Talk:Chris Christie/Archive 2

Section "George Washington Bridge scandal"
I am revising the section on the GWB lanes closure and related matters. The previous version of the section lists the names and positions of several aides and appointees, with Wikilinks to their articles. I am summarizing this information since the names of the specific individuals are not that important and can be found by those readers who are interested in the linked Wikipedia articles that contain greater detail. I am also including a mention of the email exchange between a senior aide and an administration appointee involved in the lanes closure that mentioned the opponent in the gubernatorial election that was underway at the time. Dezastru (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, text from an email sent by an appointee at the Port Authority is not relevant in Christie's BLP. Also you removed some existing text that was well-sourced.CFredkin (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The information I have added is well-sourced. The information removed has been summarized, as noted in the first post in this thread. How is text from an email about the Bridge lanes closure not relevant to Christie's BLP? Dezastru (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue of relevance of specific actions and statements of officials in NJ to Christie's BLP has already been discussed above. I don't believe it needs to be re-litigated.CFredkin (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct. Most participants in the RFC rejected the argument that information involving Christie's team should be excluded. Dezastru (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The closing admin said: "Consensus is that the bridge lane closure political scandal should be covered in the article, but it's not clear from this this discussion to which extent it should be covered." So there seems no option to "re-litigating" it. My opinion is that the primary focus should be on Christie, his actions, and his role with respect to the controversy. Other stuff needs to be summarized briefly, meaning the things that he says he would not have permitted if he had known about them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, please see this discussion on the closing admin's Talk page. Dezastru (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A cherry-picked list of excerpts from the discussion above does not constitute a summary of the discussion.CFredkin (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the closing admin was persuaded to modify or supplement the closing statement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, neither of the two versions being reverted back and forth is appropriate. I'd suggest taking the lede of the main article Fort Lee lane closure scandal‎ and use that instead. Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My rationale for the edit is that per WP:LEDE the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, and a section here should also be a summary of the main article, per WP:SPINOFF. Cwobeel (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As discussed previously above, the section on the scandal in Christie's bio should not be a summary of the scandal article.  Many aspects of the scandal are not relevant to Christie's BLP.CFredkin (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that you have reverted three times already within 24 hours. I;d encourage you to avoid using the revert button so freely. See WP:3RR Cwobeel (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from re-visiting content changes that have already been discussed in this forum. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am very aware of the discussions. But that does not give you the right to violate WP:3RR Cwobeel (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP, the burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material.CFredkin (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The bridge scandal stuff that is not directly about is not directly about Christie and is covered in the bridge scandal article and should not be duplicated here.  North8000  (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How can you separate it? Can you propose a summary? Cwobeel (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, the section on this topic in Christie's BLP should not be a summary of the article on the Scandal. The information that is already included in the bio addresses his involvement.  If readers want more information on the scandal itself, they can click thru to the main article on that topic.CFredkin (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have attempted reducing the text on my last edit. Cwobeel (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I tightened it up a bit more. CFredkin, is there any specific thing that you think is most in need of change?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The most recent edits by Cwobeel and Anythingyouwant look good to me.CFredkin (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I just added one sentence about the investigations. Cwobeel (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- when one adds a substantial amount of material ("one sentence? Really?)  one must fact the fact that the sub-article exists, and that any coverage in this BLP must be in "summary style" at most.  And it appears that 1289 characters is a substantial edit to any outside observer.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The number of characters in that sentence is just 490. The rest is in the references. Cwobeel (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have replied to Collect's concern above. Can editors weigh in on why this edit should not be included? It is factual and provides context to this summary of the scandal. Cwobeel (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And the fact is that the section should be a summary of the related article -- and the "single sentence" - wasn't. You must have a clear consensus for such an edit at this point. Collect (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And that is exactly what I am doing: asking why it should not included and seeking consensus. As a summary of a very large article on the subject requires us to select the most relevant information from the split article to avoid a WP:POVFORK which is what this is looking like. Cwobeel (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can turn around your request for consensus. We need consensus on why not to include that material. Cwobeel (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. The onus is on the person adding the material per policy.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Exoneration
We ought to include the exoneration by the $1MM internal investigation by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher commissioned by Christie Cwobeel (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How about: "In the aftermath of the scandal, multiple investigations remain ongoing,     and an investigation requested by Christie has already cleared him. "?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds good.  North8000  (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, of course it does not sound good. What Anythingyouwant is proposing is not sufficient and the portion about the multiple investigations conveniently does not include who is investigating (I think he/she deleted these, without providing any reasons). The investigation was not "requested" by Christie, it was a decision by him to use 1MM of tax payers dollars for what is being percieved an attempt to damage control, which is very controversial on its own. Another aspect that is not mentioned is that despite having both Federal and state investigations ongoing, and a large number subpoenas issued for his administration (also not included in this summary), the response to the subpoenas was lesser than the information provided to the investigate committee, another controversy in the making. In any case, I'd suggest we wait until that report is released and reported before attempting to add this material. Cwobeel (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean delete the entire bridge scandal section until the report is completed?  North8000  (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL, no... I was referring to the findings of the internal investigation report in which Christie is exonerated. Once that report is released, we can add text about it. Cwobeel (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The report is being released today, so we can look into what is reported and add information to the article. Cwobeel (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For those interested, the report will be made available online at 11:30 EST here: http://gdcreport.com/ Cwobeel (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I made this edit because describing each individual investigation is not concise, it's enough to say there are a bunch of investigations.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No it is not enough. If you are mentioning that Christie ordered an investigation, you also need to name the Federal and State bodies conducting investigations. Without mentioning these, that section is WP:UNDUE Cwobeel (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * IIRC, we refer to multiple investigations. Once a reliable secondary source reports on the  Gibson report we can use such a source to indicate what that report states.  We can not use our own opinions as to any motivation behind any report.  Collect (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree. I am sure we will have many, many, secondary sources once the news media and politicians of all stripes pounce on the report. Cwobeel (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The report appears quite thorough, and the facts that the "Hurricane Sandy" allegations appear to fall far short of "truthiness" seems to be significant to be sure. Also the corroboration that Christie had not only no "advance knowledge" of the lane closure but that senior staff in December disavowed any knowledge  (with Kelly later being shown to have misled the governor, to say the least) meaning that much of the "scandal" falls far from Christie.  I presume some political types will try to assert political motivations to those making the report, but AFAICT there are no tell-tale signs of any impropriety on the part of the reporting group.  Collect (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thorough? From what I've read, the investigators didn't interview Wildstein, Kelly, or Stepien? How is that a "thorough" investigation? The Christie administration has significant ties to this law firm. We can mention the investigation, but it shouldn't receive the same weight as the NJ legislature's investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless you manage to repeal the United States Bill of Rights, the people who invoked their rights are not going to be interviewed by anyone. The material which was clearly available (did you try wading through the exhibits?)  appears to present a clear picture of the events, and especially the problems with the Sandy allegations which appear quite killed at this point. As for the "significant ties" to a firm -- that is the sort of allegation which is scurrilous beyond belief in any Wikipedia article. It is not up to us to aver that a law firm has dirty hands, and I rather think no reliable source will try making that as a claim. And you position that we should favour one investigation over another is not in accord with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The testimony aspect is not that important anyway, because nobody was testifying under oath. It's not "scurrilous" when the Old Grey Lady herself says "the firm conducting it, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, has close ties to the Christie administration." I'm not saying this doesn't belong (I have neither the time nor the law degree required to read a report like that), but that the hugest grain of salt is required. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article specifies that it is Democrats who are most upset and insistent that the lawyers are not impartial. The $650 /hour bit is lower than many NY area firms charge, by the way, so that is a bit of a non-issue.  The NYT piece also is before the issuance of the report, and thus is not a strong source for what the rport contains, while the NBCNews report is after the report.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because the NBCNews article doesn't specifically mention the long-standing ties doesn't mean it's not important. Per the NY Times (also an older source), GD "has long served as Mr. Christie’s private counsel". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Include mention of Gibson Dunn campaign contribution? https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/447953346050007040/photo/1 Hcobb (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP has over 1100 lawyers. It is not a small, crony-ish firm by a few miles. Of those 1100+, 2 donated to the Christie campaign. Wow. That is under one fifth of one percent. [ http://www.elec.state.nj.us/ELECReport/ContribByContributorsActiveXViewer.aspx?&Page=S&Employer=Gibson%20Dunn&Occupation=LEGAL] shows all the records. Darn few. national records 2010 - 2014. Recipients include Harry Reid, the DNC (got over $70,000), Democratic state parties (over $30,000),  Barack Obama (over $30,000),  Kirsten Gillibrand (over $25,000),  Barbara Boxer etc. Um -- and $4,300 is major? Cheers -- but if we start listing the contributions, all are fair game. 1990-2008 is more interesting. Collect (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why is that important? What we need to do is to consolidate the large number of press reports on this investigation's findings into a readable and useful short number of paragraphs. Cwobeel (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't. Hcobb above, however, implied it was important that 2 lawyers had donated a total of $4,300 to Christie campaigns (almost all for the primary) - and so I suggested that if we stress those two contributions, then other contributions would also be relevant -- including contributions an order of magnitude greater to Democrats.  IMHO, the material about the investigation should be presented as neutrally as possible, hence my unusual use of an extended quote from NBCNews so that there would be no issue about word choice in paraphrasing the report. Collect (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Problem is that we can very quickly violate copyright. Much better is to summarize the many sources available. I am sure we can accomplosh that quite easily. Cwobeel (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Use of quotation marks clearly delineating what a cited source says is not a copyright violation unless it goes past any fair usage - the short quote did not violate copyright, and was fully attributed.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a good summary as well Cwobeel (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I just finished reading the 360 pages of that report. And boy, I think what is not there speaks more about it that what is there. Also many. many pages there are about Zimmer’s allegations about Sandy aid not about the Bridge scandal. Cwobeel (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I went through most of the report and even some of the exhibits ... and there is a very good reason why Zimmer is covered -- it was part of what the report was asked to cover. The report pretty much demolishes Zimmer's allegations though.  Collect (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really IMO, but that is for others to assess. We just report what reliable sources say. Cwobeel (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A second read was very useful I encourage interested people here to take the time and read it. (allow me a personal opinion here: My impression is that they went a bit over-board on their assessments, and as they did not disclose any of the 250,000 documents or transcripts of the interviews, there is little to go about with besides their conclusions, some of which are quite over-the-top. I guess that one million dollars can go a long way in painting any one in a good light). I will research other sources and see what they report and what can be added to the article. Cwobeel (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Try reading the Exhibits and Appendices.  Not reading them and then complaining they are not in the corpus of the report fails reason.  I assure you they are voluminous, indeed!  And I believe I noted above that I did not go through all of them, myself.  In short -- your cavil fails. Collect (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I did read them. There are or transcripts or documents. Cwobeel (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

