding nothing of substance. The remaining three, myself included, have reached consensus through editing, as can be see in the history. Up until a minute ago, there is no argument/debate here, unless you are suggesting that a tenditious editing style warrants calling something contentious. Djflem (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a single true statement in your post? I can't find one. John2510 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I count three editors who have specifically, by their edits, indicated they do not believe there is a consensus for inclusion of the large edit. Collect (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I could argue the same: there are a few editors that don't believe there is a consensus for deletion of the large edit. If there is no consensus, we can file a WP:DR unless we can come to an agreement. Cwobeel (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If the edit is subject to WP:BLP,policy requires a consensus for' inclusion -- the onus is on those seeking to add the material to any article subject to WP:BLP. This is policy. Collect (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no question that BLP applies to all pages, but that's not really the question. The issue is whether there is a BLP violation here. Can you please explain how BLP is violated? Coretheapple (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The edit states that Christie "claimed" the person was a low-level employee, then proceeds to infer that the Christie had the authority to fire such an employee, and that Christie had the right to publicly name the employee. Yet it the person was an employee of NJT, Christie would never have had the right to fire such an employee, or to legally name him, as that would fall under the NJT which is not under Christie's personal control by statute in any event. A claim that managers within NJT knew of "fleet movements" is irrelevant as there is no conceivable that we can state that Christie knew or had anything whatsoever to do with the "fleet movements". Nor is there any reason to infer that Christie in any way had anything to do with flood plans for NJT in the first place. Thus the insertion of Christie in such a manner into a matter in which he had no voice nor control is violative of WP:BLP on its face. For a start. Collect (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh Lordie. That's your BLP claim? That's your original analysis of the events in question. Sorry, not even remotely close to being a BLP issue. Totally not. Completely not. Emphatically not. Coretheapple (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If it has nothing to do with the "Governorship of Christie" (and it's not obvious what the connection is), then including this material is using the article as a WP:COATRACK. What connects this to Christie in an unambiguous, widely accepted manner? The burden is on the including editor to establish it without synthesis of disjointed sources. --DHeyward (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You've placed this under "Administration Scandals and Controversies." Can you identify a single source that characterizes this as a scandal or controversy of the administration? You haven't to date. Do you acknowledge this is solely your personal opinion? John2510 (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Please take advantage of the fact that on this talk page there are numerous referenced articles which have been provided for the perusal of any one willing to do their homework. Djflem (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I actually haven't edited this article at all. I happened on this article as it was mentioned in a related article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Then the word "claimed" can be changed to "said"?
• “It was a lower-level manager that made the decision on the cars … where they were placed,” the governor told The Record’s editorial board. “It was not vetted up the chain as it was supposed to be vetted up the chain. Mr. Weinstein handled it internally because he’s a civil service employee, and you can’t just fire the person. He was demoted as a result of that decision, and that’s what we could do,” Christie said. “There’s certain people, when you’re governor, that you can fire, and there’s certain people that the law does not permit you to do that to.” (Rouse, Karen (October 3, 2013). "Christie says NJ Transit chief wasn't to blame for loss of rail equipment during Superstorm Sandy". The Record.)

As reported in The Record on January 24, 2014 when announcing hearings to investigate the Sandy train damage and overcrowding and delays at Super Bowl, New Jersey State Senator Robert M. Gordon:

Gordon said he heard about the explanation Christie offered to The Record last year: that a rogue, low-level employee moved the equipment to the yards on his own, without telling NJ Transit Executive Director Jim Weinstein. That explanation, Gordon said, has been “unsatisfactory.” The governor’s explanation also conflicts with the explanation Weinstein had been giving to the public and to legislators in the year since Sandy. Rouse, Karen (January 24, 2014). "Hearings loom on NJ Transit's Superstorm Sandy plan for fleet". The Record.

