Jump to content

Talk:Jon Corzine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleJon Corzine was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 27, 2008Good article nomineeListed
July 11, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Former governor

[edit]

please update —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not from New Jersey, but I believe that Corzine remains Governor until the Governor-Elect (the wikipedia page on Chris Christie lists him as Governor-Eelect) is sworn in as Governor. --203.58.0.142 (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are: it says here in the Governor of New Jersey article that Corzine's term began on January 17, 2006 and continues until January 19, 2010. Chris Christie has been elected to replace Corzine as governor; he assumes office on January 20, 2010. --203.58.0.142 (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing it, he definitely will remain Governor until January 19th. --Wikiperson0202 (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info box and succession box

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed. I wish good health to the retiring Governors & the Governors-Elect of New Jersey & Virginia. Mightberight/wrong 0:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Carla Katz

[edit]

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattweng (talk • contribs) 04:01, 10 November 2005‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

Title of Acting Governor

[edit]

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)[reply]

Acts section and cuts

[edit]

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)[reply]

Seriousness of the surgery

[edit]

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)[reply]

"Corzinewatch"?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Religion, infobox

[edit]

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)[reply]

"Afterward, Corzine rolled down Route 1, navy pin-striped jacket off, toward his next stop, the Islamic Society of Central Jersey, where he delivered a talk about genocide in Sudan. During the Q&A, one man got up and said, “We are all human beings. All of us together, as people. I am a Muslim, you are Jewish . . . ” Corzine’s neck and face turned red, but he let the man finish talking.

“Actually,” Corzine said to him finally, with a slightly awkward smile, “I’m a Methodist.” " from here: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/12194/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.79.18 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Confab"

[edit]

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).[reply]

Car accident

[edit]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks, I not technically proficient so hopefully someone will understand what merge means. Chivista 15:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It was reported that he would pay his own medical bills rather than bill taxpayers.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cantonrep.com:8881/printable.php?ID=351027</ref></nowiki<p> I would like to add the above sentence, but the only reference I can find is to a page that I could not accesss this morning. I am a brand-newbie, so can someone tell me if I copied the reference format correctly? Also, can anyone else access the page? I am a New Jersey resident, and I remember this, and have mentioned it to others, but need a documentable reference. Thanks [[User:Sallijane|Sallijane]] ([[User talk:Sallijane|talk]]) 13:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC) : I found a stable link from the Star-Ledger website and added the sentence to the page. For news reports, you can use [[Template:Cite news]], e.g.: :{{cite news |title=Corzine will pay all medical bills, aide says |work=[[The Star-Ledger]] |date=2007-04-27 |accessdate=2009-01-24 |url=http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates/2007/04/corzine_will_pay_all_medical_b.html}} :[[User:Offenbach|Offenbach]] ([[User talk:Offenbach|talk]]) 17:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC) ==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. [[User:Chivista|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? -[[User:Grammaticus Repairo|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?? <p>Corzine and staff requested that Corzine be ticketed for not wearing belt, and he was. If you want, I'll find the reference.[[User:Sallijane|Sallijane]] ([[User talk:Sallijane|talk]]) 13:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC) ==Residence Hoboken== Thanks for the reference! [[User:Chivista|Chivista]] 18:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC) ==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... -[[User:Grammaticus Repairo|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 [[University of Chicago Graduate School of Business|business school]], [[University of Chicago Law School|law school]] [[Harris School of Public Policy Studies|public policy school]] probably aspire to one of his current or past roles. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|cont]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]])</small> 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. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 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. [[User:Alansohn|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. -[[User:Grammaticus Repairo|Grammaticus Repairo]] 01:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC) {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Priority Scale}} :::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. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|cont]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]])</small> 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 <nowiki>[[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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The Project ( or rather Tony; it seems to be short on other members) is free to watch as many members of Category: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

Weak coverage of his position as CEO of Goldman Sachs

[edit]

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)[reply]

Agreed - especially given his association with LTCM. Dan Rayn (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganizing random comments

[edit]

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)[reply]

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.