NPOV
The use of the term "whitewash" with respect to this investigation is not neutral and per WP:BLP should not be added to the article unless/until there is consensus that it should be. The criticisms can (and have been) noted without resorting to inflammatory language.CFredkin (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Per NPOV, we ought describe all notable opinions on a subject, but you prefer to delete content  that contradicts your own personal POVs, and that is not kosher. The term whitewash was used by the critics and that is the POV and we need to report it for balance. Also, your use of however is really over the top and contradicting NPOV. Cwobeel (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You interpretation of WP:BLP is erroneous. You need to go back and re read it. Cwobeel (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Whitewash" is an opinion and must be ascribed as such to the persons holding it. Presenting it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice is, in fact, a violation of the WP:BLP policy.   BLPs are an area where it is better to require consensus for inclusion where any contentious claims are involved - that is, where a claim is likely to be contentious as fact, it is reasonable and required that it be strongly sourced.  Opinions are not fact, and where they are contentious Wikipedia does not require that the BLP have them.  In Wikipedia terms, this article is, indeed, subject to WP:BLP.  Clear? Collect (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree. "Whitewash" is an option ascribed as such to these that hold that opinion, as per the sources in the diff . I am glad you agree with me. Cwobeel (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the edit that was deleted: '
 * and was characterized as a whitewash by critics, 
 * Of course, we can add a dozen or more additional sources if needed be. Cwobeel (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The "critics" should be specified -- including party officials, etc. And those who support the findings should get an equivalent sentence stating that they agree with the report. Else we give undue weight to unnamed critics, which I am sure you would not want in a BLP. Collect (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, we can add specifics about the critics, just that I will get dinged if I do that on claims of undue weight in naming too many of them... Maybe you give it a try? Cwobeel (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

