Talk:Russ Tice

Irrelevant Mention of Separate Spy

The mention of Katrina Leung is completely irrelevant! Is it there just to add credibility to his suspicion of a former co-worker? "Here's one suspected spy, so this co-worker is suspect too".. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.65.32 (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

Can anyone please clarify which University of Maryland campus Mr. Tice graduated from? -James Howard (talk/web) 21:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no longer any mention of Mr. Tice's academic qualifications, nor lack thereof. --FeralOink (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Gotta love that picture of him- -Urbanus

Removed unsource and dubious material about bioweapons

I removed the following

It has been speculated that at least one of the programs Tice was referring too is a program involving a coverup of accidental bioweapons releases which occurred in the late 40s and early 50s. Arvin Michaels of the National Coalition for Truth in Government (NCTG) has stated:

"One aspect of what Mr. Tice is referring too are programs initiated in the 1970s during the Ford administration involving the CDC's Epidemic Intelligence Service in conjunction with the defense intelligence agency and which seek to coverup and obscure from the American public a disastrous outbreak of tick-borne disabling diseases which were modified in laboratories in the early 1950's and tested in nature at various sites. These infections largely involve 'cocktails' of modified lyme disease spirochetes and altered animal babesias. They are disabling and lead to subacute chronic brain infection. Part of the program is convincing people who have these conditions that they actually are afflicted with chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia. This program involves leading scientists affiliated with the CDC, the Infectious Disease Society of America, and shockingly enough for people who are familiar with the controversies surrounding lyme disease, scientists who pose as antiestablishment figures."

As I could not find any verification or references. Arvin Michaels seems not to exist, nor does the NCTG, and nor does this quote - at least not on the internet. Herd of Swine (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --FeralOink (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

"He subsequently learned that these channels were being recorded 24/7. Since this appeared to be a political and not security operation of the NSA, Tice withheld disclosing it until the next administration."

I've removed these two sentences. With respect to the second sentence, no citation is provided here and the Olbermann interviews cited previously in this paragraph don't clearly support it either. It also appears to be contradicted by what Tice said in 2013, since in 2013 Tice didn't say he restricted himself to whistleblowing on special access programs/covert ops back in 2005/2006 for political reasons but out of fear for his personal security:
...I had to be careful what I told Congress because they were trying to hang me too.... Now my way of defeating that was I discussed [just] a couple of the problems that had happened in some black programs... that took the pressure off of me because oh this guy doesn't know anything about [the true magnitude of the conspiracy and corruption] because all he wanted to talk about was some abuses in this black program stuff. But that's not true. I did know about everything else. And I was covering my ass because I knew that they were trying to put a rope around my neck and everything I was saying was going right to the NSA and the Department of Injustice. And at the time I couldn't move without banging into 2 or 3 FBI morons.
In the Olbermann interview, Tice also says that he used a hand written letter to try to communicate with someone in the Obama campaign not because he was concerned about the political fallout of making allegations but because he believed his computer was bugged, saying he sent "a hand-written letter because I knew all my communications were tapped, my phones, my computer, and I've had the FBI on me like flies on you-know-what".
Which brings me to the first sentence. Look at the context in which Tice makes an issue out of "these channels being recorded 24/7" in the Olbermann interview. He says he worked in the satellite surveillance group which meant that he couldn't keep eyes on a particular point on the earth around the clock. Someone in his workplace then said something about 24/7 surveillance and Tice appears to have jumped from whatever was actually said there to something nefarious being implied. How are we supposed to explain the relevance of his talking about how satellites only come around at certain times? The same could potentially apply to the alleged surveillance targets: NSA is tasked to see if foreign agents or criminals can or are trying to blackmail or snoop on Americans by investigating the comms vulnerabilities of those Americans and Tice concludes that these Americans are being targeted not to examine their defences for vulnerabilities but in order to attack them. Aside from the pre-2005 material and the 2013 material, the article takes it at face value that the subject is indeed a whistleblower as opposed to a conspiracy theorist. Both categories should apply so that readers coming from either approach can find this article and draw their own conclusions.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bdell555: Category:Conspiracy theorists asks us to only include "articles where the subject is mentioned in their article as actively defending one of the conspiracy theories listed in the articles under Category:Conspiracy theories". After taking a quick look there, in the sub-category "Conspiracy theories in the United States" and at the article, it appears to me that that isn't true of Tice; am I missing something? —rybec 23:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion of possible BLP violations here petrarchan47tc 00:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

