Talk:Tom Ridge

Section on a horse

Do we really need the section on a horse at a state fair? —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 03:58, 3 December 2004 (UTC)

Qualifications

Could someone add some qualifications, if any, to lead Homeland Security? Did he have any background in espionage, counterterrorism, or middle-eastern studies? Did he ever work in, on, or around personal or corporate security (e.g., Pinkerton Agency), law-enforcement, civil defense, or emergency management? What was his role in Vietnam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.243.78 (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Vonage

I was just reading up on the prospectus of Vonage, the broadband telephone company that's going through the final stages of their IPO process as I speak, and I noticed that "Governor Thomas J Ridge" is a Directory of that company named in the prospectus. I think it might be useful/informative/etc if both this page and the Vonage page were updated to that effect, since we mention Home Depot here, and there is a "Key Persons" on the Vonage entry, but the connection isn't shown on eithre at the moment. The connection of such a strong political figure to an up and coming tech company going through an IPO is significant (and a connection between a former homeland security guy and phone company could raise privacy concerns for some consipracy theorists). I leave these edits to others, I don't feel up to the task. The prospectus where I found the link is:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1272830/000104746906007477/a2169686zs-1a.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.55.227.210 (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

no secret here, check this link out:

http://www.vonage.com/corporate/corp_bod.php

he is on the vonage board, someone should ad it here --99.238.68.11 16:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Manipulation of terror alerts by Bush administration

I would suggest the addition of this section, and the corresponding citation:

On May 10, 2005, Ridge reveals that virtually all of the six terror alerts issued by DHS between the time of the first alert (February 12, 2002) and the November 2 election were based on the flimsiest of evidence, and had been issued primarily for polictical purposes. Ridge's protests over the lack of credible intelligence and the political uses of the terror alerts were routinely overruled by other administration officials, most notably Attorney General John Ashcroft. "There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it,"Ridge recalls, "and we said, 'For that?'" Of course, at the time, Ridge was quite compliant towards the administration's wishes for terror alerts, as when he said of the thoroughly unwarranted August 1, 2004 alert, "We don't do politics in the DHS." And Ridge spent plenty of time consulting with GOP political operatives and stumping for Bush on the campaign trail.

USA Today, May 10, 2005, "Ridge Reveals Clashes on Alerts," http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-10-ridge-alerts_x.htm

Al Franken, The Truth, With Jokes, ©2005 Dutton

If there are no objections, I will add this shortly. -- Black Max 17:13, 5 August 2006

I added part "and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over" which was for strange reasons omitted in original quote — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.142.13 (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2009

It was probably omitted because it had just been mentioned word-for-word before the quotation. Rather than leave the duplication, I modified the preceding sentence. —ADavidB 20:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Savi Technology

Because this firm was recently acquired by Lockheed Martin, it's not clear to me that it still has a "board" on which to serve. Anybody know? For the moment I'm stifling my impulse to delete the reference, and merely adding a fact tag instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DagnyB (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Bronze Star

Does his bronze star have a "v"? Some superficial googling seems to indicate that it does but couldn't find a good source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.170.233 (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Deloitte LLP

Tom Ridge is no longer listed as a Senior Advisor to Deloitte. Both reference links are dead, including his previous listing on Deloitte's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jslot38 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I updated the first reference and removed the second. —ADavidB 02:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Additions pertaining to Tom Ridge's support of the FTO PMOI/MEK

At this point, I feel the section is well-sourced and written in a neutral manner. I have revised the content multiple times and have received only removals stating the content was NNPOV or utilizing politicized sources. As this has been remedied, I fail to see the current complication with the content. I am perfectly happy to revise it, but I do not feel that a person whose background that matches Mr. Ridge's support for a terrorist group that killed Americans on a paid basis both before and after the de-listing is a subject that ought to be entirely ignored.

As there have been no suggestions or improvements, I fail to see an adequate method for dispute resolution.

172.56.3.194 (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ridge provided paid advocacy for the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK, also PMOI, MKO), a group listed on the United States State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations until September 2012. While critics argued that Ridge might have violated federal law and provided the FTO material support, Ridge was vehement in his support and ultimately co-authored an article arguing that his advocacy was independent and not illegal and that the group was not a terrorist organization.

