Talk:Alcohol laws of New Jersey/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Underage drinking penalties

Removed "(never actually imposed)" in the section talking about minors, drinking and jail time. No refs were provided, and it is in poor judgement to post what could be construed as legal advice without references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.94.211 (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Although this phrase is probably true, I could find no reference supporting it, so it should be removed.Debbie W. 12:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Revision ideas

This article needs a little better organization, proposal for eventual revision. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Controlling legal authorities
Licensing

application process (ABC vs. ATF, local zoning)
retail licenses: liquor stores, restaurants, etc.
production licenses:

plenary/farm/small-scale
wineries/breweries/distillery
direct shipping and retail outlets
conflicts with local zoning/land use

wholesale/distribution licenses
club licenses, miscellaneous

BYOB issues

restaurants
strip clubs/gentleman's clubs

Employment issues concerning alcohol regulation (age to serve, prohibition for employment)
Hours of Operation for establishments serving alcohol (casinos, restaurants, bars)
Wet and dry towns
Alcohol related criminal offenses and legal issues

"dramshop liability"
Drunk driving (DUI/DWI)
underage drinking
open container
public intoxication and other related "morals" offenses.
other offenses (affirmative defense and aggravating factor in violent crimes, death by auto, murder, assault)

I agree with you that more areas need to be covered by this article. Many of the above topics appear to be discussed in the article. However, I think that a more detailed explanation of licensing laws and DUI laws should be added. DavidinNJ (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, a lot of the information is covered presently, but the article suffers from a lack of organisation that impedes the conveyance of the information. My focus would be towards reorganisation and expansion. I think a discussion of the types of many types of licenses and the limitations is desirable...especially in the area of our mutual interest, alcoholic beverage producers. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits for clarification

I was asked on my talk page to make some edits to clarify sections of this article, which I have started. I am busy right now with an admin call I might have made in error, so I have to finish job this later. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I know User:DavidinNJ reached out to you to take a look, and I am sure he and I both will appreciate your suggestions and assistance. Grazie tante.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Bearian, Thank you for your help. I specifically requested you because you're a law professor, and some parts of this article are very legalistic. A number of other people reviewed this article, but they were mostly looking at grammar. DavidinNJ (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Flattery gets you everywhere. My students call me "weird" ... anyway, I edited some more and added a {{clarify}} tag at one spot that is still unclear. More work needs to be done before is gets to FA, but I think it's getting better. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought that the "W" in Wikipedia stood for weirdos. Anyway, I believe that I may have resolved the one clarify tag regarding unlicensed restaurants as sales outlets. I gave the full terminology -- offsite retail sales outlet, and added a underlying link to outlet store. Essentially, the restaurant functions under the winery's liquor license. Generally speaking, what needs to be done to make this article FA level? DavidinNJ (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That's an easy question, but not so easy answer! See Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria for the official guidelines. Basically, the article must be:

"well-written: engaging" and "professional" - it's getting there
"comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details" - I think this has been fulfilled
"well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature... supported by inline citations where appropriate;" - just about there
"neutral: without bias..." - again, I think it's there
"stable ... its content does not change significantly from day to day..." - not there yet, still under active editing
"It follows the style guidelines, including ... a lead" - I think the lead should be both more "concise" and it does not yet "summarizes[] the topic and prepare[] the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;" - tight now the lead is a mishmash of what follows; it needs to be more of a summary or checklist in prose
It has "a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents;"
"consistent citations" - not there yet
"It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." - I have not yet had the chance to check out the (c) status,
"It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." - this, too, could be improved. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I don;t agree with everything in this essay, but it's a good checklist: User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

@Bearian. A few comments on your assessment above (1) The active editing in recent weeks was connected with emendations and comments suggested at the FAC. After the FAC, I doubt there will be any further substantive edits. (2) what is inconsistent about the citations that renders the assessment "not there yet"? (3) where is there unnecessary detail that could be tightened up? Once again, thank you for taking a look and offering your suggestions. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Bearian, In the last 3 weeks, all the changes to this article have been in terms of verbiage and formatting. We're not having edit wars, or having massive changes of content. I agree with ColonelHenry that after the FAC, there shouldn't be any major changes to this article unless New Jersey law is changed. I would also like a clarification about the consistency of the citations. We've tried to do everything to ensure that all 295 citations for this article use the same formatting style. DavidinNJ (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I didn't mean that it appeared there were edit wars. I just wanted to be sure it's close to perfect. I went through the article again just now, and made some minor changes in style and linkage. I think it's ready for prime time now. Great job, folks! Bearian (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Bearian, Thank you for help with this article. DavidinNJ (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Broader critique

Now that my copy edit's done, here's the critique that I promised the article's FA nominators, the one I would have given had the FAC not been concluded before I could do so.

Generally, I agree that it has earned its featured status. A lot of work has been done, a lot of research, and even having grown up in New Jersey I learned some things I didn't know. I used to question the title "Alcohol laws of ...", as of course these laws don't apply to the sale and use of, say, rubbing alcohol, but given what you've included here I'm not so sure anymore. It's certainly a template to follow if I ever realize an old ambition and similarly expand Alcohol laws of New York.

But we should never let the recognition our articles achieve deceive us into thinking we've done all we could. I can still a lot of places where this article could be even better.

I'll start with somethings that came up during copyediting that I didn't feel comfortable addressing without consulting you guys, and then move on to the larger issues.

Copy questions

In the intro: "They provide for 29 distinct liquor licenses granted to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and for the public warehousing and transport of alcoholic beverages" How is the latter clause distinct from what wholesalers do?

Under "other authorities", the article gives "military bases and national parks" as examples of federal enclaves. New Jersey has one of the former, but none of the latter. So, are National Recreation Areas (Gateway and Delaware Water Gap) also federal enclaves? The article would suggest as much for Gateway later on. Should we say "federal protected areas" (a broader term) instead?

"Federal law requires colleges and universities that accept federal financial aid institute policies to sanction students who violate underage drinking and other alcohol laws, and to track the number of liquor laws violations. The Chronicle of Higher Education has reported that many colleges fail to comply with these laws, and federal enforcement is minimal." This is certainly true, but I submit that its direct relevance to New Jersey's liquor laws needs to be established for it to be in the article. Are there some concerns here that are, say, specific to Princeton, Rutgers or any other prominent college in New Jersey? If so, let's talk about them. If not, we don't need these sentences.

As there are bulleted lists elsewhere in the article, we might want to consider doing the same with the five regions of the casino floor the CCC's regs delineate.

Again, in "Federal lands", we should not use "national parks" since as I previously noted, NJ doesn't have any.

More to come—I've been staring at the computer too long and I need to take a break. Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You raise interesting points for future expansion (i.e. post 24 April when the article is TFA) and one area that someone else had mentioned was in the law's limitation or oversight (or lack thereof) over homebrewing activities. As for the federal enclave question, I would venture it might be better to say National Park Service properties or National Park System, but saying that NJ doesn't have a "national park" is rather debatable...the only difference in designation of national park vs. national recreation area is largely a question of federal funding levels and administration. Delaware Water Gap NRA and Gateway NRA are "national parks" in all but name and don't get as much funding despite being bigger than most natonal parks. As for liquor laws, DWGNRA (from personal experience getting cited) and the 10 other sites that NPS oversees in NJ qualify per law as a federal enclave for the purposes this article discusses. I would venture to say (though need to check the law) that USFS and BLM sites in the state would also qualify as enclaves.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Daniel, Thank you for your thorough review of this article. Likewise, in writing and editing this article, I found that there were many things about NJ law that I did not know before. Here are some answers to your questions. (1) A wholesalers license includes the right to transport and warehouse, but transportation licenses and warehouseing licenses do not include the right to sell at wholesale. Notice the massive price differences in the license. It $8750/year for a plenary wholesale license, so the state created the class D & E licenses ($500-600/year) as a much less expensive alternative for businesses that just transport or store liquor. (2) As ColonelHenry said, NJ doesn't have "national parks" officially, but has plenty of lands administered by the National Park Service. As for whether a given federal land is an enclave, that is a very difficult question. Parts of Sandy Hook are definitely an enclave (e.g., the lighthouse), but there was a court case regarding a serious crime committed there, and the state supreme court admitted that they couldn't really delinate excatly what parts of Gateway were a federal enclave and which weren't. Generaly, NPS properties created before WWII are enclaves, and those created afterwards aren't, but that's not always true. I would like to think about what the call lands administered by the NPS, because "federal lands" is too broad, and "federal protected areas" seems confusing too the average reader. (3) The part about colleges is included in the section about federal mandates on states regarding drinking age; besides the transportation funding elements of the National Minimum Drinking Age, colleges accepting students with federal aid (just about all of them) are also mandated to track alcohol violations. (4) I didn't include bullets with the 5 casino sections because they are extremely redundant. Unlike the different types of liquor licenses which provide markedly different rights (i.e., a winery license vs. a retail license), the activities permitted in the 5 regions are relatively similiar with minor differences. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Now I understand the difference between wholesaling and transportation/distribution. More below. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

More general issues

The intro: It should probably be rewritten to more adequately summarize the entire article. I get the feeling that it reflects an earlier stage of the article's evolution. There's nothing summarizing or even reflecting the extensive stuff on the drinking age and DUI (for instance, that NJ is one of only two states where the latter is not a criminal offense—that's interesting enough to put in the intro). I would be happy to rewrite the intro if you'd like.

Images: I agree that we need a better lead image than the highlighted map. Perhaps a photo of a license displayed on an establishment's wall, close enough to see that it's a New Jersey license but not so close that we can read the fine print? Or the building in Trenton that houses the ABC?
Other images we could have: a better one of Ocean City (I realize the choices weren't great), an Atlantic City casino floor (preferably with some drinks visible) and maybe someone actually drinking on an NJ Transit train (I was on one where some people were once ... had I known we could use this, I would have taken the picture. Hell, I'm willing to actually sit on a train with an open bottle of beer myself if necessary, to illustrate the point). I will be searching Flickr for some possibilities.