My view is that advocates of conspiracy theories should be categorized as conspiracy theorists, with the test being whether what is being advocated is a conspiracy theory or not. If the test is rather whether the conspiracy theory is on a pre-approved list of conspiracy theories or not, well I don't agree with that simply because I don't see the policy reason for restricting to such a list. If someone can provide a policy reason, I'd be interested in it. If conspiracy theories must have some minimum number of adherents, that's a bit odd because if something is very widely believed, it's generally called conventional thinking, not belief in a conspiracy theory. The subject here has contended, more than once, that the budget sequester is suspicious, and suggested that U.S. intelligence agencies are have turned the tables on their civilian masters with respect to their funding levels by means of illegal and immoral "leverage" that includes spying on the family of Congress members, and indeed spying on all "three branches of government." Sounds like conspiracy to me.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bdell555: thanks for answering. Relevant policy may be found at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources. It appears that UPI and the American Broadcasting Co., as well as sources which may be questionable, have called Tice a whistle-blower. I'll remove the "conspiracy theorists" category for now; if reliable sources have referred to him as a conspiracy theorist or have used the term "conspiracy theory" to characterise his statements, then re-adding it should be okay. —rybec 01:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe your test is entirely appropriate. An article that appeared in the The Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2009 and alleged that the Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition on 9/11 had nine authors. "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories" appears on the approved list you referred me to. If seven of those authors happen to be described as "conspiracy theorists" in other sources and two are not, it strikes me as quite arbitrary to declare that seven of the nine are conspiracy theorists and two are not when they all alleged the exact same thing. As Wikipedians I don't believe we are have to be so mechanical and unthinking in our approach. Also, what reliable sources generally do is simply not carry stories sourced to conspiracy theorists as opposed to reporting the story and then calling it a conspiracy theory. The dates of the sources, and evidence (or not) that the sources are aware of the breadth and history of Tice's claims through to his most eyebrow raising claims which were made last year, also matters.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the "conspiracy theorists" category or the list of approved conspiracy theories until I noticed your edits. The term is pejorative; the biographies of living persons policy asks us to be especially careful with these articles, so if there are no sources for it, it should be left out--just out of basic fairness. If there are no reports about Tice's ideas, how are we to learn about them? —rybec 07:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how the facts suddenly become less important depending on just who is being accused of something unflattering. Russ Tice accuses his co-worker of being a spy, FBI counterintelligence of incompetence for failing to aggressively prosecute this co-worker, a Defense Department psychologist of lying, the NSA of wiretapping Barack Obama and the Red Cross, the intelligence services generally of blackmailing all "three branches of government", and this is all supposed to get broadcast on Wikipedia without so much as a hint that perhaps not all of these allegations have been entirely established as beyond doubt. Because even a "category" hint in the footer of the article would be, as you say, "pejorative". You want to extend Mr Tice some courtesies. I understand that, but what I don't understand is why the NSA gets no such courtesies. Change the subject of the article and your sense of "basic fairness" suddenly goes out the window; the need to be "careful" no longer applies as much. You evidently think that inaccuracies and unsubstantiated allegations about the NSA or some corporation/government entity is relatively more tolerable, given your call for double standards. I happen to think that the issue of primary concern is the facts, such that if there is indeed any need to prioritize due diligence, the highest priority should go to those article subjects that are the most likely to be the objects of unsubstantiated allegations. On that count, I note that as soon as you've got some sort of organization that both operates in secrecy and is close to a power centre there's fertile ground for conspiracy. Now maybe my priorities are confused because I believe we are writing an encyclopaedia when what we should really be doing is sending the subjects of BLPs a copy of Daily Affirmations With Stuart Smalley. Because not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings is the #1 priority for any encyclopaedia writer, right?--Brian Dell (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Tice is considered a Reliable Source

Tice is constantly asked to give commentary about the recent NSA leaks. This article, due to recent changes made with regard to the end of Tice's NSA career, is not reflective of RS, and with this story featured first in the article, it is not in keeping with proper BLP's. It is asked that Wiki editors stick to how things are portrayed in RS, and it is entirely beyond our scope to argue that a person has been discredited unless this fact is evident in RS. The opposite is true, and if no one can get around to fixing this article, I can do so in the future. More sources and discussion are at the BLP noticeboard here.