For some levity ... see Christie's comment on Fox News interview:
 * Christie noted that his 20-year-old son Andrew, a student at Princeton University, has followed the scandal in the press and often calls him to talk about it. "I said, 'Are things tough for you at school?' " the governor recalled. "He's at Princeton, and he said, 'No, it's really no different, Dad. They never liked you here anyways.' " Fox news interview

Cwobeel (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The opening claim (in essence claiming that there is a mandate to include that all "notable" opinions on a topic) has no basis. To start implementing that, we would add Rush Limbaugh's opinion to every political article. And, according to the argument made in this thread, not only include them, but to use also his choice of words to characterize them)    Take a look at the  Barack Obama article.  Not even 1% of notable opinions are included.  North8000  (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a straw man. I am not advocating to describe all view points. But rather (Per Cwobeel (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have issues with the Barack Obama article, please discuss them there, not here. Cwobeel (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe he is stating that some editors appear to have different standards depending on the politics involved - which may well be true for some of them.  Some editors appear at times to be "single issue accounts" especially where more than 70% of their total edits are on a single primary topic and closely related articles, such as, for example, concentrating on Republican Party candidates and scandals rather than showing any interest whatsoever in any Democrats at all, or stuff like that.  General advice to such editors is to show some proportional interest in other issues, and not to be seen as single issue editors.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in democratic politicians whatsoever; I find them too boring to tell you the truth. Now, to the discussion at hand, the report that “critics describe the report as a whitewash” appears in 2,500 press articles. In addition, editorials in the Los Angeles Times, NJ.com and the New York Times call the report a whitewash. Is that not significant enough? Cwobeel (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- Read the articles before you place foot in mouth. LATimes: The report, written without interviews with the central players in the drama — they declined to cooperate — was immediately criticized as a whitewash by Democrats, who are leading their own investigation.  You are claiming that articles which say Democrats are using the word "whitewash" should be used to infer the source called it a "whitewash"?  Sorry -- that is not how we use source.  What the LATimes source can be used for is Some Democrats called the report a whitewash.  The word "Democrats" is not the same as unnamed "critics" in this case.   WSJ: Some media outlets have dismissed the report as a whitewash because it was led by Randy Mastro, who worked for New York City's former Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani. But Mr. Mastro, a registered Democrat, is also a former federal prosecutor with a successful litigation practice. He and his blue-chip law firm Gibson Dunn have their own credibility on the line if Mr. Christie is found to have lied.  Certainly Mr. Mastro's team appears to have been more careful with the facts than Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer. After repeatedly lauding Mr. Christie for helping support her city after Hurricane Sandy, the Democrat said on television in the heat of the scandal in January that Mr. Christie's administration had threatened to withhold Sandy aid if she didn't support a development project. The Mastro report lists the numerous instances in which she has changed her story, shows that the state did not withhold aid from Hoboken, and finds that there is no corroborating evidence for her claims.   seems to indicate that your assertion that 2,500 stories have called the report a whitewash is a teensy weensy bit inaccurate here.   Boston.com (the AP story used by a huge percentage of your "2,500) says: Democrats have blasted the findings as a whitewash and a one-sided and incomplete piece of work, noting that the two Christie allies accused of engineering the traffic jam by ordering lane closings refused to cooperate with the lawyers.
 * In short - we could probably say "Democrats have called the report a whitewash, as has the New York Times and several other newspapers" but that is a far cry from the edit you asserted 2,500 sources support. Most run the AP wire - really! Collect (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You could have said that in one sentence. Sure, go ahead and add that Democrats criticized the report as a whitewahs, and also add that editorials in the Los Angeles Times, NJ.com and the New York Times also called the report a whitewash. Would you do the honors? Cwobeel (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few sources you can use: Cwobeel (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * NYT Editorial: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/opinion/a-whitewash-for-gov-christie.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
 * LA Times editorial: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-chris-christie-bridgegate-report-dirty-politics-20140327,0,1453776.story#axzz2xPpRBn9R
 * NJ.com Editorial http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/on_bridgegate_a_million-dollar_whitewash_editorial.html
 * Staten Island Editorial http://www.silive.com/opinion/editorials/index.ssf/2014/03/the_christie_whitewash_public.html
 * Real Clear Politics http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/03/28/a_whitewash_for_gov_christie_328710.html
 * Hoboken Mayor http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dawn-zimmer-reaction-mastro-report

Um -- read before posting cites -- the RCP cite -- quotes the NYT, and is not a separate source. TPM says a Democratic mayor used the term (amazingly enough, that mayor refused to be interviewed by the investigators) - which also does not add to your sources,but, in fact, reinforces the sources referring primarily to Democrats. Funny how it happens that sources found in Google do not always mean what you hope they will . Collect (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No idea why we are going back and forth on this. I am OK with adding that the report was criticized by Democrats a a whitewash, and that several editorials did the same. Cwobeel (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

trivial or important?
presents what, IMHO, is argumentative trivia, and not of factual encyclopedic importance in a BLP.
 * In March 2014, Christie tried to broaden his base of support in the GOP in a major foreign policy speech to Jewish Republicans. He used the term "occupied territories" in reference to Israeli-occupied territories, and was forced to quickly apologized for it. POLITICO noted, "The term is rejected by some conservative Zionists like Adelson who see it as validating Palestinian challenges over Israel’s presence. Other supporters of Israel oppose the use of the term as well." 