@172.56.3.194:None of the sources listed state that Tom Ridge provided paid advocacy to the organization in question. Using the Ohio.com and State Department refs is WP:SYN, and Youtube is not a reliable source. This is walking a dangerous line on a biography of a living person. There is not consensus at this time to add this information. EricSerge (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@EricSerge:

None of the sources listed state that Tom Ridge provided paid advocacy to the organization in question. Using the Ohio.com and State Department refs is WP:SYN, and Youtube is not a reliable source. This is walking a dangerous line on a biography of a living person. There is not consensus at this time to add this information.

Actually, the reference immediately after the statement, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/us/us-supporters-of-iranian-group-mek-face-scrutiny.html?_r=0 says precisely what you are saying doesn't exist, Ridge et al were issued subpeona's by the treasury department in order to discern where the money that they received on behalf of their advocacy for the MEK came from precisely.

That YouTube is not a reliable source is weasel-wording and splitting hairs when the video in question is a video of the person in question at a conference hosted by the group in question. You are attempting to take efforts to prevent crackpot conspiracy videos uploaded by random people spouting unfounded facts and apply it en-masse when the video in question is absolutely relevant. That video in question is especially relevant because it proves material support, they pre-date the removal from the FTO and Ridge is seen on-stage with the leader of the FTO. I would be happy to use one from the website of the group, however they have removed all videos that pre-date their delistment. This is an especially absurd conclusion given that the youtube account for the videos is the organizations "official" youtube account and the links on their website are in fact just links back to youtube. I changed this in my revision however, because it's the claim you're using to remove the entire section you apparently find undesirable.

While you might find this entirely irrelevant and personal, given the nature of the group and its support within the US military up to and including illegal training and support by the Department of Defense, I believe it is of well-founded gravity. Per your self-description, you live on a US military base? Is that correct? If so, you are employed by the Department of Defense, is that correct? May I inquire what your MOS is?

I am reinstating the section, I will change the youtube link. The reference from the NYT clearly states what you are saying is unfounded and you're using this as a means of creating fog and doubt to invoke the appearance of a lack of consensus.

Here is the New Yorker article about DOD providing material support and training to the group when it was an FTO: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/our-men-in-iran

172.56.3.190 (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

سرباز‎, are you a member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, given the fact that the only government still counting the org as terrorists is Iran? Does that question seem outlandish? It is supposed to be. We are talking about Tom Ridge, not me and not you. I have edited the article section. I have slimmed it down to what is supported by the references about Tom Ridge. You are jumping to conclusions at the least, purposefully distorting his involvement at the worst, by some of your statements. The NYT does not state the Ridge was paid, nor does it say he was subpoenaed. The article is mostly about Ed Rendell. Additionally, the MEK does not need its own paragraph in the Ridge article, it has a link that you can click and go read all about it. I added a reliable source that indicates when the group was added to the list and the grounds for its adding. You had introduced inaccurate information that it had been added in the 1970s. Talking about their partnership with Mossad doesn't really belong in the Ridge article either. EricSerge (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

::@EricSerge:

They're stilled listed by Australia. If you were allowed to read Wikileaks, you would see that several European countries were forced by the EU to de-list them against their will. You'd also find that the GOI considers them a terrorist group. Of course, none of those are considered reliable sources.

The NYT article indeed states Ridge was subpeona'd, its at the end. I added a second reference. I've accepted your very misleading contortion of the narrative with minor revisions, namely the assertion you took ad-hoc from Ridge et al's article and noted that it was factually incorrect and revised the statement to read that he provided advocacy in exchange for speakers fee's, because apparently you have a problem with calling paid advocacy paid advocacy and receiving a subpoena to determine where the money you got for speaker's fee's came from doesn't equate to paid advocacy.