• Reuters just interviewed him here.

• NBC covered Tice's claims about seeing spy orders for Obama, Congress, etc., here.

• Attorney and member of the Government Accountability Project Jesselyn Radack defends Tice as a whistleblower.

• Tice is listed in the "National Whistleblowers Center" website.

Missing context that should be added:

From ABC news:

• "The NSA revoked Tice's security clearance in May of [2005] based on what it called psychological concerns and later dismissed him. Tice calls that bunk and says that's the way the NSA deals with troublemakers and whistleblowers. Today the NSA said it had "no information to provide."

• From the archived article that Bdell555 added during the aforementioned recent edits: Is there a connection between his public speech last week and his termination? Sibel Edmonds, the leader of the newly formed National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, believes so. "They try to use the fear factor: Don't go to the Congress. If you do, this is what will happen to you," said Edmonds, who was fired by the FBI in 2002 after reporting suspected espionage and misconduct. "By doing this they send a chilling message to anyone who wants to step forward." Edmonds vowed to help find legal representation for Tice. The Defense Department's Inspector General's Civil Reprisal Investigations unit is also examining his claims of retaliation.... (con't).

• (From same article as above) Shortly after sending the e-mail, an NSA security officer ordered him to report for "a psychological evaluation" even though he had just gone through one nine months earlier. Tice believes James called NSA to ask them "to go after him" on their behalf. When Tice called Mr. James to confront him about calling the NSA security official, he told Tice that "there was reason to be concerned" about his suspicion about his former co-worker. The Defense Department psychologist concluded that Tice suffered from psychotic paranoia, according to Tice. "He did this even though he admitted that I did not show any of the normal indications of someone suffering from paranoia," Tice wrote in a statement to the inspector general. petrarchan47tc 21:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to determine whether a bio subject is "reliable" or not. It's our job to present the facts neutrally and accurately. re "missing context", I'd say the changes you want there are on the subtle side (e.g. is there really that much difference between Tice rejecting the psych eval and Tice calling it "bunk"?). I find it ironic that "the NSA said it had 'no information to provide'" is presented as if that's supposed to reflect badly on the NSA when the NSA is protecting an individual's privacy here. An absence of information proves nothing in and of itself (see Argument from ignorance). As for Tice's media appearances, I don't think anyone would object to something about Tice frequently making such appearances in the wake of the Snowden story. I reject the allegation that my editing "is not reflective of RS". Be specific in your allegation here and it can be discussed.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

I am not having much luck editing alongside Bdell555, and would like the community to please consider helping with this biography. This version that Bdell555 insists upon begins the article with "In April 2001, while he was working for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Tice reported his suspicions that an Asian-American woman he was working with was a Chinese spy, saying she had "voiced sympathies for China, traveled extensively abroad and displayed affluence beyond her means".

The prior version begins in a way more like a normal Wikipedia article, though it isn't perfect. This editor begins the article with the story of how Tice was fired, but that story is quite complex, and was handled better in the prior version, with its own section (though it doesn't necessarily need to be placed at the bottom). petrarchan47tc 04:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If it "doesn't necessarily need to be placed at the bottom" then just what is the problem with having it appear in its natural chronological order, which means prior to Tice going public? You should title this section "Chronological order" since that is what you object to. It is flatly untrue that I "insist" upon that reading because I already suggested to you an alternative opening for the "Career" section, namely: "Tice worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) until 2002 and the National Security Agency (NSA) until 2005. From August 2004 to April 2005 Tice was working in the NSA "motor pool" as his security clearance had been revoked." However you rejected that as well, even though it made no mention of his psych evaluations, something you've rather consistently tried to minimize or delete. The mention of the "motor pool" is simply because we've got solid dates for that and we don't for exactly when the security clearance was revoked. The point is that the security clearance was revoked long before Tice went public and to try and hide that is to try and deny what Slate noted in an otherwise sympathetic piece and that's that "Tice's departure from the agency had nothing to do with the misgivings about domestic eavesdropping that he now professes." