Talk:Tim Bishop

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2014 Election[edit]

Someone needs to update this article to reflect his loss to Zeldin last night; I cannot do so being a new member I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audifanatic518 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


NPOV Dispute[edit]

"Congressman Bishop serves on the powerful Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where he is working to reduce congestion on Eastern Long Island and protect the environment."

Whether he is working to reduce congestion or not, or protect the environment, is not cited anywhere. It is not clear how he is working to reduce congestion nor how he is protecting the environment.

Nerdlogic 17:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Citations[edit]

This entire article lacks citations, the respective ones that are shown do not even come close to referencing the information discussed, especially his 2002 campaign.

Keep this article flagged until someone references this stuff.

Nerdlogic 17:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is he 50 or 58[edit]

It says born in 1950 then it says born in 1958. Unless he was born for a second time when he was eight, pick a date. That's really sloppy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.184.116 (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV: "long-time" Provost of Southampton College ??[edit]

Bishop began serving as provost in 2002. http://www.bishopforcongress.com/page.cfm?ID=1

The college went bankrupt and was shuttered 3 years later. Calling him the "long-time" provost implies that he was at fault for the college's financial woes.

He may or may not have been. His poltical opponents certainly like to imply he was. see article here: ooops article is wiki blacklisted. Anyway "google around" and you'll see.

Personally I don't like the guy, but I wonder if this wiki entry is being fair.

Long island bob (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why I trimmed the controversies section[edit]

  1. I removed the paragraph about somebody paying his daughter's tuition since the article doesn't explain who they are and why that's controversial.
  2. I removed the paragraph about the Giffords shooting because there really doesn't seem to be anything controversial about that, and even if it is, it's pretty trivial.
  3. I removed sections sourced to YouTube videos as those were hardly reliable sources and seemed more like axe grinding. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Top 10 Most Corrupt List relevancy[edit]

When contributing to the Ethics Investigation section back in March, one of the parts I added was about Bishop's place on Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's list of the 10 Most Corrupt congressmen for each of the past few years. I recognize the potential objections to including this (primarily that CREW may not be seen as important enough to merit consideration here, which I presume is why BlueboyLI removed it), but I think it would be good to discuss. Just from quickly checking a few other members of the list, the pages for Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY), and Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) all state their inclusion on CREW's Most Corrupt lists. Shouldn't Bishop's page match theirs? ABarnes94 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the CREW list on its own would be notable enough, however since it has been covered in multiple WP:RS, it does seem notable enough for inclusion. Sources that seem to confirm notability of the list and Bishop's inclusion on it are:
  • Politico [1]
  • Business Insider [2]
  • Roll Call [3]
  • The Hill [4]
Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undid ABarnes94 deletion of("two year old", "filed by a political opponent") as these are facts & directly quoted from the Newsday article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueboyLI (talk • contribs) 06:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the politically-biased language that a journalist chose to use in his article, Wikipedia should remain neutral. Including phrases such as "two year old" and "filed by a political opponent" intentionally diminishes the significance of the allegations for clearly-political purposes, which violates WP:NPOV. Furthermore, if being a quote from a Newsday article merits inclusion in this article, then I must ask why BlueboyLI eliminated a less controversial quote from another Newsday article in his edit at 05:08 on 15 September 2014 (edit 625619156). The Wikipedia article about this incident should fairly and accurately describe what happened and what the various people involved (both in the incident itself and the aftermath) have said. The text that BlueboyLI keeps submitting (despite others' efforts to improve the article and add more information or tone down the slant he has applied) is entirely one-sided and (aside from the first sentence that simply states what the allegations were) is a series of quotes from Bishop and Semler denying the incident and the allegations. It reads more like a press release from a Bishop staffer than an unbiased, impartial description of an event. There is no objective fact in any of that, though it is useful as a complement to a more serious description of the incident. The text that Champaign Supernova, Arbor8, and I (among others) added is an attempt to fairly and accurately describe what happened, who was involved, and what has transpired since, including information about the ethics investigations and criminal investigation that were launched. BlueboyLI is also removing information about the CREW list (which was included as a result of discussion above and comparison to the Wikipedia articles on other members of the CREW lists, which do reference their subjects' inclusion on the list). Removing vital and accurate information about an incident (especially a politically controversial one) is not merely "clarifying"; it is applying bias to an already-controversial article weeks before an election involving the subject of the article. I hope we can move forward with this article in a way that treats the subject matter fairly, in keeping with WP:NPOV. ABarnes94 (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a question on BlueboyLI's user talk page about what his/her intentions are with respect to engaging in dialogue here about the contested edits. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of disputed text[edit]

There's a text dispute on this page that has been going on for several weeks. In recent days, BlueboyLI has been reverting to his preferred version of the text. He has been invited, via edit summaries, a query on his user page, and through queries on this page, to engage in a discussion with the other editors before reverting, but (if I am catching this right), so far he has not done that but has instead done two reverts in the last few days to his preferred version.