BTW, while I was writing this, I found answers in the article to two things I was going to bring up. Good work! Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding images...it's a topic we've discussed a lot. I've tried to reach out to wineries for photos (of vineyards, etc.) and none responded. I've thought about taking a few photos on a tour, but i haven't found the picture i'm looking for this time of year (winter, dormant vines, places look a little dead). It is something I intend to address later in the season. I have a few photos of inside the winery facilities (i.e. fermentation vats, etc.) but I would prefer to have the winery owner's permission before I post them (as a courtesy). The distilleries provided a lot of information to me, but Laird's never addressed my request for a picture of their aging room barrells, and the new distilleries said "give us a little time to get up and running and we'll be glad to" --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the perils of working on articles like this in the wintertime ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Daniel, I think that the intro can be re-written to include DUI not being a criminal offense, and that underage drinking laws vary by municipality. The lead image is the same for all "alcohol of XXX" articles - a map of the US with the state highlighted in red. I reluctant to break format on that. I agree that the picture sucks, which is why for the main page article for April 24th, we are using the Wildwood drive in liquor store image. I searched long and hard for a non-copyrighted image inside of a NJ Transit train. Likewise, the Ocean City and Atlantic City photos are so-so, but I don't see anything better at Category:Atlantic City, New Jersey and Category:Ocean City, New Jersey. I did some research, and the areas governed by the NPS are known as units, which seems too stilted for this article. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Open questions

Lastly, some things I was led to ask myself while reading the article:

Do state-owned facilities that serve alcohol like PNC Bank Performing Arts Center have any special consideration in law or regulation? I suppose that the private operators would hold the liquor licenses (as with MetLife Stadium) but what about facilities operated by the state (if any are)? There are AFAICT no alcohol sales at the rest stops on toll roads ... is this a matter of policy or just (more likely, I think) an incidental result of the restaurants there not being the kind that would serve liquor anyway).

Have to go now, more later ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Any liquor sales on properties own by the state, county, or municipal governments require a Special Concessionaire's Permit. It makes no difference whether the government itself sells the alcohol, or whether it is outsourced to a private company. There used to be a major music festival, Union County MusicFest where the county directly operated the liquor sales. Likewise, the liquor concession at the PNC Bank Arts Center is run directly by the Turnpike Authority, not a private company. A couple years ago, there was an attempt to revoke their liquor license, but Special Concessionaire Permit holder are not subject to municipal jurisdiction. As for rest stops, I haven't heard of a policy on it, but the rest stops in New Jersey that I've been to only really have fast food, so they wouldn't sell alcoholic beverages. DavidinNJ (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was saying (I only note that because in Europe, they do sell beer and wine at rest areas, which always struck me as sort of at odds with a tough drunken-driving policy. Theoretically, beer could be sold on the New York State Thruway, but I don't think it is. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Now, my next question: Other than what you've already indicated, does ABC have any authority over advertising or promotional materials? In New York the statutes require that any in-store promotional material be okayed by the ABCC; in New Hampshire (I think) the state has to approve the label design (and in other states). And of course Rhode Island got itself keel-hauled at the Supreme Court over banning liquor stores from putting prices in their ads. So, is there any similar authority in New Jersey?

Yes, per the ABC handbook, it's illegal for a licensed establishment to advertise anything which is prohibited to occur at the business (e.g., lewdness, free drinks, gambling). DavidinNJ (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You'd expect that for any business. What I was talking about were rules about the content of ads or marketing. For instance, the article says that while licensed on-premises may give out free drinks, they may not advertise that they do so (well, law aside, that's just good sense for anyone in that business). Aside from that there are no restrictions on advertising unrelated to the legality of what's being advertised? (It would probably be accurate to say that bans on ladies' night etc. make them forbidden marketing practices). Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Another one that probably isn't too big of a deal. We show that picture of the inside of the empty NJ Transit car. But NJ Transit isn't the only passenger rail carrier operating in the state ... I assume state laws apply to liquor consumption on Amtrak (and what about sales? I think I recall that at least beer is sold on the Acela (and the Regionals too)), since Kansas, during its strict post-prohibition period, famously raided Amtrak trains crossing the state and shut down their liquor sales, and they couldn't have done that without state law being applicable to trains passing through the state. But does Amtrak have to get licenses for all the states it operates in? I don't think it makes the enclave cut.

Amtrak has to get a license for each state it operates in. In New Jersey, it's known as a plenary retail transit license (its on the chart in the article). Recently, Amtrak had to stop selling alochol in Illinois because they forgot to renew their license. DavidinNJ (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Fortunately we no longer have the question of NJ Transit bar cars (When did they get rid of them? Almost as soon as Conrail stopped running the lines, I think. Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Also on the transportation front, you might want to note that state law applies on a vessel only up to ... what is it? Three or four miles (nautical miles, I assume) offshore, and then you're under federal admiralty law out to international waters at 12 miles. So, I always wonder what might happen in terms of dramshop or host liability if you took the kids that far out on your boat to get 'em good and crocked, or someone who got hammered on such an outing then drove and had an accident. But that might be better for moot court than here.