Djflem (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

NJT section as of 31 March and 7 April

Before the great expansion, the section on NJT read as:

New Jersey Transit

Hurricane Sandy equipment damage

Hurricane Sandy, which made landfall on October 29, 2012, caused a 13-foot tidal surge that inundated many coastal areas including the Jersey Shore, the Hudson Waterfront, and the Meadowlands. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJT) suffered $120 million in damage for 261 train cars and 62 locomotives left at rail yards at Hoboken Terminal and the Meadows Maintenance Complex in the Kearny Meadows. The executive director of NJT, James Weinstein defended the decision to leave trains in rail yards that ended up under water saying those locations had no history of flooding. and that no one could have predicted the extent of the storm surges. "We stored it where it should be. Unfortunately, it’s the worst storm we’ve ever had in New Jersey."[94] In December Weinstein conceded that information to the contrary had been available to the agency, but that he had not studied a report which indicated the potential danger. Weinstein said: "That study concluded that we had as much as 20 years to adapt to the [climate] changes that are taking place.” He also said that NJT used weather reports showing there was a 10 to 20 percent chance of flooding in the yards.[95] The newspaper The Record conducted an investigation in collaboration with WNYC/New Jersey Public Radio which concluded that the agency had misread meteorological information available to them.[96] [97] A report released in December 2013 by Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service confirmed that NJT ignored flood warnings and did not follow its own damage mitigation plans.[98][99][100]

Which is substantially different from the edit inquestion. Collect (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And here is the current edit with the so called "great expansion"

Hurricane Sandy, which made landfall on October 29, 2012, caused a 13-foot tidal surge that inundated many coastal areas including the Jersey Shore, the Hudson Waterfront, and the Meadowlands. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJT) suffered $120 million in damage for 261 train cars and 62 locomotives left at rail yards at Hoboken Terminal and the Meadows Maintenance Complex in the Kearny Meadows. The executive director of NJT, James Weinstein defended the decision to leave trains in rail yards that ended up under water saying those locations had no history of flooding. and that no one could have predicted the extent of the storm surges. "We stored it where it should be. Unfortunately, it’s the worst storm we’ve ever had in New Jersey."[78] In December Weinstein conceded that information to the contrary had been available to the agency, but that he had not studied a report which indicated the potential danger. Weinstein said: "That study concluded that we had as much as 20 years to adapt to the [climate] changes that are taking place.” He also said that NJT used weather reports showing there was a 10 to 20 percent chance of flooding in the yards.[79] The newspaper The Record conducted an investigation in collaboration with WNYC/New Jersey Public Radio which concluded that the agency had misread meteorological information available to them.[80] [81] Approximatey a year after the storm Christie spoke with editorial board of the newspaper and claimed that responsibility lay with a low-level employee who operated without his superiors consent, claiming that it a was civil service employee. Neither he nor NJT would release information as to whom that employee was. He defended Weinstein.[82][83] According to the Record, "a review of emails obtained through a public records request shows that in contrast to Christie’s remarks, at least 15 agency executives and managers, were aware of fleet movements into low-lying areas in the days" before the storm.[84] A report released in December 2013 by Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service confirmed that NJT ignored flood warnings and did not follow its own damage mitigation plans.[85][86][87] scheduled to review the events, most of those involved has subsequently retired. [88] [89].

And if you read the additions, these are notable facts that ought to be included to provide a full picture of these events and their aftermath. Cwobeel (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. the "fact" is that rumour and allegation are added to what should be a fact based article. I am still amused by the fact that a newspaper "investigation" I suspect the Mantro "report" took a lot more work, for sure) is treated as determinative "fact" but that silly claim has been in for a while. The fact that quite likely it would be illegal to post an employee's name who is under a union contract is interesting -- I assure you than employers generally do not release employee names as the contract requires internal investigation first (law cases about NJTPD employees who challenged the process). BTW, NJT is in court frequently over workplace issues, including one where they think a train worker should not be on marijuana, -- they are as valid here as the flood issues. And the salient fact is that Christie does not have authority to fire any employee who is not an 'at will' employee. Collect (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• In keeping with talk pages, please remember that "this is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

NJTransit hiring policy is not at issue here; nor is a lawyer's report on an unrelated matter. What is of relevance is what Christie said as to who was to blame and how the story changed from October 2012 to October 2013. The whole "civil servant" thing could be minimalized or scrapped altogether, but if someone thinks that it's an important aspect the quote could be used:

“It was a lower-level manager that made the decision on the cars … where they were placed,” the governor told The Record’s editorial board. “It was not vetted up the chain as it was supposed to be vetted up the chain. Mr. Weinstein handled it internally because he’s a civil service employee, and you can’t just fire the person. He was demoted as a result of that decision, and that’s what we could do,” Christie said. “There’s certain people, when you’re governor, that you can fire, and there’s certain people that the law does not permit you to do that to.” (Rouse, Karen (October 3, 2013). "Christie says NJ Transit chief wasn't to blame for loss of rail equipment during Superstorm Sandy". The Record.)