And, the relevancy of your employer given that we are trying to write an article talking about your employers material support of terrorists is directly applicable. You should try posting a link about them on social media, or speak out against them on it and you will note that there is a strong tendency for government, especially DOD related personnel to suddenly start marking things as spam and removing the content. I'm not saying it's you, I'm saying you fit the profile that has been removing this stuff from the web since I noticed it in 2011. No, I'm not Iranian; Maybe I'm Australian, or French, or Swedish, or work for the State Department that didn't want to de-list them, of the Justice department that didn't want to delist them, or one of the Canadians that didn't want to de-list them or any number of the places that considers them a terrorist cult but got forced to remove them after their politicians were bought.

Or maybe I'm just an American that fundamentally has a problem with people charged with national security putting the interests of overthrowing Iran over the interests and security of their own soldiers and citizens. You can thank me later. Of course, in order to accept that all of those facts are true, one has to resort to reading content you don't find to be reliable or are otherwise forbidden by your employer to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.3.190 (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsigned editor who posted above: You seem to be here to advance an agenda, and to right great wrongs. Please be aware that the whole wide internet and the gigantic blogosphere is available for you to promote your cause. Wikipedia is not the place for it. We expect scrupulous neutrality from editors, which you are not showing on this talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This RFC should apply to multiple articles, specifically Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Fran Townsend and Ted Poe. The articles in question were initially removed due to a legitimate point about them being written in a NNPOV. They were revised to be more neutral. They were subsequently removed stating that the sources were not reliable. They were revised to include more reliable sources. This pattern persisted. I then began to include a section that legitimately is using unreliable sources (political opposition group of the MEK) that I copy pasted from an article that was considered acceptable. You can see it in the last revision of Tom Ridge's page prior to my addition. Furthermore, the title of the section includes NNPOV by referencing the organization as "terrorist" (in quotes), when there is little objective question that at various points in the organizations past the group engaged in terrorism and was listed by the US State Department as a foreign terrorist organization.

The persons removing the articles find those additions to be well-sourced and neutral despite that they are quite obviously neither. The sections are being removed with complaints that are using technical loopholes of the WP process to further the political agenda to suppress the information about several US politicians and officials questionable support of a formerly listed FTO.

I am more than happy to edit or revise content to make it more palatable, however, it seems clearly evident that the issue is not my content or any of the cited rationales as the content that is being reverted more clearly fits the criteria mine is being removed on.

172.56.3.190 (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of MEK section. Legobot asked me to comment. The group is no longer listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. government, and any effort to demonize those who supported that change as former government officials in their Wikipedia biographies violates the neutral point of view and undue weight. Mentioning that some people were subpoenaed is completely wrong, because prominent people are subpoenaed all the time, and such a mention creates an impression of legal misconduct where no evidence of such misconduct exists. The Dayton blog post which cites Glenn Greenwald in support of a legal theory that the First Amendment does not apply to such speech is especially egregious, since Greenwald is a highly partisan and deeply committed opponent of U.S. national security policy.

I also oppose criticizing the neutrality and judgment of any editor based on their affiliations and/or employment. Personal disclosure: Off Wikipedia, I am a Democrat in U.S. politics, and the BLPs in question are Republicans. I have personal political disagreements with Ridge and several others. I set those feelings aside here on Wikipedia, and strive instead for neutrality. I also want to disclose that I was personally lobbied by MEK supporters in the past, but declined to support their cause.

This section isn't neutral. This is advancing an agenda. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Summoned here by bot. Please provide an explanation of the section in question that you wish to add. Coretheapple (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mercyhurst recognition

I don't want to mess with the actual page (I don't understand how to link things, etc.). Can someone please add this under Ridge's recognition section? Thanks.

http://www.mercyhurst.edu/news/mercyhurst-dedicates-new-intel-school-named-after-gov-tom-ridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.22.97 (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This is done. —ADavidB 11:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Governor Tom Ridge Responsibility with Kermit Gosnell

Type in Tom Ridge Gosnell in the Internet and you will find plenty of articles stating that Tom Ridge as Governor was the, "Chief Enabler," directing the Pennsylvania Health Department to ignore the many complaints against Kermit Gosnell's Abortion Clinic. This should be part of the article. For Example: <https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/this-fall-unearthing-gosnells-ghosts> Easeltine (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2019 (UTCEaseltine (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

A better example might help. The Washington Examiner site has been considered unreliable [1]. —ADavidB 23:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)