NJ law applies up to three nautical miles out. I know of no dram shop cases on the ocean, but boating while intoxicated laws definitely apply.

Might want to mention that, too. Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there any nexus between the state's liquor laws and Bergen County's blue laws, to the extent the latter still exist? I don't think so, but what do I know ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the blue laws are completely separate. DavidinNJ (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Good. Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And more...

Also, I think we could be clearer about how the laws apply to convenience stores. Most people visiting New Jerseyitsimmediately notice that convenience stores in the state are dry, and assume that that's because they're banned from liquor sales (When I was twenty, I was stunned to find that 7-11's in New York (there are some) sold beer). As we learn sort of in passing in the article, that's not the case, it's just an effect of the two-licenses limit for corporations. So I think I will try to explain that in a rewritten intro.
But, are there exceptions? Are there at least some C-stores in the state that sell liquor? I agree the cost of a license might make it not worth the bother, but still ... if I have a chain of stores in the state, and one of my locations is, say, Princeton or New Brunswick, where the large college population might make for a large enough market, I might try to get a liucense there. (I also think the convenience-store thing is compounded by the effect of not allowing self-serve gas; therefore you don't get the C-store/gas station combos that you do in most other states and thus less opportunity for gas 'n' beer runs)
Also, are those two licenses for a corporation still subject to whatever other local population-based restrictions apply? That would be a further deterrent.
I can see how this also would deter chain liquor stores from setting up a serious presence in the state, but what about casual-dining chains like Applebee's? They usually offer beer and wine ... is there some way around that for them besides BYOB? Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

True. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC).

You can have more than 2 retail consumption licenses (e.g., bar/restaurant licenses), and there are plenty of Applebees, Fridays, and other chain restaurants in the state. You can only have 2 retail distribution licenses (e.g., liquor store licenses), and that rule is strictly enforced. Towns can make additional restrictions on top of that. A Wegmans supermarket attempted to open a liquor store in the town of Woodbridge by putting the license under a relative's name. The state objected because Wegmans already had 2 retail distribution licenses. The state finally let them have their license, but Woodbridge made their life hellish by making the liquor store have a separate entrance from the supermarket (around 500 feet away), and forcing the liquor store to incorporate separately from the supermarket. The town had an ordinance making it illegal to sell non-alcohol-related items in a liquor store, so yes a town can effectively ban convenience stores from selling alcohol. DavidinNJ (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. That story's something we should put in the article (FWIW, Wegman's has gotten some attention in Rochester for a very similar practice meant to skirt NY's way of banning chain stores: the individual Wegman family members own liquor licenses for several stores in their area that use the same name and branding). Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Two last areas, in the "not all alcohol law is in that section of the statutes" department:

Does NJ have any provisions regarding underaged indviduals' mere presence in licensed retail establishments? In New York, the continued presence of an unaccompanied minor who isn't a family member of the store/bar owner or someone employed there exposes the owner or manager to a charge of second-degree unlawfully dealing with a minor (which is a criminal offense, though a very minor one) and possible suspension or revocation of the license.

As it says in the underage drinking section, there is no law prohibiting minors from entering a licensed establishments. DavidinNJ (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether unaccompanied or not, then? (Well, when I was a teenager no one threw me out of any liquor store I went in, and I wasn't buying, just curious, so I guess not). And unlike Ohio there is no rule saying whoever sells you the alcohol has to be of age themselves, right? Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, what about anything regarding weapons possession and alcohol consumption? Ohio, where I once lived, makes "using weapons while intoxicated" (which for practical purposes means merely possessing them) a felony; New York has non-criminal statutes against "hunting while intoxicated" and "hunting while ability impaired", mirroring the driving statutes. I can't imagine NJ hasn't got something like that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite its strict gun laws, there's no hunting while intoxicated law in New Jersey. It is a disorderly persons offense to carelessly shoot someone while hunting, drunk or sober. DavidinNJ (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, but what about just handling weapons while drunk, regardless of hunting? I can't believe that would be legal. Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Many of NJ's criminal statutes discuss crimes involing the handling a weapon (i.e. just pointing a gun at someone is an assault), but there's nothing directly prohibiting the handling a weapon while drunk that I know of in NJSA as a crime in-and-of-itself. All crimes in NJ are based on the model penal code (since 1979) which simplified the many gradations of common law systems and did away with the stratified felonies as crimes determined by the individual's discrete instrumentality or circumstances. Now, there's a limited definition, defined by the result not the varied actions that led to the result. NJ only cares whether there is both an actus reus (the bad act, the criminal action that led to a result--the injuries and damages attempted or finished), and the mens rea (the guilty mind, or intent)...and NJ at the felony level recognizes four intents: recklessly, purposefully, knowingly and less frequent negligently. Someone who is intoxicated but knowing they're doing wrong (like getting drunk and shooting or killing someone, etc.) is acting "recklessly" under the mens rea part of most crimes defined by the statutes, and less frequent "negligently". For the most part, in NJ, handling a gun drunk is just stupid, and it will be stupid until you point it or use it...then it's illegal.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, that's a criminal law question, not an alcohol law question. Before we get into legal minutiae, it might serve to remind that we're limited by WP:SUMMARY and this article shouldn't become a laundry list of "well, the result if a and b is this, but the result if a, but not b..."--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes

A lot of topics have been discussed here. Going through the discussion, there seems to be two potential action items: (1) Adding a sentence or two to the lead about DWI not being a criminal offense in NJ, and underage drinking laws varying by municipality. (2) Adding a statement (maybe to the controlling authority section) that New Jersey's alcohol law jurisdiction extending 3 nautical miles from the coast. DavidinNJ (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new intro

I am leaving this here to work on it in a little bit ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

(#1) Isn't that what sandbox is for? We aren't supposed to be doing revisions on talk pages or storing article content on them either. I don't think it's wise to be planning to undertake massive edits on an FA's introduction less than 72 hours before it's TFA--especially if no one else had issues with the lede during FAC. What is your issue with the intro?--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
(#2) If it's summarizing the last few sections (DUI's, underage, federal enclaves), just write a 4-6 sentence paragraph and we'll think about placing between the second and third after the TFA.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The earlier grafs could probably be rewritten a little bit too, in some cases—if you're going to say "New Jersey has some provisions unique to it", then give an example or two (And to be fair the non-criminal aspect of DWI in NJ is, as the article states, not unique to NJ since it's also true in WI. Perhaps we should change that). Currently, the intro reads as if it were written at an earlier stage of the article's expansion and not revisited since.

People discuss changes to article content with long quotes from said sections all the time on talk pages. It won't take me too long when I get down to doing it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as writing and rewriting on deadline, I used to do that as a journalist all the time (and journalists still do that today, and will as long as there's journalism) And believe me, 72 hours is a luxury compared to some time frames I've had. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As a former journalist in college, I don't doubt that. However, my point is, I don't think it should be done until after TFA on 24 April. DavidinNJ agrees with this, his comments are below. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The point is that it doesn't do what an intro should do, and should do that before Wednesday.

I understand your feelings about this. That's why I took it here to work on so you can see what I feel needs to be done and reach consensus before it goes live. Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree and I hate being rushed to make a decision or accept something that wasn't brought up during FAC by anyone else. It's not pressing. Save it until after the 24th. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because people did not bring it up during the FAC does not mean it couldn't have been improved. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I note that GabeMc did raise some issues with the intro during the FAC, albeit largely about the prose, and didn't go into whether the lead adequately summarized the article as it existed (perhaps understandable, as the FAC process does tend to put things in a state of flux). Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's also something that you don't force down someone's throat roughly 48 hours before TFA. Wait till after the fucking 24th. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not too hard to fix. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether it is or not is inconsequential...it's just smoething i don't want to deal with rushing into TFA. No one else had a problem with it, so that tells me it's not pressing that it "has to be done now." Seriously, David and I both said wait till after TFA, it's pissing me off that you can't fucking accept that and want to rush this when there's no need to rush. Seriously, slow the fuck down.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really feel like I'm rushing, but ... since you say so, I am now officially done with this article and this talk page and will neither edit them nor acknowledge any further communications from you until 6:01 p.m. EDT April 25. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The state laws governing alcoholic beverages in New Jersey are among the most complex in the United States, with many peculiarities not found in other states' laws. They provide for 29 distinct liquor licenses granted to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and for the public warehousing and transport of alcoholic beverages. Most authority for the statutory and regulatory control of alcoholic beverages rests with the state government, particularly the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). Liquor service at casinos in Atlantic City is under the jurisdiction of the state's Casino Control Commission; state laws do not apply on some federal properties in the state.
Under home rule, New Jersey law grants individual municipalities substantial discretion in passing ordinances regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages within their limits. The number of retail licenses available is determined by a municipality's population, and may be further limited by the town's governing body. As a result, the availability of alcohol and regulations governing it vary significantly from town to town. A small percentage of municipalities in the state are "dry" and do not allow any businesses to sell or serve alcohol. Other towns permit alcohol sales 24 hours a day. Retail licenses tend to be difficult to obtain, and when available are subject to exorbitant prices and fervent competition.
In addition to allowing local governments such wide latitude over liquor sales, New Jersey law has some other unusual features. Corporations are limited to two retail distribution licenses, making it impractical for chain stores to sell for off-premises consumption; this restriction, in conjunction with municipal ordinances, severely limits supermarket, convenience store and pharmacy chains from selling beer as they do in many other states. State law is unique in treating drunken driving as a traffic offense rather than a crime, and permitting individual municipalities to define the scope of underage drinking laws.
New Jersey's history of taverns and alcohol production dates to its early colonial period. Colonial winemakers received recognition by the Royal Society of Arts for producing high-quality wine,^[1] and a local distillery owner was asked by George Washington for his recipe for "cyder spirits."^[2]^[3] Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the industry developed with the influx of European immigrants, specifically Germans and Italians, who presented a sizable market for alcoholic beverages and brought with them old world winemaking, brewing, and distilling techniques.^[1]^[4] With the rise of the temperance movement culminating in Prohibition (1919–1933), New Jersey's alcohol industry suffered; many breweries, wineries and distilleries either closed or relocated to other states.^[5] The legacy of Prohibition restricted and prevented the industry's recovery until the state legislature began loosening restrictions and repealing Prohibition-era laws starting in 1981. New Jersey's alcohol industry is experiencing a renaissance, and recently enacted laws provide new opportunities for the state's wineries and breweries.