The salient facts are

• Trains left in flood zone
• At US Senate hearing, NJT director justifies 10-20% risk despite weather predictions and flood maps
• The Record requests copy of flood plan and receives totally redacted copy
• After litigation, The Record eventually receives 3.5 page flood plan
• Becomes apparent that NJT own flood plan was not followed
• State assembly asks for answers
• Chris blames the fiasco on low-level employee
• Review of internal emails reveals that the NJT director, high-level employees, and the governor's office (at their own request) were kept abreast of all train movements
• Legislative investigations announced
• NJT director and other staff resign
• Hearings of feb 24 & mar 9 not attended by NJT

In a nutshell: Rouse, Karen (January 24, 2014). "Hearings loom on NJ Transit's Superstorm Sandy plan for fleet". The Record.

As suggested by KeithBob (editor closing the DR) in RfC, the material should be tweaked.Djflem (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and support keeping that text with the suggested tweaks. Cwobeel (talk)

I disapprove of the tweaks as making contentious claims about specific living people, thus falling under WP:BLP which des not only apply to "biographies." Collect (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• In order to move this forward and respond to your concerns, can you be specific about what tweaks are you talking about since none have been proposed and be specific about what contentious claims about specific living people are you talking about since none have been made? Djflem (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia terminology any edit about anything is a "claim" or a "cite" pretty much. A "contentious claim" is any edit which is contested by any other editor, no matter how sure you are it is the WP:TRUTH. Any claim about any living person is subject to WP:BLP no matter what page in Wikipedia it is made on.

claimed that responsibility lay with a low-level employee who operated without his superiors consent, claiming that it a was civil service employee. Neither he nor NJT would release information as to whom that employee was. He defended Weinstein

is clearly about living people, and the wording is clearly such that it is "contentious" as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Just about every article on Wikipedia is about living people, but you seem to be manufacturing a BLP issue where none exists. I've raised this issue on the BLP Noticeboard so perhaps we'll get more eyes on this. I have to say that I just do not see anything about this addition that applies even remotely to BLP. No one is being slandered. This is a widely reported issue of great public importance, involving the actions of public officials in the course of their duties. Sure, the people involved are alive; they are not zombies or Dracula. But we're discussing here routine and, I daresay, not even especially controversial material about public officials that has been widely reported in mainstream news operations, not in tittle-tattle slander sheets or tabloids. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Widely covered? Really? [13] no relevant hits at all. [14] none. The NYT articles quoted Christie as saying that he could not manage every minute detail of NJT operations - which is rational, I suspect. The NYT did not make a big deal over whether Christie should "fire" NJT employees. So where is the national coverage of the local story you use? If it only got fairly local coverage, it is not important enough for you to insist on its inclusion here. Was Christie implicated in the snafu? Not really at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with your BLP claim? Coretheapple (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And what do the references you've provided have to do with this article? Djflem (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The newspaper The Record conducted an investigation in collaboration with WNYC/New Jersey Public Radio which concluded that the agency had misread meteorological information available to them is not particularly relevant to the section-- it is sourced to the paper making the "investigation" and is at best marginally relevant.

Approximatey a year after the storm Christie spoke with editorial board of the newspaper and claimed that responsibility lay with a low-level employee who operated without his superiors consent, claiming that it a was civil service employee. Neither he nor NJT would release information as to whom that employee was. should be (at best) A year later, Christie in an interview said the person responsible was a low level employee of NJT whom he could not fire, but who has since been demoted. This is neutral language and avoids the implication hat he deliberately withheld information from the public, and the side issue of whether he could "fire" an employee of a corporation not under his direct personal control.