Bot and WP:Chicago

[edit]
(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Interested

[edit]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Controversy section deleted

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Neutrality?

[edit]

In amny places this page reads as though it had been edited by the campaign publicist of an election opponent.Mrs Tilton (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify some of those passages? Indicate what it is that concerns you? Perhaps suggest ways to improve them?Thefactis (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absent any concurring opinion, or even a hint about what the neutrality issue in this article might be, I believe it is time to remove the banner. Anyone who disagrees need only explain why.Thefactis (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is horribly written. Most of the information appears to be heavily biased against the governor and seems to be an attack piece with little neutral discussion of the governor's tenure. For instance, one section claims the governor chaned his opinion on govt employees contributing to their healthcare to satisfy his ex girlfriend, when in fact the state now requires employees to contribute 1.5% of their pay. Many more examples exist. The chronology of the article is terrible. This article needs a complete overhaul to remove bias and errors. MkarchnjMkarchnj (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is HEAVILY biased against the governor, the Katz section alone is a big bias (look how much space it is given, and it is written very biased.) The state has an election coming up, and the neutrality of this article is important. I'm gonna try and go in and clean it up in the next few days. It needs a lot of work. It's fine to include issues and problems, but this thing is written way to biased. Bluedemocrat (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added most of the references in the article to bring it to WP:GA status. Much of the text is artifacts from prior editorial work. Everything that I added was fairly neutral stuff from Time, Newsweek, etc. Anyone is free to revise the text as is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the article may have historically been biased I do feel a larger portion should be dedicated to MF Global. Outside of New Jersey it is MF Global which will largely define his legacy good or bad. As such 3 short paragraphs with little information in comparison to list of his accomplishments is hardly appropriate. KSchmitt (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Corzine GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jon Corzine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be doing the GA review for this article. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

The article will be on hold for a week for improvements. Nikki311 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! :) Pass. Nikki311 15:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Section

[edit]

Someone slapped a {{npov-section}} tag on a section and never came here to explain why. I am going to remove it. If you want to replace it give me an argument.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a NPOV Section to the Entry into Politics section. You can see that I've made one change to make it less biased but I don't feel like rewriting it now. If you question whether it's actually NPOV or not, read the section. Although I generally have a leftward bias, I have no love for my governor and consider the section as written to be pretty biased. Huckfinne (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A section was tagged as POV. I am here to discuss examples. Generalities don't help much.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Corzine bussed in Philadelphia homeless shelter and halfway house residents to help boost turnout"

[edit]

I have a problem with this sentence. It's not factually inaccurate, but it does create the impression that he got out of state residents to vote for him in the election (a felony).

I propose the following sentence, "Corzine bussed in residents of Philadelphia homeless shelters and halfway houses to work on turnout efforts."

Makes the situation a bit clearer. If anyone thinks I'm overreacting please let me know.

The rest of the article has a slight anti-Corzine hue, but I don't care enough about the man to do anything more than this.

59.38.32.9 (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC) I've made this change. If anyone has an issue, go read the USNWR article.Huckfinne (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone put it back, removed it again. If people are going to keep insisting on putting this into the article, at least use an actual news source, and not a biased opinion article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauraunt (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Bilderberg Group participation

[edit]
Resolved
 – See note below.—Teahot (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the fact that Jon Corzine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Governor of New Jersey) has participated in several meetings of the Bilderberg Group significant enough for inclusion in his biographical page and for him to be added to category:Bilderberg Attendees? —Teahot (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Corzine attended the Bilderberg Group meetings in 1995-1997, 1999, 2003 and 2004, I added this article to the Category:Bilderberg Attendees. The facts are well sourced and not in dispute but my edit was promptly deleted on the basis that his participation in the Bilderberg Group was not mentioned in the main body of the article and that attending these influential and private meetings was not significant enough to warrant categorization diff. I suggest that the fact he has attended these controversial and undocumented meetings should be added to the main article and the category added back as a general fact of public interest unless there is a clear consensus not to do so.

