Talk:Jon Corzine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Info box and succession box

We've got a potential edit war about how to refelct his status as Governor elect in the info box and succession box. We're having a similar problem with Tim Kaine. Can we discuss here and reach consensus rather than changing back and forth? TMS63112 21:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

I'm sure this issue has been worked out before, but it only seems logical to use succession when that person takes office. I believe that's the standard we used for Christine Gregoire and Dino Rossi during their incredibly close race in 2004. I think a succession footnote explaining what will be happening is totally reasonable. Velvetsmog 21:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
But isn't it presuming too much, that Codey will complete the term, and that Corzine will be alive to assume the Governorship? Look at what happend in Florida ,it was assumed Jeb Bush would succeed Lawton Chiles as governor. Chiles died (Dec.98) before Bush's inauguration (Jan.99) ,making Buddy MacKay the successoer to Chiles not Bush Mightberight/wrong 22:36, 9 November 2005.
I think we're in agreement here. Succession box should be for current state of the world, footnotes for any special notes, including the 99% common case for succession between elections. Velvetsmog 23:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I wish good health to the retiring Governors & the Governors-Elect of New Jersey & Virginia. Mightberight/wrong 0:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carla Katz

Someone keeps adding, in the section of Marriage and Divorce, a statement that Jon Corzine "got Carla Katz pregnant than forced her to have an abortion." This is, of course, a variant on a vicious, unproven rumor launched against Senator Corzine. If you have proof about this, show it. Since you don't, stop adding it.

I completely agree... It's starting to get very annoying. Either prove your comments or stop adding/vandalizing... fdewaele

[edit] Title of Acting Governor

Donald DiFrancesco and Richard Codey are now officially titled Governor, rather than Acting Governor. [1] —chair lunch dinner™ (talk)

True, thus Corzine will be the 54th Governor of New Jersey rather than the 52nd. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:12, Jan. 14, 2006
Are you sure about the numbering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aronk (talk • contribs) 13:56, Jan 14, 2006 (UTC)
This press release confirms it. —chair lunch dinner™ (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acts section and cuts

I moved the paragraph around a bit [2] moving the cut to the Governor's School of New Jersey to the end of the paragraph and removing "one of his most controversial cuts..." that came before it. The reason is because I think most New Jersey residents would agree that his most "controversial" part of his budget has been to raise the sales tax and with regards to cuts there are several cuts to unique programs which have been considered "controversial" and I do not see what is different about this program.--Jersey Devil 10:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seriousness of the surgery

The breaks are major and pose more risk of death than for hip replaecment where people his age sometimes die. That's the reason Codey asked for prayers. While doctors publicly say they expect him to recover, they also stress how difficult and long it would be. They are downplaying the risk of death in the ensuing surgeries. Please have a doctor or med student with expertise give a cite or referenced idea as to how serious the injuries reported typically are. Thanks. Chivista 20:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Corzinewatch" ?

Do we need that? I'm wary of PoV blogSPAM showing up here, especially with the recent budget buissiness... 68.39.174.238 01:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it.--Jersey Devil 22:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion, infobox

Isn't he a Methodist? Also, what template can we use to reflect his Senate service as well? Biruitorul 02:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Confab"

I am deleting my own entry since I am slighty deranged adult whose behavior would fit nicely in a second grade class. Besides, doesn't "I'm a loser" have a nice ring to it ?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.197.130.151 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Car accident

NBC has just reported his leg was broken and it was a hit-and-run. I'm searching for links now.71.175.17.80 23:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


MSNBC is reporting that Don Imus is at the Governor's mansion for a meeting with the Rugters University girls. Interesting this happens tonight. Wonder if that can be entered into the article somehow.ChaseS08 23:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


The Car accident is listed twice in the article, with the second mentioning containing more depth. Someone should clean this up (I would if I had the time). Tvh2k 14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I originally moved the paragraph from the lead, and put it to its own section so it would be expanded. I guess nobody saw it, and created their own. Sorry, I am on my way out and cannot do a merge myself. —Zachary talk 15:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I not technically proficient so hopefully someone will understand what merge means. Chivista 15:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Assassination Attempt? Come now, I guess whoever wrote that never tried driving on the NJ turnpike. -cplradar still having log in problems.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a newspaper. While it's appropriate to include recent and current events in it when applicable, I think that the section on the accident is inappropriately large and contains features that are really not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I am going to scale it back a little by deleting some material, please feel free to scale it back more. Personally, I think that it would not benefit the article most to delete almost all the material and wait for events to unfold. Details like the particular hospital, doctors name, etc. I think are going way too far. Cazort 16:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] News paper reports that driver was getting email while driving