Dan, I agree with ColonelHenry that we should not make any changes until after April 24th. I think that we should keep the word "unique." New Jersey's licensing structure is much different than most other states - I know of no other place where retail licenses can cost over $1 million. DWI is only a non-criminal offense in Wisconsin for the first offense, wherein New Jersey it is a traffic violation irrespective of the number of previous violations. No other state gives municipalities the level of authority over liquor laws that is seen in New Jersey. Other states have dry towns and towns with 24-hour bars, but no other state lets each each town setting its own laws on underage drinking on private property. DavidinNJ (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Then we need to say that the provisions of the laws are unique, not the law itself (it would be unique only if no other state had any liquor laws whatsoever). What you just wrote should be in the intro ... you just told me more than it currently does (Cf. WP:MOSINTRO: Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article.). All we need to do is make sure the language is clearer ... I'm not talking about any wholesale changes. Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I will return to this later. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, here's what I did. I, too, would like us to be able to say that the level of control New Jersey gives local governments over liquor is greater than any other state, but that's an extraordinary claim and I wouldn't want to use that language without at least one good source saying it.

Also, re the last graf, it reads like it would be more suited to a related, unwritten article on the history of alcoholic beverage production in New Jersey. I think with a little tweaking it could be made more relevant to the article subject. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The last lede paragraph is relevant to the subject. The article gives a lot of space to discussing alcohol production vs. the evolving legal environment in NJ for production, it stays. There's no need for a spin-off article about history because there are already sections at the three related articless (NJ wine, beer, distilled spirits articles) that will discuss it in depth. I disagree with changing the lede before April 24th. No one during FAC complained about it, it's a non-issue that we can put off until after the 24th.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say it needed to be changed, just tweaked so perhaps the history of NJ alcohol law is intertwined within it. See my response to your comment above for the rest. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Candidates for better images

From the freely-licensed Flickr streams:

Ocean City:

Atlantic City, inside a casino:

Daniel Case (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Dan, A couple of the OC picture are mismarked. Despite saying Ocean City, picture #2 is taken in front of Caesar's in Atlantic City. Picture #3 might be OC, but is also marked as Wildwood. Of the four Ocean city photos, #4 is the best. Of the Atlantic City photos, I'm not really a fan of photos with people in the foreground. The one from the lobby of the Taj is the best, but I'm not really a fan of any of them. Here are some alternative ones. Confirm for me that the copyright is ok.

Yeah, I was wondering about #2. Sometimes people get OC and AC confused when they're from out of state. Daniel Case (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Entrance to Taj Mahal casino

CC-BY. Good. Daniel Case (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Boardwalk in front of Bally's Wild Wild West gambling hall

CC-BY. Good, but I would prefer more natural color. Daniel Case (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Uptown section of Atlantic City, showing the Taj Mahal and Showboat casinos

It's been vetted at Commons, so of course it's good. Daniel Case (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Just some thoughts.DavidinNJ (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I like the aerial view of the uptown casinos the best, since it shows multiple casinos.

I also made some adjustments to the proposed intro above. I think that we should keep the fourth paragraph relating to alcohol production since a decent percentage of the article is about alcohol production laws. DavidinNJ (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Exempli Gratia

This article uses "e.g." 16 times. This seems excessive. Maybe we can rewrite a few of those in order to improve the overall flow of the article.

192.91.171.34 (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Same goes for the 4 uses of "i.e"

192.31.106.35 (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

20 moments where e.g. or i.e. is used in an article that prints out to 40 pages is not excessive in my book, and I don't see how they would objectively interrupt flow.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Liquor License Tables

What format should we have for the liquor license tables? We had them collapsed as a group because they interfered with the flow of the article. Currently, the format has been changed to show the title of each license class with the detail of the class collapsed. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My concern (and this is partially the reason that the MOS rules on it, even if it's not voiced there) is that the table of contents breaks needlessly. Collapsing each table as opposed to all of the tables in one element shouldn't clash with the flow too much, should provide better readability from the perspective that the user can choose which one he wants to look at (per unbreaking TOC), and actually reduces the effect of "here's a 100% bar in the middle of the article", which I personally don't expect as a reader if not as an editor. --Izno (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally think that having each title showing looks a bit strange, but I don't think it interferes with the flow of the article, and it actually makes it easier if a person only wants to read one part of the tables. I'm going to play around a bit with the tables in my sandbox to see if there are any other options. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I implemented a new style which makes the headers look better, but still has individual collapsed sections. DavidinNJ (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