The source only supports the "apology" and does not support the OR and SYNTH of "tried to broaden his base of support" at all. The most that the sources support is
 * "Christie apologized for using the term "occupied territories" in a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition"

And nothing more, which I suggest is trivia at most. Is this of sufficient importance to this BLP? (The "forced to" is clearly editorial commentary not found in the source, as is the "tried to broaden" piece of OR, and the commentary bringing this edit into the ArbCom Israel-Palestine Case decision sphere for sanctions is not really useful in this BLP. ARBPIA I really would suspect most of us would not like to see the article placed into that category when there is no actual need for that wording. Collect (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * When you are right you are right. Removed the speculative text "tried to broaden his base of support" and added some context. Cwobeel (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is definitely trivia. Does not reflect a policy or decision on Christie's part.CFredkin (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not have to be policy. It was a comment that he retracted, and it is part of the record. Feel free to add more material about other issues that Christie spoke about on that speech. I will also research this and add. Cwobeel (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is good material here: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/03/christie_tells_republican_jewish_coalition.html Cwobeel (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not up to other editors to make content that you want to add relevant. You need to make the case that this is notable for Christie's BLP.CFredkin (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's total nonsense, or maybe just laziness on your part. I will add more material from that speech if you don;t want to. Cwobeel (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A google news search on "Chris Christie" and "occupied territories" limited to the previous week returns dozens of hits. "Notability" (or rather importance) is not a problem here; under some readings/applications of WP:GNG we could come close to justifying a separate article for it.  I'm not proposing that, but I strongly disagree that this can be dismissed as unimportant.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is more in that speech than the "occupied territory" gaffe. Being this one of his first speeches as a potential contender to the Republican nomination for president, we need to expand on it. I have added some more content. Cwobeel (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice job on the revision.CFredkin (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Trimmed a bit - the Politico parenthetical commentary is not directly related to Christie, and linking to an article which is absolutely under ARBPIA is apt to place this BLP in that strange position. Collect (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be unwise to repeatedly revert exactly the portion that you yourself note could fall under ARBPIA. Surely you are aware of the 1RR of that decision -- so why carry on reverting it when you are the one highlighting it?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a very novel interpretation of ARBPIA -- since it would imply that anyone seeking to lock down an article need only add a single edit on the topic . As that is clearly an absurd result, I suggest that it is not the problem at this point in time, but is likely to be one if that reference is added by consensus.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Why the removal of the wikilink to Palestine? What are the concerns referred to on the edit summary? Cwobeel (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Collect might imagine that ARBPIA can be avoided if there's no wikilink to Palestine. That's a very strange notion…  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The wikilink is to a region and not to "Palestinians" and thus intrinsically could be a problem. If you feel this BLP belongs under ARBPIA, I suggest you post a query at AE rather than directing barbs at me.   AE is thataway WP:AE Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed the link to Palestinian people, although I believe the original one to Palestine is more approriate. Cwobeel (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Chronology in the lede
The recent edit, and subsequent revert (whatever happened to WP:BRD? I thought we had agreement, CFredkin), breaks the chronology in the lede. Cwobeel (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The lede reads much more coherently with this edit. Previously the content alternated between statements regarding his governorship and statements regarding potential presidential aspirations.  Within sections of like content, chronological order makes sense.  But I don't think that necessarily holds with the lede.CFredkin (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it makes more sense to keep it chronological. Cwobeel (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just read it again and got reader's whiplash. I suggest you undo that edit and keep it chronological. Cwobeel (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Appointment as US Attorney
The following statement is redundant with content in the preceding paragraph. Also the first phrase in the statement appears to be the sentiment of the author and therefore not reliably sourced. I'm removing and combining the remainder of the paragraph with the preceding paragraph for context.


 * In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, some felt that Christie was not experienced enough to be a U.S. Attorney in a state across the river from New York City.CFredkin (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The concern about lack of law enforcement expertise was widely held, and it was not just of that specific author. Just do a bit of research. Cwobeel (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, and that concern is already expressed in the preceding paragraph.CFredkin (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

RGA Fundraising
What, specifically, is the objection to the following statement? Please note that I'm not saying, as the source did, that his fundraising prowess may be the key to Christie's political revival.


 * In the first three months of 2014, the RGA raised a record sum for the first quarter of a mid-term election year, and almost double the amount raised by the Democratic Governors Association during the same period.

CFredkin (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You can stay close to the source, to start with, but if you add content about the RGA then you need to add other related RGA content for balance. Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you please elaborate?CFredkin (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The source:
 * If the Bridgegate scandal irreparably shattered Chris Christie's standing on the national political stage, someone forgot to tell the people who write the checks.
 * Though his approval rating in New Jersey appears to have stabilized, there is no doubt that Christie's image among the public at large has taken a significant hit. But with Republicans having to defend 22 of the 36 governors' seats up this year, he remains a vital force for fellow party members running in marquee gubernatorial races -- and in the eyes of many GOP donors. 
 * Basically, if you use a source, you can't just cheery pick. Cwobeel (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To stay close to the source:
 * Despite the political damage sustained by Christie in the Bridgegate scandal, he remained a major force in fundraising efforts for GOP governorship campaigns. In the first three months of 2014, the RGA raised a record sum for the first quarter of a mid-term election year, and almost double the amount raised by the Democratic Governors Association during the same period.'
 * Cwobeel (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that, but think we should use similar language to the source:
 * Despite the hit to his image from the Bridgegate scandal, he remained a major force in fundraising efforts for GOP governorship campaigns. In the first three months of 2014, the RGA raised a record sum for the first quarter of a mid-term election year, and almost double the amount raised by the Democratic Governors Association during the same period.'CFredkin (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK with me. You can do the honors. Cwobeel (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Cwobeel (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

ALEC
I'm a heavy contributor over at ALEC and I recently came across a duo of sources that would seem worthy of inclusion here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

New Jersey under Christie has the highest rate in the USA of veterans unemployment
That's a simple fact and well reported, just getting erased by IP.