The stories say that the trooper was involved in a sexual affair with the wife of the emailer. Chivista 01:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't possibly believe that both of the vehicle's front seat occupants had major lapses of reason when prioritizing their respective activities! But then again, what an inspring a story this may yet turn out to be! Just picture it...
The state trooper was busy dealing with pictures on his cell phone sent by the husband of the woman with whom he was having an affair while driving 90+ MPH on the interstate at the probable behest of the Governor, who, although not wearing a seatbelt, was in an incredible hurry to get to an important political summit where he was to host a dispute between a talkshow host and a basketball team.
I'm glad both our elected officials and our public safety personnel take their positions so seriously and exercise such demonstrably sound judgment, even when it comes down to the little things like prioritizing the activities of the state's highest officeholder or protecting the safety of families with children who are traveling on the state's roadways. I sleep well at night knowing there are people of such caliber within our government who truly have the best interests of the public in their hearts! But I digress...
Information about the driver's alleged use of (and alleged reason for the use of) a mobile phone immediately prior to the crash probably ought to be added to the article (at least eventually, if not right now). Incidentally, is it illegal in New Jersey to use a "non-hands-free" mobile phone while driving? -Grammaticus Repairo 05:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

-So let me get this straight. The speed limit is 65, and even considering that in reality the flow of traffic would have been around 75, what in gods name was the trooper doing going even 15 over that WITH emergency flashing lights on?? It all just dosent make sense to me, and sounds like we are really missing bits and pieces of information. If traffic is moving at ~75 and he was cutting these cars off at ~90 with emergency lights on, (in a 2 lane section of the parkway as well) how could the trooper not be entirely at fault here?.. Any word on him even getting ticketed??

[edit] Residence Hoboken

Thanks for the reference! Chivista 18:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Chicago?

Why is this article a part of Wikiproject Chicago? Does the fact that he obtained a degree from the University of Chicago (and once worked in a Chicago bank) make him worthy of inclusion? This does not make sense to me... -Grammaticus Repairo 20:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This person is of extreme importance to select Chicagoans. More precisely, he is an extremely important member of the University of Chicago alumni network. Probably, most students in the business school, law school public policy school probably aspire to one of his current or past roles. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Special pleading. None of the actual phrasing below would include every successful UChicago alumnus, which would be required to include Corzine. Please remove this tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Having attended college in a city is not sufficient in and of itself to demonstrate a connection between th individual and that city. I was baffled when the WikiProject Chicago tag popped up here and I still see no reason that it should be retained. Alansohn 01:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The arguments for including Jon Corzine in this project, as presented by Tony the Tiger, are simply absurd:

"This person is of extreme importance to select Chicagoans."

So are Socrates, Anna Nicole Smith, and Ernie the Keebler Elf. Given the population of the greater Chicago area, I'd imagine that damn near everyone with a wikipedia entry is "of extreme importance" to some "select Chicagoan".

"More precisely, he is an extremely important member of the University of Chicago alumni network."

Says whom and using what criteria? Do you have a valid source for this claim?

"Probably, most students in the business school, law school public [, and/or] policy school probably aspire to one of his current or past roles."

Aside from the sheer absurdity of this claim, the sentence contains the modifier "probably" (twice), essentially rendering everything within the phrase completely meaningless. And if there's a survey out there that substantiates this claim, I'd like to see it. Unless a valid reason is provided for keeping this page marked as within the scope of your wikiproject, I'm quite sure the tag will continue to be removed. Incidentally, I suspect the 'Priority Scale' chart displayed below is also likely to disappear. -Grammaticus Repairo 01:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Shortcut:
WP:CHIPRIORITY
Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top High probability that non-Chicagoans would look this up. Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia. Must have had a large impact on non-Chicagoans, across several generations, and in the majority of the world in a role as a Chicagoan or as a Chicago institution. Examples, would be Hall of Fame athletes, world class institutions, important national politicians, world class physical structures, and must see tourist attractions. For instance, Michael Jordan, elite basketball player, but his accomplishments have affected and inspired people outside of basketball and in many other countries besides his nation of origin and several generations. Going forward, no member should give this rating to any Chicago article without first getting Project approval from the other members. Note that an athlete who plays briefly in Chicago before going on to a Hall of Fame career does not count. A prime example is Dominik Hasek who has been honored extensively for his hockey accomplishments. We must emphasize role as a Chicagoan. This is easily seen at Barack Obama who was born in Hawaii, but is a mid priority for Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii.

Obama also serves as an example of high priority in Chicago for as an individual who rises to prominence at a national or international level as an extension of a Chicago role.

 Michael Jordan, Barack Obama
High Must have had (A) a large impact on Chicagoans and an impact on non-Chicagoans, across a couple of generations in a role as a Chicagoan or as a Chicago institution or (B) a prominent national and/or international role that had a large impact on non-Chicagoans and an impact on Chicagoans. Subject contributes a depth of knowledge. Examples would be very important buildings, any currently serving Chicagoland U.S. Congressman, important Chicago athletes, and important institutions. (A) Chicago Board of Trade Building
(B) Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Mid Must have had a role that was (A) Important to Chicagoans for role as a Chicagoan or as a Chicago institution, (B) a prominent national and/or international role that had a large impact on non-Chicagoans and but had a limited role as a Chicagoans (C) both of moderate national and/or international importance and moderate local importance. Subject fills in more minor details. Examples would be interesting buildings, personalities and architectural elements. Other examples would be nationally prominent individuals who played no significant role as a Chicagoan before rising to such prominence. Here longevity may be a point of distinction because it is certainly hoped that a building such as Joffrey Tower becomes important to non-Chicagoans over time. Many current and recent statewide elected Illinois politicians would fall under type (C) here unless they rose from prominent Chicago positions. (A) Joffrey Tower
(B) Nancy Reagan, Dominik Hasek, Hillary Clinton
(C) Joan Cusack, Richard Durbin
Low Subject is notable to select Chicagoans for role as a Chicagoan or as a Chicago institution. Subject is mainly of specialist interest. Examples would be (A) other buildings and narrow topics, (B) Professional athletes of moderate importance who briefly played in Chicago, (C) Alumni of local universities that have become notable article subjects for non-Chicago related roles.

The most contentious of these types has been the alumni type. Persons may be listed in Chicago related categories due to their place of birth, place where they were reared as youths, place where they were educated (high school, college, graduate school), place where they performed their notable service/acts, place where they resided as adults. Arguably, the place where they were educated is most likely to both trigger a Chicago category tag and yet be of seeming minor significance. Generally, an article subject notable enough to merit a biographical Wikipedia entry is a (positive or negative) role model for many who are current and recent students of the institution of which they are an alumnus and who have an interest in the particular field of notability. In college towns (e.g. Ann Arbor, MI), where the population ebbs and flows with the academic calendar, alumni may be even more important to Wikipedia editors interested in contributing to the articles related to that geographical region. Notable politicians may be important to law students, politics and history majors; Wall Street Chieftans may be important to business school students, economics and finance majors; and famous scientists may be important to medical students and various science majors. Thus, each alumnus is of interest to select persons. In general, they will be of less import and thus be a lower editorial priority than “people from a region” who are likely to have roots in the region that are likely merit return visits that make them more notable to others from the region.