According to the Record, "a review of emails obtained through a public records request shows that in contrast to Christie’s remarks, at least 15 agency executives and managers, were aware of fleet movements into low-lying areas in the days" before the storm is directly aimed at implying that Christie lied, and is simply improper here.

A report released in December 2013 by Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service confirmed that NJT ignored flood warnings and did not follow its own damage mitigation plans is of minimal relevance to anyone but Monday morning quarterbacks - it adds nothingto the gist of the section.

While meetings have been scheduled to review the events, most of those involved has subsequently retired. means just what, precisely, here? I think this covers the main problems, including some clear BLP issues. Collect (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a writing problem, not a BLP problem. Too many details, confusing, dense. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It's only a writing problem if the BLP problems can be removed. For example, "in contrast to Christies remarks" is POV and subjective. It doesn't appear on it's face to be in contrast at all as it has nothing to do with who ordered the moves. This is often the case where emails are informative rather than directive. I doubt Christie knows every detail of NJT's damage mitigation plan nor should he. Getting reports of movements of equipment would be pretty routine in an emergency situation and not second-guessed by politicians. --DHeyward (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That sentence, "in contrast to Christies remarks" is a quotation. Certainly that paragraph can be re-written differently, omit the quotation and summarize the opinion accordingly. I will give it a shot. Cwobeel (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Would this work? [15]. Cwobeel (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is the number of people who could have seen emails important in this article? How "aware" were they, and what difference can it make to the reader? And why is the "investigation" pertinent to the section - did they interview people who said they "misread" anything - or is it possible that they simply weighed the factors differently from people with 20/20 hindsight? Why not simply excise the material I suggest be excised as not being of use to Wikipedia readers? Collect (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

We provide facts and opinions based on reliable sources to our readers, without making or reaching any conclusions for them. That is at the essence of NPOV. Cwobeel (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

We provide facts and notable opinions ... in accordance with other factors and policies as well. the problem is that once you rewrite neutrally, it no longer has any connection to the "Governorship of Chris Christie." This is how we spot WP:COATRACK articles. Listing every tragedy and rescue during Sandy is tangential to the overall topic. The NJT stuff is written to cast a shadow, not enlighten readers with facts. What part of governing is a low level employees handling of vehicles? Surely we don't write about Obama's secret service limousine breaking down or running out of gas in his "Administration" article regardless of how many senior aides read the memo. We don't hold him accountable for such things. It's not relevant and it would rightly be seen as an attempt to "hang a coat" that simply doesn't belong. --DHeyward (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is what Christie said:

“It was a lower-level manager that made the decision on the cars … where they were placed,” the governor told The Record’s editorial board. “It was not vetted up the chain as it was supposed to be vetted up the chain. Mr. Weinstein handled it internally because he’s a civil service employee, and you can’t just fire the person. He was demoted as a result of that decision, and that’s what we could do,” Christie said. “There’s certain people, when you’re governor, that you can fire, and there’s certain people that the law does not permit you to do that to.” (Rouse, Karen (October 3, 2013). "Christie says NJ Transit chief wasn't to blame for loss of rail equipment during Superstorm Sandy". The Record.)

• The pending legislative investigation, which has twice been cancelled since the resignation of Christie appointee Weinstein and other NJT staff intended to learn what happened that will address the incongruity of the governor's statements and that of NJT's now former director.

New Jersey State Senator Robert M. Gordon: "said he heard about the explanation Christie offered to The Record last year: that a rogue, low-level employee moved the equipment to the yards on his own, without telling NJ Transit Executive Director Jim Weinstein. That explanation, Gordon said, has been “unsatisfactory.” The governor’s explanation also conflicts with the explanation Weinstein had been giving to the public and to legislators in the year since Sandy." Rouse, Karen (January 24, 2014). "Hearings loom on NJ Transit's Superstorm Sandy plan for fleet". The Record.

Christie has made statement and there will legislative investigative into its veracity.Djflem (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

In that case, this material can and should be included in this article as it pertains directly to Christie as governor. Cwobeel (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be edited this way:

Hurricane Sandy, which made landfall on October 29, 2012, caused a 13-foot tidal surge that inundated many coastal areas including the Jersey Shore, the Hudson Waterfront, and the Meadowlands. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJT) suffered $120 million in damage for 261 train cars and 62 locomotives left at rail yards at Hoboken Terminal and the Meadows Maintenance Complex in the Kearny Meadows. The executive director of NJT, James Weinstein defended the decision to leave trains in rail yards that ended up under water saying those locations had no history of flooding. and that no one could have predicted the extent of the storm surges. "We stored it where it should be. Unfortunately, it’s the worst storm we’ve ever had in New Jersey."[78] In December Weinstein conceded that information to the contrary had been available to the agency, but that he had not studied a report which indicated the potential danger. Weinstein said: "That study concluded that we had as much as 20 years to adapt to the [climate] changes that are taking place.” He also said that NJT used weather reports showing there was a 10 to 20 percent chance of flooding in the yards.[79] The newspaper The Record conducted an investigation in collaboration with WNYC/New Jersey Public Radio which concluded that the agency had misread meteorological information available to them.[80] [81] Approximatey a year after the storm Christie spoke with editorial board of the newspaper and claimed that responsibility lay with a low-level employee who operated without his superiors consent, claiming that it a was civil service employee. Neither he nor NJT would release information as to whom that employee was. He defended Weinstein.[82][83] According to the Record, who reviewed emails obtained through a public records request, at least fifteen agency executives and managers, were aware of fleet movements into low-lying areas in the days" before the storm.[84] A report released in December 2013 by Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service confirmed that NJT ignored flood warnings and did not follow its own damage mitigation plans.[85][86][87] While meetings have been scheduled to review the events, most of those involved has subsequently retired. [88] .[89]

If the controversy is mentioned in a fuller fashion elsewhere, that can be linked. Meanwhile, would this cut be acceptable or is it excessive? Coretheapple (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, admirable effort, which I support. Thank you! Cwobeel (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be great, if we were talking about inclusion on the NJT article, but where do the sources describe this as a scandal or controversy of the Christie administration? They don't. It doesn't belong here. John2510 (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

He is another more concise version which also includes facts not mentioned in this discussion:

Hurricane Sandy, which made landfall on October 29, 2012, caused a 13-foot tidal surge that inundated many coastal areas. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJT) suffered $120 million in damage for 261 train cars and 62 locomotives left at rail yards at Hoboken Terminal and the Meadows Maintenance Complex in the Kearny Meadows. The executive director of NJT, James Weinstein, while conceding that predications showed a 10 to 20 percent chance of flooding in the yards, defended the decision to store trains that ended up under water in them saying those locations had no history of flooding and that no one could have predicted the extent of the storm surges. The newspaper The Record in collaboration with WNYC/New Jersey Public Radio conducted an investigation and in August 2013 after a court ruling ordered its release acquired the agency's flood plan. The plan had not been followed. In October 2013 Christie spoke with the editorial board of the newspaper and claimed that responsibility lay with a low-level civil service employee who operated without his superiors consent. Neither his office nor NJT would comment further on the explanation. Emails obtained through a public records request by The Record show that at least fifteen agency executives and managers as well as members of the governor's staff were aware of fleet movements into low-lying areas in the days before the storm. In January 2014 it was announced that a legislation inquiry into the matter would be held. Weinstein resigned in February 2014. The two hearings that had been scheduled were not attended by NJT whose new director has requested more time to review the matter.

Djflem (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• There's something that I don't understand. Some people have objected to this being listed under 'scandals.' So why not move it to the 'Superstorm Sandy' section higher in the page? Would anyone object to that? It's clearly germane to that section, and might solve the concerns that have been raised. Coretheapple (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That would make sense, and would eliminate that argument. The connection to the storm doesn't necessarily mean that it belongs anywhere on this page (and I don't think it does), but it certainly shouldn't be characterized as an administration "scandal" when no sources have called it such. John2510 (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

1) The section header is scandals and controversies and 2) because hearings concern: "Information on any personnel that were disciplined. Governor Christie told The Record’s editorial board last year that a low-level worker was responsible for moving the rail cars to the low-lying, flood-prone rail yards in Hoboken and Kearny. He claimed the worker was a civil servant who could not be fired. However, NJ Transit has never been a civil service agency, and no one at NJ Transit has backed the governor’s claim about a low-level worker." (Rouse, Karen (February 5, 2014). "NJ Transit hearings on Sandy to expand; Super Bowl, website also are issues". Retrieved 2014-08-10.)

That (sort of) explains why YOU think it should be a scandal of the administration. However, there are no sources that describe it as such. John2510 (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

New Jersey State Senator Robert M. Gordon: "said he heard about the explanation Christie offered to The Record last year: that a rogue, low-level employee moved the equipment to the yards on his own, without telling NJ Transit Executive Director Jim Weinstein. That explanation, Gordon said, has been “unsatisfactory.” The governor’s explanation also conflicts with the explanation Weinstein had been giving to the public and to legislators in the year since Sandy." Rouse, Karen (January 24, 2014). "Hearings loom on NJ Transit's Superstorm Sandy plan for fleet". The Record. Djflem (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

In March 2014, The Record reported that "North Jersey Media Group was successful this week in another public records request case. In a lawsuit filed by the company against NJ Transit that sought emails between NJ Transit officials tied to Superstorm Sandy, a judge ordered the release of some of the redacted emails and awarded attorney fees to the company. NJ Transit had failed to produce approximately 800 pages of emails that were responsive to the request.(Sudol, Karen (March 29, 2014). "Christie's office rejects The Record's request for GWB documents". The Record. Retrieved 2014-04-28.)

Framing of this is RFP is faulty

The framing of this RFP is "is there consensus for inclusion?" - But actually, the framing should be "is there a consensus for exclusion?" Cwobeel (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's proper if the heart of the matter is in any way pointing at integrity of a living person. Anything implying deception or impropriety or crimes requires conformity to BLP policy. Currently, this content has been challenged and the burden is not on exclusion. --DHeyward (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So far the RfC is definitively finding there is no BLP issue. Coretheapple (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

At this point (and it's been a while), the majority of the responders oppose inclusion of the material. Meanwhile: 1) no source has been offered that identifies this material as an administration scandal or controversy; and 2) no explanation has been offered as to why this is signficant enough for inclusion here, when it doesn't even get signficant coverage in the NJT article. John2510 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Your assessment is incorrect. There are no BLP issues and that content should stay. Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My assessment is only that the majority of the responders opposed inclusion (on whatever ground). John2510 (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Although it is not a vote, there are 6 support, 5 oppose and one weak oppose. Cwobeel (talk)

Interesting-- I count only 6 bolded support !votes and 6 clear opposes , but one of the "supports" said that he does not specifically support the entire addition (using the word "tweaking" and basing his position on opposing a "wholesale remove" of content) - and since a consensus is required for inclusion, this appears not to have a consensus for inclusion at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No consensus for deletion either, and as this issue is non BLP related as per the comments, there is no consensus either way, which means WP:DR Cwobeel (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you have a problem with my edit? Collect (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, looks good! Thanks, Collect. Cwobeel (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I moved it under "Hurricane Sandy Controversies" (title tweaked), where I think it belongs. It appears to have been trimmed from its previous length. Coretheapple (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