To facilitate conversation on this, I'm copying-and-pasting the two versions below. The yellow highlighted text is identical in both versions. I'd suggest that people enter their objections to or support for (or changes they would suggest) to each version under it. I will have time to come back later today and put my own opinions in. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Version 1 (the version preferred by ABarnes94 and CFredkin)[edit]

In September 2013, the Office of Congressional Ethics recommended further review of an August 2012 incident in which Bishop is accused of soliciting a campaign contribution from hedge fund magnate Eric Semler in exchange for acting in an official capacity to obtain a fireworks permit for Semler's son's bar mitzvah on Long Island.[11][12] Bishop has denied the allegations as "outrageous, unfounded attacks on my character and my family".[13][14][15] After the incident was picked up by the media, Semler called the allegations a "nonstory" and said that, "Tim never said anything to me about a donation. I didn’t know he was running for re-election. After the fact, after I got the permit, I did receive a request for a donation. He didn’t tell me, one of his campaign people told me, that he was in a hot race and needed a lot of support. I would love to support a guy like that. There was never a discussion of a contribution while he was trying to help me. He never asked me for money. It was someone with his campaign."[16]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has also investigated the incident.[17] Bishop denies the allegations. In September 2014, the Justice Department closed its investigation without filing charges. However, a complaint filed against Bishop remains under review by the House Ethics Committee "after the Office of Congressional Ethics found 'substantial reason' to believe Bishop violated the law and ethics rules."[18] Largely as a result of the ethics investigation, Bishop was named to the annual "Most Corrupt" list published by nonprofit watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in both 2012 and 2013.[19][20][21][22

I think this version is preferable but with some changes. I'd change the second paragraph to read: Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated the incident.[17] They closed their investigation in September 2014 without filing charges. The Office of Congressional Ethics issued a 177-page report on the situation in September 2013. This report referred the matter to the United States House Committee on Ethics for their further review, saying that "there is a substantial reason to believe that a violation of House rules, standards of conduct and federal law occurred."(add citation to the OCE report)[18 Largely as a result of the ethics investigation, Bishop was named to the annual "Most Corrupt" list published by nonprofit watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in both 2012 and 2013.[19][20][21][22]


I agree with the edits suggested by Champaign Supernova, highlighted above in light blue. I also propose (but by no means require, in case anyone disagrees) including another sentence or two explaining the established sequence of events leading up to the allegations. Perhaps including something like these sentences I had added to this article back in May would be a good start: "Semler contacted Bishop's office for help with the permits on May 21, five days before his son's Bar Mitzvah. According to documents obtained by Politico, Bishop's daughter (and fundraiser) contacted Semler on May 23 with a request for a donation of up to $10,000 after Semler requested help in obtaining the permits but before he received them, with three days until the party for which he needed the permits." It needed to be cleaned up a bit, so I did so below. I think the general idea of having more than one sentence to explain the actual issue involved might be a good one. I suggest the following for the entire section (with the sentences I've added highlighted in light green, and using the Breshnahan article in Politico as the source):