An example supporting source is: The New American, June 28, 2004, "Bilderbergers celebrate half a century of intrigue, secrecy", Vol. 20, No. 13, ISSN 0885-6540, quote:"Attendees from the U.S. this year reportedly included: Senators Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) and John Edwards (D-N.C.); Melinda Gates, wife of Microsoft founder Bill Gates; Donald Graham, chairman and CEO of the Washington Post Company; Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations; Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal ReserveBank of New York; Douglas Feith, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense; Walter Isaacson, president and CEO of the Aspen Institute; Jessica T. Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Indra K. Nooyi, president and CEO of Pepsico; Peter Weinberg, CEO of Goldman Sachs International; and James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank." —Teahot (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support given the significance of the Bilderberg group (and the people who attend), it is relevant. Therefore as long as the sources are mentioned somewhere in the article, and are credible, I say it should be mentioned. A category seems reasonable, but perhaps redundant given the existence of a list of Bilderberg participants article already. --Rebroad (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose including Corzine in such a category, or mentioning his Bilderberg attendance in the article. I checked the first six people in List of current United States governors, and none of them is included in a category regarding their attendance at a meeting, any kind of meeting. The importance to their lives and careers of any particular type of meeting attendance would need to be shown. Bilderberg-related information should probably be kept only in the Bilderberg Group article until such time as the press starts to consider it very important. The Davos conferences are much better known than the Bilderberg meetings, and being invited to Davos is an honor, yet we don't seem to record Davos attendance in any biographical articles. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Davos meetings are a good comparison, though I think you are incorrect about the press not considering it 'very important'. Due to the secretive nature of the Bilderberg conferences there has been significant press interest in the past and more recently (for example the series of articles about this year's conference in the Guardian). Try googling "Davos Meeting" and "Bilderberg Group", the Bilderberg Group wins hands down for public interest. To demonstrate press interest I've run a quick search for major printed newspaper articles in the last few weeks and here are some matches from the top of the list just to show how many different publications have shown interest (i.e. articles not just one line diary mentions; I stopped at 10): The Sunday Independent (South Africa), June 14, 2009; The New Zealand Herald, June 1, 2009; The Observer (England), May 31, 2009; Pittsburgh Tribune Review, May 31, 2009; The Miami Herald, May 26, 2009; The New York Post, May 25, 2009; Variety, May 25, 2009; The Village Voice (New York), May 20, 2009; The Times (London), May 16, 2009; The Mirror, May 15, 2009.—Teahot (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A similar issue was raised on Talk:Peter Mandelson#Bilderberg Group and WP:BLPN#Peter Mandelson, where the consensus so far has been to add his Bilderberg participation to the article.—Teahot (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I mentioned this discussion at WP:BLPN#Peter Mandelson. I see this category has very recently been added to a number of other articles as well, and I think it can be anticipated that the number of discussions of the same subject (currently at least three) is only going to grow. Wouldn't it make sense to have one discussion, in one centralized place? (I am not sure where that would be.) Neutron (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the real question here is, why is it important that these people attend these meetings? I have yet to see a clear answer to that, other than one that is based on the idea that these meetings result in decisions being made that create an influence unknown to the general public. I actually was barely aware of the Bilderberg group until I saw this and read the article about it, and the idea that these meetings are important and influential are termed "conspiracy theories." I don't see how one can regard the governor's participation as particularly important, unless one buys into those theories. Neutron (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best clear example of the importance of this meeting, without it being seen as some sort of conspiracy, is the example given in an interview with Denis Healey where David Owen used it as a forum to promote sanctions against Argentina when he would not have publicly spoken to these nations in a "formal" capacity. Sanctions were later taken and Healey considered Owen's speech at this meeting highly influential. The source is given at David Owen#Social Democratic Party and Liberal-SDP Alliance.—Teahot (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A separate comment: Teahot, I read your statement of the issue at the RFC page, where you say the issue is whether the category should be added to this page. I think a more fundamental issue is whether the category (which you created yesterday) should exist at all. I don't see how it adds to the sum of human knowledge to have a sign on the bottom of the page for everybody who ever went to one of these meetings -- unless the meetings really do rule the world, but I see no evidence of that. Neutron (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the category, it has been discussed on my talk page with the beginnings of a rationale for the benefit for it existing in addition to the current List of Bilderberg participants. I would welcome further comments there, particularly with regard to a better category name.—Teahot (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion It seems to be reliably sourced information, and, conspiracy theories aside, the social networks of important people are a valid item of interest in their biographies, particularly when these networks attain a high profile. RayTalk 20:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RFC Summary
The consensus is to add a neutral sentence, stating his attendance at Bilderberg Conferences to the article with supporting published reliable sources. The category mentioned (Bilderberg Attendees) has been deleted since the RFC was raised and so is not relevant.—Teahot (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs to be updated to include Corzine's successor Chris Christie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_New_Jersey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scelba (talk • contribs) 04:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcade speed after the accident