 (A) Smith Museum of Stained Glass Windows
(B) Lawrence Funderburke
(C) Jon Corzine
It seems that there is a very serious misunderstanding of what Talkpage project banners are for. A talk page banner is not part of an article. As such is not intended for the reader or for the purpose of appeasing an individual biographical subject. Talk page banners are suppose to provide information for editors. In the case of a project banner, it's purpose is to provide information to project members about the importance, quality and development of an article. A well done banner will place an article properly on a quality scale for all editors and a priority/importance scale for project members. In fact, it will place the article in a category for project members according to these scales. It may also point to underdevelopment by noting photo, infobox, and/or map omissions. In addition, it may point to related projects or support groups that also have an editorial interest in the subject matter. A talk page banner is not really a tool for the regular editors of a page who may or may not be interested in many of the projects that attach a banner to a page. A talk page project banner is for guidance of project members. It is not really appropriate for non-members of a project to make decisions on what information a particular project should assemble for its own purposes in its attempt to improve the encyclopedia. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with your goals and objectives. I just question whether individuals whose sole connection to Chicago is that they attended a university in the city have enough of a nexus to justify inclusion within a Wikiproject, in the same way that a professional athlete who played in town or an art exhibit would, as provided in your priority grid. The fact that the word "Chicago" only appears in Corzine's article in the name of the school and the site of an early job, is simply insufficient to show the necessary connection. I'm sure that there are a few "select persons" who'll be interested in anyone whose stepped foot in a particular place, and that any person can be a role model. But I would rate the alumni categories as not showing much more of a connection than an imaginary [[Category:People who have changed planes at O'Hare International Airport]]. I have worked extensively on Wikiproject:New Jersey, and I would never think of listing all Rutgers University alumni as being connected to the project, nor those of the dozens of other colleges and universities in the state. The connection arising from college attendance in and of itself is simply insufficient to establish the necessary connection to this or any other WikiProject, other than a college-connected effort. Alansohn 16:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a matter of opinion and will differ from regional project to regional project. As stated in the revised chart above the alumni category may have differing importance for various regional projects. As stated above, for a college town WP, an alumni association may warrant a higher priority than for a more diverse one. It may be the case that WP:Illinois does not wish to include all alumni of each institution in the state. Whereas a given city in a state may choose to include alumni. Chicago is certainly no college town. However, the current decision scheme of the Chicago WP is to include all alumni and list them as importance=low unless there is an additional connection or justification. In a sense, it is a banner for our project to manage articles in which we may have an interest. We currently wish to use this as a defining Chicago category. For prominent individuals, the banner may be no more significant than a banner stating that the girl you sat next to in kindergarden is still interested in you. However, this is how I believe we should assess relevant articles. Corzine is certainly as connected to Chicago as a non-notable Chicago athlete who played here briefly and went on to prominence elsewhere. I would prefer if you left our banner alone. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The Project ( or rather Tony; it seems to be short on other members) is free to watch as many members of Cat:University of Chicago alumni as they wish. This banner, however, is contrary to clear consensus here; please leave it off. This is not the first instance in which this sort of parochialism was been demonstrated; and if it comes back, I will be happy to sign an RFC on this disruptive editor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
PM Anderson, I find it odd that you would set policy for project in which you are a non-member. Which of the participants here do you consider to be members of the WP:WPChi project? I have not called on my editors to begin assessing articles because our bot administrator took off a week and a half midway through assessing the categories we are interested in. I am confident that once we complete the various phases of the inventory process and we undertake assesment you will have a different perspective of our project. Please do not set policy on how my project administers its template and please do not attempt to own this page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I observe Tony claims that it's "his" project; who has ownership issues? As for this page, there is consensus against this tag. Please take it away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
To all especially User:Grammaticus Repairo and User:Pmanderson, Last month we went through extensive debate on the propriety of non project members editing a project tag on an article. I agreed to engage Pmanderson in a dispute resolution on the matter. After discussions about the matter at User:TonyTheTiger/DR_bot and User_talk:Pmanderson#DR_summary I attempted to distill the debate to the final topic for debate at WP:DR. Pmanderson then chose to discontinue communications. May take is that upon reviewing what the argument boils down to he felt less strongly about his case. If any of you is willing to step into Pmandersons shoes and accept a WP:DR I am willing to continue such debates. This is what I believe is the summary of the argument at this point. I invite anyone to step in for Pmanderson at dispute resolution on this matter. Otherwise, I will continue to replace the {{ChicagoWikiProject}} tag on this page. It remains the only page of the 9800 with the WP:WPChi tag since April that does not seem to "get it", which should cause one to question the keepers of the page and not the placers of the tag. TonyTheTiger 16:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a link

I work for the America's Most Wanted Safety Center, a new branch of America's Most Wanted getting away from the capturing of criminals, and branching out to all aspects of safety. I feel a link to our post about Jon Corzine's crash would be appropriate and mutually beneficial, particularly because it includes a filmed interview with him about the crash. The link is http://www.amw.com/safety/?p=61 please consider it. Jrosenfe 14:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weak coverage of his position as CEO of Goldman Sachs

I'd just like to point out that this article has very weak coverage of Corzine's job as CEO of Goldman Sachs. --JHP 07:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganizing random comments

Isn't he the *junior* senator?