In September 2013, the Office of Congressional Ethics recommended further review of an August 2012 incident in which Bishop is accused of soliciting a campaign contribution from hedge fund magnate Eric Semler in exchange for acting in an official capacity to obtain a fireworks permit for Semler's son's bar mitzvah on Long Island.[11][12] Semler contacted Bishop's office for help obtaining the permits on May 21, five days before his son's Bar Mitzvah. According to documents obtained by Politico, Bishop's daughter contacted Semler on May 23 with a request for a campaign contribution of up to $10,000. Bishop has denied the allegations as "outrageous, unfounded attacks on my character and my family".[13][14][15] After the incident was picked up by the media, Semler called the allegations a "nonstory" and said that, "Tim never said anything to me about a donation. I didn’t know he was running for re-election. After the fact, after I got the permit, I did receive a request for a donation. He didn’t tell me, one of his campaign people told me, that he was in a hot race and needed a lot of support. I would love to support a guy like that. There was never a discussion of a contribution while he was trying to help me. He never asked me for money. It was someone with his campaign."[16]
The Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated the incident.[17] They closed their investigation in September 2014 without filing charges. The Office of Congressional Ethics issued a 177-page report on the situation in September 2013. This report referred the matter to the United States House Committee on Ethics for their further review, saying that "there is a substantial reason to believe that a violation of House rules, standards of conduct and federal law occurred."(add citation to the OCE report)[18 Largely as a result of the ethics investigation, Bishop was named to the annual "Most Corrupt" list published by nonprofit watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in both 2012 and 2013.[19][20][21][22]
ABarnes94 (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the idea proposed above by ABarnes94 of putting somewhat more detail into our article about what all the fuss is about. Otherwise, it is getting to be just a recitation of this investigation, that investigation, and this leaves the reader wondering, "What exactly is this all about". More details would therefore be more helpful. That said, we don't want to get into WP:UNDUE, which is a risk when adding details. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support either of the proposed options above for the 2nd paragraph as being more complete and accurate. My only reservation regards the CREW Most Corrupt rating. I've objected to the inclusion of CREW ratings in other bios, since the criteria for the ratings appear to be subjective.CFredkin (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the WP:UNDUE concern, I'm not sure that 3 sentences would really be enough to qualify as being too much here. It seems like (as long as the sentences themselves aren't biased) giving a brief description of what happened wouldn't violate the policy and would probably be very helpful for a reader in conveying what the actual controversy is about. If we went on as long as the Politico article does, then of course I'd agree, but I think 3 (or even 4) sentences should be fine. I can understand an objection to the CREW rating being included, and I think that's a legitimate point of debate, but I just think we should be consistent across all bios of politicians named to the list. Maybe we should check through other talk pages to see what points were made there. ABarnes94 (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2 (the version preferred by BlueboyLI)[edit]

In September 2013, the Office of Congressional Ethics recommended further review of an August 2012 incident in which Bishop is accused of soliciting a campaign contribution from hedge fund magnate Eric Semler in exchange for acting in an official capacity to obtain a fireworks permit for Semler's son's bar mitzvah on Long Island.[11][12] Bishop has denied the allegations as "outrageous, unfounded attacks on my character and my family".[13][14][15] After the incident was picked up by the media, Semler called the allegations a "nonstory" and said that, "Tim never said anything to me about a donation. I didn’t know he was running for re-election. After the fact, after I got the permit, I did receive a request for a donation. He didn’t tell me, one of his campaign people told me, that he was in a hot race and needed a lot of support. I would love to support a guy like that. There was never a discussion of a contribution while he was trying to help me. He never asked me for money. It was someone with his campaign."[16]

In September 2014, the Justice Department closed its investigation without filing charges. However, a two-year-old complaint filed by a political opponent against Bishop remains under review by the House Ethics Committee. [15]

I think this version is inadequate because it is not quite factually correct. According to the linked newspaper article, Republican Robert Creighton filed a complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics. They then wrote a lengthy report on the matter, issuing it in September 2013. In their report, they recommended that the United States House Committee on Ethics take up the matter, which it agreed to do. So, the United States House Committee on Ethics is reviewing this situation based on a request from the Office of Congressional Ethics and its lengthy report, not because of what Robert Creighton said. Although the OCE acted on a request from Creighton, as a matter of history, the House Ethics Committee is looking at the situation not because of the Creighton complaint, but because of what came from the OCE lengthy investigation. Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this assessment.CFredkin (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BlueboyLI, without engaging in a discussion here, after a number of requests from other editors to talk things over in this location, has changed the text back to what I believe to be a factually inaccurate version. Specifically, BlueboyLI has added the sentece, "However, a two-year-old complaint filed by a political opponent against Bishop to The Office of Congressional Ethics, remains under review by the United States House Committee on Ethics." I believe this to be factually inaccurate. The House Committee on Ethics is not reviewing the Creighton complaint. They are reviewing the OCE's report. As a stylistic matter, it goes against WP's Manual of Style "Relative Time References" to use phrases such as "two-year-old". I'm adding a note to BlueboyLI's talk page about this note, where I am encouraging him to participate in a dialogue here on this article's talk page about these issues. Champaign Supernova (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tim Bishop. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tim Bishop/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Main body needs dividing into sections and subheadings. Tim (Xevious) 12:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 12:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tim Bishop. 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) 14:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Bishop&oldid=1206312035"