And that breaks the TOC, just as my previous concern was. --Izno (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a functional bug that should be reported. It's a balance between an ugly functional format or an aesthetically pleasant but unfunctional format. I would vote for aesthetics every time and report the bug hoping it could be fixed in the near future.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's a question of aesthetics, then I unequivocally believe that my version was better.... Taking it to aesthetics doesn't help us solve the problem because other concerns get raised.... --Izno (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would staunchly disagree, David's collapsible tables are far superior IMO. No offense, but your edit to the table reminded me of the HTML work on a geocities website from the mid-1990s.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

And the green width-spanning tables don't make you twitch similarly? Even if you recolor them, it's an eyesore for those templates to be full width (as I've argued elsewhere on different topics, it also sends a clue to the reader that he has "finished" the article). If we assume that making them non-full width fixes that problem, then there's very little if any difference between what David prefers and what I prefer. On top of it, the bug is avoided with the TOC and we add less HTML to the article. All around, I think my option is superior. --Izno (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I actually like them and prefer them. The solution is to fix the bug, and never to settle for an ugly way of doing things. Your entire argument is inherently subjective and after several months of having worked through a slew of alternatives with David (and many fits and starts in the evolution of these tables for this content), I cannot in any way agree with your idea that your ersatz alternative is 'superior' even if I were drunk and coerced in that direction after a night of Jersey lightning in large glasses, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Per David's request at the help desk for a workaround, the TOC issue is fixed. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, Looks really good. Thank for your help. DavidinNJ (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWNERSHIP reminder

I just skimmed through the preceding entries on this page and was left with the impression that some editors may have gotten overly enthused about the article's recent WP:FA/WP:TFA status leading them to lose sight of the Wikipedia:Ownership of articles guidelines. In particular, ranting strings of beligerent expletitives implies to me that some may have invested much ego along with their time. Please play nice and remember to assume good faith --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Unique issues

I've been reverted twice today for cutting the word "unique" out of the lead sentence. Glancing over this talk page, I do indeed see some mention of the use of the word "unique", which the first editor failed to mention in his revert. I'll come back to this when I have more time to review the comments more and see if I have anything to contribute. But I will say this before I go: the edit summary the second editor left when reverting me most recently smells of ownership, even more strongly than did the David's revert of my edit in which left no comment was left at all. 50.193.171.69 (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I wasn't detailed enough in my edit comments. I was making a few changes with that edit, and I do a lot of edits per day, so I'm not always detailed about the reasons for my changes. New Jersey's elaborate licensing structure, limitation on the number of retail licenses per owner, treatment of DUI as a traffic violation, and permitting individual towns to define underage drinking laws are unique features that aren't seen in other states. Because of that, I think we should keep the word "unique." DavidinNJ (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I inserted the word 'unique' some time ago, because it is truthful and clearly states why the topic is notable. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

A few things to clarify

In what units is BAC given?
"A driver with a BAC of 0.15 or greater could be acquitted if they could show that they were not physically intoxicated. — rather a fuzzy sentence. Moreover, it doesn't seem to be sourced. --Синкретик (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Синкретик, The units are percent weight by volume. I added that to the first sentence of the DUI section, and afterwards used a percent sign. The fuzziness about the acquittal sentence comes from the fact that the law was very fuzzy. Before 1983, a person could have a BAC over 0.15, and a court could decide that they were not intoxicated. I will add a source to that sentence. DavidinNJ (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I see, I meant what units of weight and volume. --Синкретик (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Синкретик, The units are not specified by law. New Jersey statute 39:4-50 specifically prohibits operation of a motor vehicle with "a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood." Here is a copy of the statute - DUI statute. DavidinNJ (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Синкретик, it isn't a unit in terms of conventional measures of mass (i.e. grams) or of dry weight (i.e. ounces), it's a measure of percentage of concentration of alcohol in an assumedly-homogenous liquid sample. It doesn't have a unit of measure beyond that, that the determination of intoxication depends on the percentage of concentration in the sample (by breath condensate or blood), not on any size of the sample tested.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Синкретик, Based on your comments and other observations of mine, I made a few updates to this article.

(1) Added the words "percent weight by volume" to the first sentence in the DUI section, and a percent sign throughout the article after all BAC references (e.g., 0.10%).

(2) Added references to the first sentence in the DUI section specifically citing the New Jersey DUI statute.

(3) Added a sentence to the federal enclave section regarding federal DUI statutes. Like NJ, the feds have a 0.08 BAC rule, and require that driver's submit a breath sample upon request from law enforcement. The federal statute actually lists units - 0.08 grams of alcohol per 100 mL of blood.