[edit]

It's too irrelevant and (tabloid) sensational to have sentences about Corzine's motorcade speed when he left the hospital after recovering from his motorcade accident. The speed of his vehicle before the accident is germane to the section, but the speed of his vehicle at any other time isn't. Are we to have bits on how fast he was going to dinner last night? If someone wants to start an article titled, "Jon Corzine motorcade speeds," then place this info there. But it shouldn't be here. The only purpose of those statements is to hammer home a point. And Wikipedia isn't a place to prove a point. I'll wait till the end of the day before deleting. ask123 (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster precisely strikes the dartboard centre. There is nothing notable (WP:N) about driving at 70 MPH on the type of freeway that Corzine was using, and it is actually quite commonplace.
The linking of common terms, such as femur, and terms that have no relevance to or do not provide a context for the "story" (such as Level I trauma centre) is absurd, especially for a supposed "GA". GotR Talk 23:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public Opinion Section/ Public Opinion Summary

[edit]

I propose creating a separate public opinion section. I think it would better serve the purposes of providing a summary of public opinion on the Corzine administration. I am aware that there is currently public opinion information included in the "Governor" section, but it would be easily integrated in to the new section. Additionally, I propose adding a graph that would visually depict Gov. Corzine's approval and disapproval ratings.Mkrayton (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for CEOs and chairmen

[edit]

Yes he is categorized as ceo and chairman of goldman saks, but he was also the ceo and chairman of MF Global so this is not redundant? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Corzine&action=historysubmit&diff=459069902&oldid=459059664 Ottawahitech (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a parent category. Per category guidelines, only the most specific category should be added, not all the parents in its hierarchy. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that MF Global has gone bust, should he be referred to as 'disgraced' CEO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.208.39 (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How could Corzine's poll numbers have been low immediately after taken office because of a government shutdown that did not take place until late 2006, when they were negotiating the 2007 budget??? "After taking office in January 2006, Corzine's approval numbers were very low. Many polls seemed to indicate that much of this negative polling was a result of the 2006 New Jersey State Government shutdown. An April 26, 2006, polls from Quinnipiac University Polling Institute showed Corzine at a 15% approval with a 72% disapproval." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.52.36 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corzine and Christopher Flowers

[edit]

Can somebody please update the JC Flowers section? The article states that Corzine became a partner in JC Flowers in 2010, but isn't that very old information? I thought they had a falling out over the MF Global debacle. Can someone please update the situation/relationship between Corzine and Flowers? Thanks in advance.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jon Corzine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Jon Corzine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jon Corzine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jon Corzine. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jon Corzine. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Jon Corzine. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Corzine. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Corzine. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image in infobox

[edit]