NJT/Sandy Proposal

There remains no consensus for inclusion of this material at all, but I have a proposal that may be a workable compromise. I've made this edit [16], which keeps the material entirely intact, but consolidates it with the other coverage of the administration's handling of Sandy. The previous version had two separate and distinct portions on the administration's handling of the storm, which really didn't make sense regardless of your POV. While, like many others, I still think the whole treatment is undue weight in this context, this removes it from the category of "controversies and scandals" - which isn't a characterization given to it by any source, and places is properly in with discussions of their handling of natural disasters, which is was. Readers can make of the sourced coverage what they will.John2510 (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Good effort, but don't agree. If there are controversies and scandals these can be categorized as such. Cwobeel (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Are they? Got a source that says they are? We can take the materials out until a consensus can be reached on a way to include them, if you prefer. Up to you. John2510 (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with putting it under a neutral header, unless of course there is reliable sourcing out there that refers to these as controversies or some synonym thereof. I have to say, I find it hard to believe that they haven't been classed as controversies! But for the time being, let's let it stay at this for now. Coretheapple (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the reversions back and forth re placement. The main thing is to keep this material in the article. Where it goes is secondary. Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we can assume that there is consensus to keep the version before John2510's attempt at compromise. John2510: Please see WP:BRD, and don't revert back. Cwobeel (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus for inclusion in the first place. If it's reverted back, I'll delete it. I suggest we reach a compromise on this. John2510 (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be some dispute as to whether the New Jersey Transit Equipment Damage material belongs under controversies. However, as I examine the edits here, I notice that other text concerning affairs that were clearly controversies - the Zimmer allegations re Sandy funds and the housing funds distribution disparity - were taken out of "controversies" as well. That is not warranted so I'm putting it back. The dispute concerns only the transit equipment flooding damage. Coretheapple (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Your threat above is tendentious editing. Why the refusal to accept the consensus that has evolved in the extensive discussion? Numerous editors, at least three here, have agreed that the material is correctly placed. If you have a problem then bring it to a DR.Djflem (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it should be placed under "controversies." I put it under "Handling of Hurricane Sandy" as a compromise, but I agree that the rationale for putting it under "controversies" is strong. Coretheapple (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree to revert back to the original version. Cwobeel (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Accusing me of tendentious editing is the pot calling the kettle black. Cwobeel pulled this from DR the moment he found another editor to agree with him and started edit warring along with you. I was perfectly happy to go with the DR, and stated as much. I participated in the DR and it proved to be a waste of my time. When put to the test - there was never a consensus for this material, or even a one-vote lead on including it. There remains no source that has identified this as a controversy/scandal of the administration, let alone a scandal of significance to warrant its placement here. No arguments have been offered to counter that point - only strident insistence on including it, followed by edit warring. John2510 (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

There was a substantial trimming of the section, which cured the supposed BLP issue. Therefore, that RfC can't really be cited as a reason to exclude entirely a section that is significant and belongs in the article. The only question seems to be where. Are you contending this isn't a controversy? Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The RfC was seeking a consensus as to inclusion of the material, which was not reached. What I'm contending is that the materials don't consitute a controversy on the level of affecting the admintistration. More importantly, no source says that it does. What color to paint the office of an agency director may be a "controversy" and "relate to the administration," but it isn't encyclopedic. That this is a "controversy and scandal" of the administration is purely a product of a small minority of editors (and not of any source). Why does it matter that this be characterized as a controversy (especially given the lack of supporting sources), other than to exagerate its importance in a disparaging way? Again, it shouldn't be here at all, much less exagerating its significance in unsourced ways. You'll note that there has been no responsive discussion on this, merely edit warring. John2510 (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

But you see, that's my point. The RfC hinged on BLP concerns. That's no longer an issue. I think the issue here is whether this is a controversy. Now I recommended that it go into the Sandy section, not the controversy section, not because I don't believe it's a controversy (which it plainly is) but just to satisfy your objections. But I was reverted. It's hard to argue with the logic that this was a controversy as on its face it plainly is as much of a controversy as anything else in the controversies section. It's been cut, and perhaps it can be cut further. Coretheapple (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

In light of the RfC responses, moving the Transit Equipment Damage section to the Sandy section seems like a reasonable compromise here.CFredkin (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, perhaps we can now focus on where this should go, and just leave it where it at present. My feeling is under "controversies". Coretheapple (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

We seem to have a different view of the term "compromise." There was never a consensus for inclusion at all. The offered compromise is fairly extreme: Complete inclusion, with only a question of placing it in a neutral location, versus placing it in a characterization that has absolutely no supporting sources (only the opinions of editors). John2510 (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Have eliminated troublesome sub header title to make more neutral and restored material to it (since it certainly is an investigation).Djflem (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I could live with that as a compromise. John2510 (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That's better. "Scandal" is a POV term anyway, and unnecessary. Coretheapple (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)