http://www.nj.com/salem/index.ssf/2014/03/nj_veteran_unemployment_rate_highest_in_the_country_dept_of_labor_says.html

Hcobb (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Did Christie have any direct control of any kind in the matter? New Jersey has the lowest gas prices in the Northeast -- that is about as pertinent here.  Unless there is something directly connecting Christie to the unemployment rate, it is not relevant to the BLP.   New Jersey may have the highest incidence of throat cancer (arbitrary example)  or whatever -- but you need something tangible tying it to Christie.  Collect (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Christie has made this a special focus

http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lwdhome/press/2014/20140320_VeteransJobOpportunities.html


 * And he has been a miserable failure, of course. Hcobb (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place for campaign rhetoric -- if he was not responsible in any way for the unemployment, it does not belong in this BLP on your opinion that "he has been a miserable failure."    We stick to what actual independent reliable sources state as best we can.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That fact can be added to Governorship of Chris Christie -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Added there. Let's see how it goes. Hcobb (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A reflist for talk?
reflist-talk
 * Yep, it comes in handy. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Pro-choice on Measles
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Christie&diff=645340398&oldid=645317347

Isn't this long standing position worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think so. Perhaps the wording needs a bit of tinkering, but I don't see a justification for wholesale deletion.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * He is not "Pro-choice" on Measles. Stop trying to twist what he said.  Arzel (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One statement, taken out of context, is definitely not noteworthy for his bio.CFredkin (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It ain't one statement. He said the same thing before he became gov. See the other ref that was so carelessly deleted. Hcobb (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, in hindsight, this appears to have received enough media attention to justify inclusion. I won't object if someone wants to take a crack at editing to accurately reflect the sources.CFredkin (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Added response by gov's office. Hcobb (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy
Not all opinions stated in editorials are relevant for inclusion in BLP's. Why is the statement of opinion by the Star Ledger regarding Christie's handling of rebuilding post Sandy relevant to his bio? Please seek consensus here before restoring it.

Christie was not found personally at fault regarding the Stronger than the Storm allegations. They are not relevant to his BLP.

Also, the use of the term "only" is not neutral. I'm removing it.CFredkin (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you and I are in agreement on how this needs to be worded and an edit conflict got in the way. I was just trying to give it proper context and attribute it properly. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per above. Op-eds are not reliable sources, especially when claiming the reporting as fact. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  16:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight?
Padenton, I'm a bit confused. How is my adding criticism of one of Christie's statements about his political beliefs "undue weight". Christie claims that he became pro-life after hearing his daughter's heartbeat, while the skeptics I mentioned counter by pointing out that that daughter wasn't his first child (Andrew, born in 1993, was) and question why Andrew's heartbeat didn't make him pro-life. After all, if my submission is undue weight, what about the one further down, where it says that Zionists oppose the use of the term "occupied territories" because they view it as validating Palestinian beliefs? How come that isn't undue weight? As far as I know, undue weight is something that gives equal balance to two arguments that are less than balanced, as in an argument on one side is much stronger than an argument on the other. I don't view these people as fringe. Is your problem with my edit the fact that you think it is a little slanted against Christie? If so, I have a new, proposed edit for you. "In his early political career, Christie was pro-choice stating in an interview that "I would call myself ... a kind of a non-thinking pro-choice person, kind of the default position".[141] Later on Christie evolved his position to be against abortion: "I am pro-life. Hearing the strong heartbeat of my unborn daughter 14 years ago at 13 weeks gestation had a profound effect on me and my beliefs."[134] However, some commentators have questioned the sincerity of this explanation." How does that sound to you, Padenton? I hope I hear back. Scaravich105nj (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Christie's positions (and how they've evolved) speak for themselves. Editorial commentary from a single political opponent questioning his sincerity is WP:undue.CFredkin (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The section is about his position on issues and actions as governor. Both sources are opinion articles.  Our goal here is to describe Christie's views from an encyclopedic perspective, not attack him every chance that we get. The sincerity of his explanation isn't important. He's a politician. What's important is his stance on the issue, and the sincerity of his actions as an elected official. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  01:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight? (2)
Per WP:SUMMARY, the section on the bridge scandal needs to be an harmonized summary of the main article linked. Tag removed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Usage of term "Bridgegate"
The term "Bridgegate" is used in this article without introduction and without being used in quotation. I believe this is poor writing style. Also, I question whether use of this phrasing is NPOV. Full Decent (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree. Especially considering the section about that scandal isn't even titled with that. Amberwaves50 (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