Should File:SenatorJonCorzine (cropped).jpg be used in the infobox instead of the current image, File:Governor portrait hr.jpg? The current image doesn't have clear source information. Wikiacc () 15:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Jon Corzine/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Result: Delisted. Legitimate concerns, no opposition or improvements made; Matters raised in the reassessment were not addressed. These matters will remain valid until the next GA Review, whereupon they must be addressed first. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starts GA Reassessment. The reassessment will follow the same sections of the Article. Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 

Instructions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment

Observations

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
   HTML document size: 393 kB
   Prose size (including all HTML code): 70 kB
   References (including all HTML code): 199 kB
   Wiki text: 110 kB
   Prose size (text only): 39 kB (6444 words) "readable prose size"
   References (text only): 30 kB
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  • The Lede is too short. There is a tag on this page to this effect.
  • Infobox is comprehensive.
  • Tenure section is excessively overlinked. See WP:MOSLINK
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  • Reference 2 is a dead link
  • All links to Time Magazine are dead links. Run the Internet Archive Bot over this page.
  • There are seven citation needed tags on the page.
  • There are no references for the Electoral History tables.
  • Committee assignment section has a[citation needed] tag outstanding since 2019
  • every resident to enrol in a health plan and have taxpayers help pick up the tab for all the welfare low- and middle-income residents. In June 2008, state legislators voted for the first phase of that program mandating health care coverage and Corzine signed it into law in July.[citation needed]
  • Corzine was one of several United States Governors and following in this paragraph is overlinked.
  • MF Global section is too big; (MF Global and their collapse have their own article.)(Corzine has a complete section in this article.) This section is too large, reduce it to three paragraphs. Current paragraph 3 is far too large and contains material that belongs on the MF Global page.
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • It is meet and fitting that Corzine spent $62 million on his senate election campaign. This election has its own page and this section may be effectively trimmed back to three paragraphs. Too much detail, see WP:PROSELINE.
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  • The section during Corzine's tenure as Governor and Presidents Clinton and Obama is excessively overlinked.
  • Consideration was given to the scandal section, referencing Carla Katz. Neutral point of view and verifiability were examined and confirmed.
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  • Page created 5 October 2003 by Academic Challenger
  • Page has 2725 edits by 1219 editors
  • 90 day page views has 30,676 views with an average of 337 views daily.
  • Page has had occasions of minor vandalism; Cluebot and other editors resolving quickly.
  • Page is considered basically stable.
  1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  • File:SenatorJonCorzine.jpg = This United States Congress image is in the public domain, due being a photograph of a (former) elected official (US Senate).
  • File:Jon Corzine.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
  • File:Corzine final.pdf = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
  1. Notifying Editors:
  • Page Creator Academic Challenger notified;
  • Editor RFD notified;
  • Editor Anomalocaris notified;
  • Editor TonyTheTiger notified;
  • Editor Offenbach notified;
  • Editor WikiProject United States governors notified;
  • Editor WikiProject U.S. Congress notified;
  • Editor WikiProject New Jersey notified;
  • Editor WikiProject Biography/Politics and government notified;
  • A total of five involved editors and several WikiProjects were notified.
  1. Overall:
  • The Internet Archive bot should be run over this page and its references. Many are 404.
  • The lede section is too short and needs more content.
  • There are seven [7] citation needed tags on this page which need resolution
  • Material in the MF Global section is too large and needs to be trimmed; MF Global has its own page.
  • There is over-linking on this page. The Electoral History tables lack references.
  • An amount of work is required on this page.

 

 On hold for one week. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteguru, I agree that the article would need significant work to maintain GA status. Suggest delisting it since it's been a week. (t · c) buidhe 07:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 

Result: Delisted. Legitimate concerns, no opposition or improvements made; Matters raised in the reassessment were not addressed. These matters will remain valid until the next GA Review, whereupon they must be addressed first. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jon_Corzine&oldid=1246655310"