Strange as it may seem, he isn't. Frank Lautenberg retired in 2000. When he did, he lost all seniority he had, so when he came back in 2002, he was junior to Senator Corzine, because technically Corzine became a Senator in 2000 while Lautenberg became one (this time around) in 2002.

I oppose the usage of "He also supports stronger federal gun control laws..." because the a person with the opposite POV would "support weaker federal gun control laws". Since the antinym of more restrictive is less restrictive, and both terms are fairly NPOV, I propose replacing stronger with more restrictive. --Hcheney 23:31, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Restrictive has a negative connotation. I don't feel it's stricly NPOV. But I'd certainly be open to something other than stronger. It was the best wording I could come up with at the time. How about "Corzine supports tighter controls on guns"? --Meelar 00:57, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Let me add that it's good to see you back.

Thanks, what can I say? I just can't stay away from wikipedia. I don't think more restrictive is negative, for example, I think most politicians would love to be labelled as "favoring a more restrictive policy on child pornography". Corzine is a proud proponent of gun control and represents a state that has some of the strongest/tightest/most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. I doubt Corzine would use such a neutral term as more restrictive in his campaign material, during the 2000 campaign Corzine attempted to portray himself as a warrior that would fight the NRA, and support registration of all guns. In order to be truly neutral, we should avoid such adjectives and merely list the proposals he supports, or has supported in the past, and let the readers decide for themselves. --Hcheney 16:07, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
What about the term "more/less comprehensive" as opposed to "more/less restrictive?" That to me would describe merely the scope of the legislation's powers rather than assigning a subtle endorsement or criticism. Just a suggestion. Sleeper99999 11:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In the U.S., I think, gun ownership is viewed as a fundamental liberty--thus the "gun rights" movement. Child porn is not seen that way. I think Corzine's opponenets might use the "more restrictive" label. If you're not happy with "tighter", though, by all means, change it up. Yours, Meelar 22:41, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I doubt most New Jerseyans view gun ownership as a fundamental liberty, even Bob Franks, Corzine's Republican opponent in the 2000 election took substantially the same postitions on guns as Corzine in the campaign. However, more importantly than the wording on a single senator's article is the work that needs to be done is so far as NPOV and content for the body of American firearms topics prior to the major political storm that is brewing due to the sunsetting of the federal assault weapons ban. --Hcheney 02:48, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Of the New Jerseyans who do view gun ownership as a fundamental liberty, most keep quiet about it, recognizing that it's a futile effort falling on deaf ears in the Garden State.

[edit] Bot and WP:Chicago

(Moved from the bot's talk page, Christopher Parham's talk page and my talk page, since it's about this particular page only)

This change is controversial and has been reverted a number of times previously. Please don't simply continue to revert this, and exclude the article from future runs. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Christopher! The bot is adding the WP:WPChi banner to Jon Corzine because he's in the Category:University of Chicago alumni. WPChi determined that UChi alumni should be in their project. Since the bot is running on automatic according to the WikiProject's instructions, could you leave a note on the project talk page regarding the issue? They're the ones that can rectify the situation. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of why the bot is making the edit, and the WikiProject is well aware of the fact that it is controversial; it has been discussed on the article talk page and more recently here. My point was to let you know that regardless of the instructions of the WikiProject, the edit is controversial and therefore not appropriate for your bot to make. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
In order to accommodate you, I'd have to program the bot to pay special attention to one article out of the thousands that it accesses for each WikiProject. Until there is some sort of consensus on who gets to define a WikiProject's scope, I'm going to leave the bot as it is and allow the WikiProject itself to define it's scope. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure "I'll just keep reverting because to do otherwise would inconvenience me" is a particularly good rationale; certainly it wouldn't fly for a human editor, so why would it for a bot? Consider Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Edit-warring_bots. Certainly you are welcome to join the discussion, but if you aren't interested in doing so it is inappropriate for you to repeatedly revert. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset margins)I've moved this discussion here, since it's specific to this article.

I see a couple solutions to this issue and would like feedback from the editors of this article as to what would be the best one to implement.

