Talk:Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey

message: I live in New Jersey.  What amazes me is that after the 2005 election, there was very little discussion about this topic.
Should "Background" be changed to past tense instead of present? For example, "The Governor of New Jersey is considered[1][2] one of the most powerful governorships in the nation, as it is currently the only state-wide (non-federal) elected office in the state" -> "The Governor of New Jersey WAS considered[1][2] one of the most powerful governorships in the nation, as it WAS the only state-wide (non-federal) elected office in the state" ? Andrewmin (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussions

message: I have been revising the article for a good article nomination in the near future. A few numbered questions below for assistance if anyone happens by... --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisions JUL/AUG13

message: Since it's too long and interrupts commenting, transcluding the GA review here has been removed by the reviewer and I agree with that move. If you'd like to read the GA review done in October and November 2013, see: Talk:Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey/GA1.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: GA1 Review (October-November 2013)

message: A user has changed the usage of the adjective Democrat with Democratic despite the fact that the style guides used by NJ's major newspapers indicates the former, and northeastern dialects of American English (several spoken in NJ) prefer the usage of Democrat.(ref: Frederic Gomes Cassidy and Joan Houston Hall. eds, Dictionary of American Regional English: Volume 2 (1991) pp. 37-38, 1036).--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you incorrectly edited the review (feel free to ping me in the future). Thanks to the user for their edits, however there is a longstanding consensus that the local variants of English should be used (WP:ENGVAR) and that the existing terminology (by which I mean, the original terminology) should be maintained (WP:RETAIN), so if there's any need for consensus to be found on this (minor and stylistic) matter, I support the use of 'democrat', as described above. Additionally, this article is an FA, and it is unusual for articles post-FA promotion to undergo these sort of English-variant changes once already promoted. --LT910001 (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

text: * You are correct, I incorrectly added my comment to the end of the GA review by editing the section instead of starting a new section with the option above. the transcluded GA template tends to cause that problem. Many thanks for your observations regarding policies.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

text: *  You have to consider that linguistically noun adjuncts function as adjectives, so some of the noun usage that would appear as an adjective is not. I'll review each usage individually tomorrow (since it's 0220 now)--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Official party organization statements like http://www.democrats.org/ and http://democrats.senate.gov/ consistently use "Democrat" as a noun and "Democratic" as an adjective. I seem to recall, some time around 2004, an allegation in liberal circles that Republican groups were attempting to promote the use of "Democrat" as an adjective, since it sounded less friendly and would subtly shift public opinion. I don't have a link, and I've no idea if it was true, but there is at least the perception that the phrase "the Democrat Party" is a very-subtly biased term. Regardless, it's not a term the Democratic Party uses for themselves. – Quadell (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly--when it's an adjective  direct reference to the Party, it's "Democratic". However Democratic nominee vs. Democrat nominee, Democrat Senator, etc., is arguably a noun adjunct and the form "Democrat" entirely acceptable--and its the usage employed in the northeast. And calling someone a "Democratic" nominee or "Democratic" senator can be seen as misleading (and subtly indicating the opposition is non-democratic). Per WP:DIVIDEDUSE, which Mr. Matte points to, either way is acceptable--and I doubt there's much variance between the two and unlikely to support either as "primary" or "most common", per ENGVAR and RETAIN per LT910001, there's no need to be edit warring over "-ic" when either form is acceptable and the usage here is in keeping with real world usage. This is equivalent to arguing whether it's "traveling" or "travelling", "gray" or "grey" when both are equally acceptable.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't (and still don't) have time today to really address this, but "Democrat members" and "Democrat Senate co-President..." are incorrect.  It should be Democratic, not Democrat.  And the idea that "Democrat" (in this sense) is used by some as an epithet against Democrats is not merely an allegation or something that some Democrats think; as I just discovered, Wikipedia even has an article about it:  Democrat Party (epithet).  I also don't think that a vague reference to a 23-year-old edition of the Dictionary of American Regional English is enough to establish that this is a correct current usage.  Neutron (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also WP:NPOV to consider.  The "average reader", aware that "Democrat members", "Democrat Senators", "Democrat policies", "Democrat wars", etc. have often been used in a derogatory sense, and unaware of the so-called "regional variation" in usage, could reasonably conclude that Wikipedia is taking a partisan position.  As for the so-called "regional variation", nobody has shown any evidence that there is consistent usage of "Democrat" in this sense in the Northeast or in New Jersey in particular.  I don't even see any evidence that it's a "majority usage."  At best, the region is divided on this usage issue.  If there were no NPOV issue to consider, I might agree with Colonel Henry, that either term is acceptable.  However, there is a POV issue, as explained above.  I'm changing it back, in the two instances (at last count) in which it is an issue.  And if that goes, I think the "explanatory note" has to go too, because there will be nothing to explain.  Neutron (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I just made the edits, but I did NOT simply change "Democrat" to "Democratic" in the two sentences in question.  Instead, I edited those sentences to avoid the issue.  I think that is a good compromise, for the moment.  Of course, it does not avoid the possibility that the issue might come up in some other article.  Hopefully we can agree that "writing around" the issue is sufficient, to allow this Featured Article to remain stable and free of POV issues.  Neutron (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good, Solomonic edit.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, and since you sent me one of those "thank you" thingies, you're welcome.  I was actually pleasantly surprised when I realized that there appeared to be a fairly easy solution.  Neutron (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is those very solutions that seem to elude us when we need them...may they happen more often. New year, new beginnings. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Democrat vs. Democratic

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630013226/http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp to http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp
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) 03:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921055224/http://slic.njstatelib.org/slic_files/imported/NJ_Information/Digital_Collections/Governors_of_New_Jersey/GINGO.pdf to http://slic.njstatelib.org/slic_files/imported/NJ_Information/Digital_Collections/Governors_of_New_Jersey/GINGO.pdf
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) 10:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey. 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20131112075220/http://slic.njstatelib.org/slic_home/new_jersey_information/digital_collections/the_governors_of_new_jersey_1664_1974 to http://slic.njstatelib.org/slic_home/new_jersey_information/digital_collections/the_governors_of_new_jersey_1664_1974
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029184440/http://governors.rutgers.edu/njgov/NJN-PowerofNJGovernor.php to http://governors.rutgers.edu/njgov/NJN-PowerofNJGovernor.php
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) 09:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131226100545/http://whyy.org/cms/news/government-politics/2009/12/17/lt-gov-of-nj-also-named-sec-of-state/25790 to http://whyy.org/cms/news/government-politics/2009/12/17/lt-gov-of-nj-also-named-sec-of-state/25790
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) 21:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This older FA promotion does not meet the FA criteria.  There is significant uncited text.  There's also some balance issues - the 2009 election is given more space than the 2013, 2017, and 2021 ones combined.  Also some sourcing issues - I've flagged a small failed verification, and there's issues like  being sourced to a source dated January 7 - it obviously can't support that something happened after it was published.  Or  - Source is from 2004!  How can it support something from 2006?   should also be sourced to a secondary source, rather than interpretation of the state constitution.  These are only a sampling, there are significant sourcing issues here. Hog Farm  Talk 19:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020B]]