2016 presidential campaign
This section is largely content about the speculation of his run and would seem to be irrelevant at this point. Anyone else feel that it should begin with the January formation of a PAC with the stuff before it removed? Amberwaves50 (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph
Talk:Rick_PerryAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Date when he was offered U.S. Attorney job
There has been some concern in the media regarding Chris Christie's mention, during the 1st Republican debate (August 6, 2015), of September 10, 2001 as the date when he became U.S. Attorney. Although it apparently wasn't until December when he officially nominated & confirmed, he apparently was offered the position on 9/10/2001 during a phone call from White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales (see http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/911_attacks_changed_chris_chri.html) It's not my intent to judge whether or not he was trying to be misleading during the debate, but since I checked Wikipedia after hearing him mention it, and saw a different date listed, I wanted to point out at least one source which may be relevant in explaining what apparently happened on the date which he mentioned during the debate. Gmporr (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He might be trying to conflate the timeline in a way that's politically expedient. Maybe the nomination was confirmed to him on September 10, 2001, but he wasn't officially nominated that day. Seems like not a big deal, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Fort Lee Lane Closure Controversy
References to this do not belong in the lead. There's been no indication of wrong-doing on Christie's part. If Hillary's email controversy, which is being investigated by the FBI, doesn't belong in the lead to her bio, there's no justification for inclusion of this controversy in the lead here.CFredkin (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that edit. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well a lack of info on another article wouldn't substantiate an omission on this one...however, it does not seem to be an issue anymore as it hasn't been mentioned during his campaign for presidency. So I'm okay with the edit as well. MavsFan28 (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Polling Data
I'm removing this polling data which is more appropriately (and already) included in the Governorship article. This is consistent with the approach taken in other BLPs.CFredkin (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:POINTY. The article you refer to had a very selective, cherry picked, poll which you added. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * CFredkin, User:Cwobeel, I don't think I need to remind the two of you (experienced editors) of the discretionary sanctions. Cwobeel may well have a point about pointiness; at the same time there seems to be a kind of disjoint between what's in the Clinton article and what's in the Christie article. At the also same time there is no doubt that the Christie information is more comprehensive. Please talk it out, y'all, preferably in a larger and more general forum. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My purpose in mentioning Hillary in the Talk here was to point out the disparity in standards being applied between the 2 articles. Personally I don't really care whether the polling data stays or goes. But I do believe we should be consistent between the 2 articles.CFredkin (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Cwobeel I'm happy to let you pick.... Would you prefer that the Quinnipiac results stay in both, or be removed from both?CFredkin (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a silly game of tit for tat. If you want to discuss your edit on the Clinton article, there is a talk page for that. -  Cwobeel   (talk)
 * At this point, I'll point out the hypocrisy of that fact that it was you who argued so strenuously for the inclusion of Quinniac polling data here several months ago, while you object to the inclusion of Quinniac polling data at Hillary's bio. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt that you may have changed your perspective on the subject now.  But it really does appear that you believe we should have different standards for politicians of different parties.CFredkin (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I'm not involved in this issue, may I ask exactly what the problem is with including the polling data? I understand omitting things that may be biased-based, however this is just a clear fact by non-partisan polling, and thus really would merit inclusion. The fact that you want it omitted gives the impression you are pushing some sort of bias here. MavsFan28 (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Judge's finding on investigation
There is a paragraph in the "Fort Lee lane closure" section of this article about the investigation and report by the Gibson Dunn firm. This paragraph contains the statement that the report "cleared" the governor. Yesterday, a federal District Court judge issued an opinion criticizing the investigation. I put a very short, sourced, couple of sentences about the judge's comments at the end of the paragraph about the Gibson Dunn investigation. Diff here:  User:CFredkin reverted, with the edit summary:  "This content would be more appropriate in the main article on this topic." I had already put a slightly more detailed version of the same edit in the main article on this topic, along with a one-sentence summary in the intro of that article. However, I also think it belongs here. I think it is necessary to preserve the NPOV nature of that paragraph. Right now it is unbalanced because it refers only to the report "clearing" the governor without mentioning that a judge found serious flaws with the investigation. I suppose one solution would be to delete the entire paragraph. Would you agree to that, CFredkin? But I think a better solution would be to put my edit back in. It would be better to have "two sides of the story" than no sides of the story, but even no sides of the story is better than only one side. I also would like to know what other editors think. Neutron (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A discussion regarding how the investigation was conducted by the law firm isn't relevant to Christie's bio. This content would be more appropriately included in the main article at Fort Lee lane closure scandal  I'm ok with deleting the entire para as well.CFredkin (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * For comparison, please see how much coverage is given to the email controversy at Hillary Clinton.CFredkin (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think that when we have a statement in a bio that an investigation "cleared" the subject of the bio, and a federal judge issues a written opinion criticizing the way that investigation was conducted, yes, it is relevant to the bio. As I said before, I might feel differently if the mention of "cleared" was removed.  The presence of one makes the other relevant, otherwise the article is not NPOV.  (Added note:  Although I just noticed you said you are ok with deleting the entire paragraph, I would like to give others some time to weigh in.)


 * As for your comparison to the Hillary Clinton article, I don't think that is particularly relevant. Although, if you are arguing that that section of the HC article is too brief, I agree with you.  It does not mention her response to the allegations at all, which doesn't look very NPOV to me either.  So it probably needs to be lengthened by about two sentences that would  include her side of the story, which I notice is covered in some detail in the article on the email issue.  But I'm allowed to deal with one article at a time, and I choose this one.  Neutron (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's quite a bit more that could be included on the subject in Hillary's bio.CFredkin (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made the change indicated above. Neutron (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Need to remove borderline campaign promotional material
Wanting to assume good faith, there seems to be some promotional language. 1, the opening references a supposed landslide victory however no percentage breakdown is given. Maybe it would be better to remove the word landslide and either reference the percentage of votes received or remove the promotional term all together? 2, early life references the ancestry of his parents, which is unclear why this is notable? And do we need to know that he played sports in high school? This seems borderline campaign promotional material? I defer to others if this is seen as worth including or not. WatchDogUS (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * High school sports, early life belong in article. I personally abhor the inclusion of ethnic ancestry, but it's there on all the candidates pages.  Landslide belongs in lede - very rare for a Republican to win a landslide election in a deep blue state.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Help
Please fix this page. I tried to add a citation and messed up. WTCM47 (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)WTCM47 WTCM47 (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been fixed, please see this edit to see how. ~ Matthewrbowker  Drop me a note 23:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chris Christie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120216072544/http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/apnewsbreak-christie-decide-2012-bid-14643134 to http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/apnewsbreak-christie-decide-2012-bid-14643134

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Middle initial in infobox's heading
Look folks, see. Established professional journalistic practice, per style manuals of the AP, NYT, ad infinitum, is to render a subject's name in that indivual prefers such as often in her/his signature, etc. Thus it is WP's practice to render this in the header to the infobox when it conflicts with the shortened form the subject is generally known to the public by (as in wp:Common name); eg see Template:Infobox person: " If middle initials are specified (or implied) by the lead of the article, and are not specified separately in the birth_name field, include them here." Cf. infobox header "Hillary Rodham Clinton" at WP article Hillary Clinton, etc.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources for infobox religion?
I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):


 * Per Village pump (policy)/Archive 126: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.


 * Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?


 * Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.


 * Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016
 * Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
 * Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
 * Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."
 * Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home" and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch." and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13.
 * Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body,
 * Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1
 * Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian". Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Calls for resignation
Section displays WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM, needs to be shortened.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing religion from infobox
Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):


 * Per Village pump (policy)/Archive 126: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.


 * Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?


 * Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.


 * Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)


 * Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.


 * Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Christie has self-identified as Catholic & publicly discussed his agreement/disagreement with the religion, & how it informs his political decisions regarding abortion, birth control, homosexuality and statements of the Pope.
 * http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/08/chris_christies_religion_7_facts_about_his_catholi.html
 * http://religionnews.com/2016/02/04/chris-christie-gop-2016-election/
 * http://hollowverse.com/chris-christie/
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XojPKzDyZ30
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 05:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first citation above is completely lacking any hint of Chris Christie self-identifying as a Roman Catholic, much less meeting the other requirements I listed, so I didn't bother reading the rest. Give us a direct quote, please in Christy's own words, not some page that says that he has a friend who is a bishop. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Bother to read rest if you're actually interested in a discussion, instead of POV pushing.Djflem (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Evasion noted. I asked for a direct quote and you ignored the request. So I read your links. As I expected, no direct quote by Christy self-identifying as a Roman Catholic in any of them. (I am not going to waste 15 minutes of my time watching a youtube video. Give me the exact time where you claim he self-identified and I will look at it. Also, per WP:YT Youtube is a user-submitted video site and thus we should avoid linking to copyrighted material on it.) Do you not understand what the words "self-identifying" mean or did you think nobody would check? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "I am a Catholic" (Sept 2015)
 * http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/09/chris_christie_pope_francis_and_contraception_opin.html birth control
 * http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/250169-christie-im-a-catholic-but-ive-used-birth-control

Thank you. So the requirement for self-identification has been met.

WP:BLPCAT says ""Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious? So do you have a reliable source showing that Chris Christy's being a catholic is relevant to his public life or notability?

Because some people have trouble understanding or accepting Wikipedia's requirements for categorizing individuals by religion, WP:CATDEF explains the principles behind the requirement: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)

Even after reading the above, some people still have trouble understanding or accepting Wikipedia's "defining" requirement, so it is clearly explained in WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.

I have not seen any sources that establish that Christy meets the above requirements, but feel free to correct me with links to sources that that you believe do establish him meeting Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

No image?
Idk why, but I'm gonna put a placeholder in in the meantime --Volvlogia (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chris Christie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Fpolitics&id=9387729
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927024137/http://www.digifind-it.com/easthanover/The%20Hanover%20Eagle/1996/1996-11-14.pdf to http://www.digifind-it.com/easthanover/The%20Hanover%20Eagle/1996/1996-11-14.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130909185436/http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/burlington_county_times_news/can-new-jersey-afford-a-tax-cut-latest-revenue-numbers/article_c11287fd-d3c1-52e0-86cc-4697cd6c4afe.html?mode=jqm to http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/burlington_county_times_news/can-new-jersey-afford-a-tax-cut-latest-revenue-numbers/article_c11287fd-d3c1-52e0-86cc-4697cd6c4afe.html?mode=jqm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003055830/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11921 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11921
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006183340/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11923 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11923

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

as volunteer for Tom Kean
The lead paragraph states that Christie volunteered for Tom Kean's campaign for Governor when he was 15 (which would be 1977). The sentence implies Kean was elected that year, when he lost the Republican primary. Kean was elected in 1981 when Christie was 19. I suggest this sentence be changed to reflect either that Christie volunteered at age 19 or that Kean was unsuccessful when Christie volunteered at age 15. Asburyparker (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

His term ends January 23, 2018
See Terry McAuliffe, we don't show the departure date in the intro. Unclear who "we" in edit summary is. Nonetheless, His term ends January 23, 2018. has been in this article since March 2016. It is more appropriate than ever since Christie's successor has been elected and he is a lame duck. Other stuff exists, yes, or doesn't, but actually end of term should be added to Terry McAuliffe article, too. Djflem (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Beachgate
Due to the media publicity over the "Beachgate" scandal, I think it deserves a small section in the article. There is only a mention in the "See Also" category.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.89.40.209 (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Distillation of July 2016 Criticisms
After the beach incident, a wrath of new analysis of his administration failings have appeared; much of the content missing from the article.--Wikipietime (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

http://www.salon.com/2017/07/17/chris-christies-era-of-misrule-in-jersey-the-empty-swamp-mall-and-the-canceled-tunnel/

Carpeting connection? Mention? Wikipietime (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"Governor cookie monster" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Governor cookie monster. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 17:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Omission?
This page makes no mention of Christie’s prosecution of Charles Kushner for tax evasion and witness tampering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupeld (talk • contribs) 18:35, December 23, 2020 (UTC)
 * . –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 16:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Speech, A Time for Choosing
"The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute is proud to announce that Governor Chris Christie will be the Foundation’s fourth speaker in its Time for Choosing Speaker Series, a new forum for leading voices in the conservative movement to address critical questions facing the future of the Republican Party. This event will be held in-person, indoors, on the Reagan Library campus." YouTube has "Streamed live on Sep 9, 2021" Someone might add a summary of this speech, for the benefit of those wanting to know its essentials without having to view a nearly hour long video. 2603:6010:4E42:500:D8A2:2925:629C:C58B (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * with a reference from CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/09/politics/chris-christie-gop-2020-election-reality/index.html). –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 16:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

adding Table of Contents
The page needs a Table of Contents, and I don't know how to add it. Please somebody add. Don Wiss (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Chris Christie in popular culture
I think this article should have an "in popular culture" section, i.e. for times Christie has appeared, or been impersonated, or been portrayed on, TV shows etc. User:DuckshotMcDuck (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Unbelievable!
The article reads, re the Ft. Lee lane closures in 2013:

"Christie ... stated that he first found out about the traffic jams from a story in The Wall Street Journal after the lanes had been reopened."

That would be four days after they were closed.

His claim that he didn't even know about the lane closures for four days while employed as governor of the state is as implausible as anything I can think of.

Surely there is some countervailing opinion that can be quoted so that the Ft. Lee lane closures portion of the article can be a balanced account.

I hope someone knowledgeable about this subject can add appropriate sentences to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:c082:2ea0:5c35:1182:9ddd:1f0 (talk) 13:37, June 8, 2023 (UTC)
 * If you find WP:RS that we can use, let us know. Remember, "verifiability, not truth". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging Chris Christie 2024 presidential campaign into Chris Christie and leaving behind a redirect. I think that the content in the campaign can easily be explained within the biographical article for the foreseeable future, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in the candidate’s main article. It is not clear whether the campaign will obtain enough note down the road to warrant its own article, but it is not useful to have a stub article at this moment. I am not opposed to a future spinning-off/re-creation of the campaign article if there later becomes sufficiently more to write about the campaign, but for now I believe the stub-article on the campaign serves no use and there is not enough to expand the article beyond what is now contained in it. I am in the process of making similar requests for some other 2024 campaign articles.SecretName101 (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, he seems to be getting a lot of press atm to warrant an article for his campaign. Vyvagaba (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * There's some "sigcov" (from NYT) in these early days

Djflem (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * inserting: Djflem (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * inserting: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/12/us/politics/chris-christie-trump-cnn-town-hall.html?action=click&algo=bandit-all-surfaces-time-cutoff-30_impression_cut_3_filter_new_arm_5_1&alpha=0.05&block=more_in_recirc&fellback=false&imp_id=749524461&impression_id=0fa4a514-0b7d-11ee-a013-59f24d55cc04&index=5&pgtype=Article&pool=more_in_pools%2Fpolitics&region=footer&req_id=270686566&surface=eos-more-in&variant=0_bandit-all-surfaces-time-cutoff-30_impression_cut_3_filter_new_arm_5_1 Djflem (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * inserting:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/21/opinion/chris-christie-trump-republicans.html
 * @Djflem I never said that there is no significant coverage. I said there is nothing that cannot reasonably be covered within a section of Christie’s primary article. Not sure what purpose this list of links serves SecretName101 (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It addresses your claim that "there is not enough to expand the article beyond what is now contained in it". Djflem (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Multiple headlines does not mean significant content than can be added. It means that the subject just happens to be in the news.
 * News stories are often duplicative, and since we are WP:NotNews, not every news story has content which would be suitable to add. SecretName101 (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * True. but the above has content that would, since they describe his relationship to the major contender, position on the political spectrum, vision for the GOP, and other reasons for running, etc. Djflem (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Christie's article already has extensive coverage of his relationship to Trump (which is not unique to the topic of his campaign). In fact, Trump's name alone currently appears 34 times in Christie's article. SecretName101 (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So there's quanity, but about the quality of being in competition with him in 2024, and what he has said and what people think he is willing to say about Trump as a campaign strategy. Is that in Christie article? Djflem (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Djflem That very dynamic can be easily summarized in about two sentences. We only need to summarize the nature of it, not explicitly everything Christie is saying. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a comprehensive collection of Christie's remarks on Trump. Perhaps you are looking for Wikiquote. SecretName101 (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What would be the 2 sentences? Djflem (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this candidate has and continues to receive sustained media coverage and reputably sourced support. Candidate pages for credible major party candidates are the rule rather than the exception for Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, this would follow similar precedents set by Michael Bennet 2020 presidential campaign, John Hickenlooper 2020 presidential campaign, and Tim Ryan 2020 presidential campaign with the option of de-merging the article should it become necessary later down the road. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this is a standard for candidates for president to have their own campaign pages. If the campaign ends early, then we would merge the articles. Rexxx7777 (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * " If the campaign ends early, then we would merge the articles" all but admits that these campaigns in their early stages do not yet have enough of note to warrant a full article. Does it not?
 * And there is no rule that all candidacies for president get articles. In fact, "candidates for president" is very broad. Do we cover all of these figures' campaigns? No we do not. Some campaigns have enough notable material to warrant a full article. Others do not. When they don't warrant a solo article, one should not exist. SecretName101 (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As has been made clear, this campaign does have enough notable material to warrant a full article.. 18:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, whether or not there is a standard for candidates for president to have their own campaign pages, there is certainly such a standard for notable campaigns determined based on coverage in reliable sources, which this clearly meets. BD2412  T 20:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Plenty of equally-notable candidacies from 2020 do not have independent articles at this moment. This is a non-existent standard SecretName101 (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a standard, it's called notability. Whether or not candidates from 2020 have independent is not relevant. Djflem (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Djflem Notability is whether we include something on Wikipedia. Not all notable subjects need to be separate articles, or can be justified having one.
 * For a illustration outside of the realm of politics: Britney Spears' marriage to Kevin Federline. Immensely notable. Huge discussion and coverage in the media. However, not needing of a spun-off article SecretName101 (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose sufficient sustained coverage, passes GNG. Djflem (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. We can re-evaluate when he withdraws from the race. Maybe there will be enough to keep the article, maybe not. Too early to tell. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I believe it's too early to consider a merge and it's only fair to consider merging once the primary season starts or when the campaign has been suspended. --2601:249:8E00:420:B93B:A3A7:4E32:53B2 (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wait until the primaries begin or when he drops out. The article looks good enough to merit its own article in the meantime. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the arguments raised above. Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/16/us/politics/chris-christie-business.html
 * Oppose - at least until he drops out of the race. Depending on how deep his run goes into the primaries (or beyond), the articles can be merged at that point. At present, he obviously meets the "viable candidate" threshold. User:DuckshotMcDuck (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckshotMcDuck (talk • contribs)
 * Where's that a threshold for needing a spun-off article?
 * Articles can also be spun-off a later time. Why create pending a later a later merge?????? SecretName101 (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the campaign is notable, there are large numbers of reliable sources that talk about it and his candidacy is routinely included in virtually every poll taken regarding the primary since he announced his candidacy.XavierGreen (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability and coverage means it can be mentioned/included on the project. Not that it neccessitates coverage as a separate article. SecretName101 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the campaign is receiving WP:SIGCOV and notable. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)