  1. Remove Jon from Category:University of Chicago alumni. Since the bot is tagging this article simply because he's in that cat, removing him from the cat will keep the bot from adding the banner.
  2. Remove Category:University of Chicago alumni from the list of categories the bot patrols. Again, if the bot doesn't see the article in one of the cats, it won't add the banner.
  3. Reach consensus with WikiProject Chicago on their inclusion of the category in their project. Possibly the best solution, but possibly not attainable.
  4. Specifically code the bot to ignore this instance. I see this option as a) subverting the reason for the bot, b) time consuming, and c) a waste of my time (see the next solution for more on this).
  5. Wait a bit. I'm fully aware that the bot isn't working optimally at this time. Specifically, it's not programmed to obey {{Bots}}, a "template" or command that was created for exactly these circumstances. I'm currently in the middle of a major re-write of my bot that will address this issue and hope to have it done within the next week or two. When I'm done the rewrite, the bot will obey {{Bots}}, this article can be tagged, and we can all go back to editing articles and making Wikipedia better.

I've watchlisted this page and am interested in the thoughts of editors of this article. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with any of the options, so long as you operate the bot in accordance with the bot policy's requirement that tasks be supported by community consensus. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer #2, but that is partly because I think the whole practice of adding tags by bot questionable. I do not see that WP:Chi has actually contributed to this article; and if pages start acquiring as many project tags as categories, things will be unworkable. I could live with #6; but it would be nice to have the bot mention {{bot}} in its edit summary
Would it be too much trouble to have the bot check the edit history for its own edits, and either mention {{bot}} or abstain and ask for human intervention when it sees it is retagging an article? This would also detect category disputes which may be of interest to a sponsoring Project. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Mention {{bot}} in it's edit summary? I'm not sure what you mean. The edit summary does say the edit is done by "SatyrBot", but I gather that's not what you're asking. As for checking the edit history, it could check whether it had edited the page before, but then it would also have to check how it edited - since it could be working on a different project altogether. My personal preference is #2 or #3, since I feel *some* categories can definitely be patrolled by the bot for this type of action. I mean, any article that falls in Category:Chicago should automatically get tagged (IMHO). -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It now makes edit summaries like SatyrBot auto-adding tag to talk page. See WP:WPChi if there are issues. I suggest adding something like To stop such additions, add {{Bots}} to the talk page. Whether this should be in all edit summaries, edit summaries of retags, or on the bot talk page is secondary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interested

This article got me interested in joining the wiki community, I think there's a lot that can be added to this page, and glad there's so many people that are interested...i'm a former nyc resident that now has roots in new jersey. --NYcThUgg 02:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


I would like to point out that James McGreevy did not resign because of corruption ( as it is here stated) but , as it is already known, because he had an affair with a male employee who tried to blackmail him. Governor McGreevy felt resignation was the right decision to take before it all went public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.77.58 (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We can go into more detail, although WP:BLP might frown on airing that scandal in this article; but giving a high-paying job to your unqualified lover is corrupt. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy Section Deleted

I was upset to see that the section i started on controversy for the good govenor of new jersey was deleted. The information i posted was hopefully a beginning to some of the more controversial business dealings that he is specfically involved. My information was well cited and confirmed by the govenor. Does anyone have a problem with me reposting some truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYcThUgg (talk • contribs) 12:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with you posting information contrary to Wikipedia policy. In theory, I am not opposed to a "Controversy" section for this page. But I am opposed to any section that gives undue weight to any aspects of Governor Corzine. The "Controversy" section you had included had one point: a gift from Governor Corzine to a man named Rocco Riccio, the brother-in-law of the Governor's former girlfriend and a former state employee. I do not dispute the story; I dispute the weight and prominence given in the section. If you truly wanted to create a verifiable, well-sourced section on the controversies of the Governor, then go right ahead. But to present this one event as the entire controversy section - to give this one relatively minor event with a small dollar amount involved such prominence - is the definition of undue weight. Wikipedia requires editors "to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" and applies that standard to, among other things, "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Your edit failed those requirements; that is why I deleted it. JasonCNJ 14:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with everything you wrote, however, it was my intention to post and hopefully either myself or others in the community add additional stories, which anyone who knows Corzine or New Jersey, is filled with controversy. A simple $15,000 is nothing to the estimated $6 million he gave his ex-girlfriend Carla Katz, who is the leader of the largest union in New Jersey. To delete the entire section without even making comments in this discussion area, which was my belief of what the area is for, was a little surprising. You would have to agree that this transaction and story is controversy, where else would this story reside? Or should we just not mention it, or any other controversy? --NYcThUgg 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)