(4) I am still looking for a legal case showing that before 1983's adoption of a per se rule, a person could be over the presumed limit, and not be guilty of drunk driving. DavidinNJ (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you (sorry for not replying earlier, I were busy). Could you also clarify what the phrase "each casino" mean — every casino or each casino dealing with alcohol? --Синкретик (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I modified the verbiage slightly, but all casinos in New Jersey sell alcoholic beverages. DavidinNJ (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Are "persons within the municipality" citizens of NJ, US citizens or is it any adult who can do alcohol business in New Jersey? Is "for vehicle for limousines" a mistake? --Синкретик (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Citizenship isn't a requirement to get a license, in fact many of the liquor stores in my area are owned by Indians currently on a "green card" (i.e. resident aliens). The application for a liquor license chiefly requires that someone be of legal age and not have any felony convictions (since you have to submit fingerprints). The retail Class C license is granted by the municipality specifically to business that is located within the municipality--a town can't give a license to a business in another town. The owners do not have to live in that town, they just have their restaurant/bar/liquor store located in that town. The persons within the municipality line...i.e. being limited to one liquor license...is essentially that a town can impose a regulation (ordinance) saying "if you have one retail liquor license in town, you can't have another"--because in a small town, it would be easy for one person to monopolize the alcohol trade for the entire town and such an ordinance would promote competition and open up the availability of a finite limited resource (the number of licenses)--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

hidden vs collapse top

the hidden template allows the hidden content to appear in the print version, while the {{collapse top}} template does not. please check the print version if you make any changes to this template. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI y'all ...

User:ColonelHenry has been associated with multiple incidents of sockpuppetry and content hoaxing and is now banned.

I noticed that he's done a fair bit of editing to this article—and some related articles. Folks may wish to reexamine his previous copy and references with an air of skepticism.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

alchol in limo

108.53.118.230 (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)ronnilimo @hotmail.com can you legally drink in a 14 passenger limo van

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alcohol laws 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577297812440387318.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922055120/http://209.212.22.88/DATA/RBR/1970-1979/1976/1976.11.03.pdf to http://209.212.22.88/DATA/RBR/1970-1979/1976/1976.11.03.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 22:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alcohol laws 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 22:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alcohol laws 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 07:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 66 external links on Alcohol laws 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 05:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alcohol laws 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 05:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alcohol laws 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/20130922034434/http://www.nj.gov/casinos/about/ to http://www.nj.gov/casinos/about/

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

I made a small edit to the section on BYO. The law cited was interpreted incorrectly. BYO may not advertise and they may not charge a corkage fee. Another reference here: https://www.nj.gov/oag/abc/faqs.html#4 Also sorry if I'm not using this talk page correctly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.30.2 (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 04:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Table style

I realize there was an extensive discussion about this six years ago, but the current Manual of Style clearly disallows the use of pre-collapsed tables in Wikipedia articles (MOS:COLLAPSE). I was only originally planning to add the cidery and meadery license to the Class A table, but I'll rebuild the tables in accordance with the MOS as well.

Shawn Dessaigne (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

“May”? Or “Shall”?

Here’s the passage in question:

it.[52] By law, a BYOB restaurant may not allow consumption of hard liquor or mixed drinks, nor may it allow consumption of beer or wine by those under 21, visibly intoxicated, or during hours in which the sale of these products is prohibited by licensees in that municipality (i.e. after closing time).[52][53] E Mang (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020B

This older FA has issues that prevent it from meeting the FA criteria. There's out-of-date stuff such as Because the law grants a municipality significant regulatory latitude, 35 of the state's 565 municipalities are currently dry sourced to 2013, when a more recent source says 32. There's also repeated problematic usages of sourcing items to state laws and court cases when secondary sources should be used.

Additionally, there are some bad sources such as Jail sentences issued in New Jersey for DUI are often served through work release programs (e.g. weekends in jail) being source to the website of a law firm, Rowley's Whiskey Forge (a blog), and weak published sources such as "Pellegrino, Michael. Jersey Brew. (Wantage, NJ: Pellegrino & Feldstein, 2009). ISBN 9780976523314.". Hog Farm _Talk 19:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Proposal for procedural FARs on ColonelHenry FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

[Westrich-1] Westrich, Sal. New Jersey Wine: A Remarkable History. (Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2012). ISBN 9781609491833.

[McCormickNJGrapes-2] McCormick, Richard P. "The Royal Society, The Grape and New Jersey" in Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, Volume LXXXI, Number 2, (April 1953); and later in Journal of the Royal Society of Arts (January 1962).

[JerseyLightningNJMag-3] Harrison, Karen Tina. "Jersey Lightning" in New Jersey Monthly 13 July 2009. Retrieved 19 July 2012.

[4] Pellegrino, Michael. Jersey Brew. (Wantage, NJ: Lake Neepaulin Publishing, 2009). ISBN 9780976523314.

[Wine_Bible-5] MacNeil, Karen. The Wine Bible. (New York: Workman Publishing Company, 2001). ISBN 9781563054341.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]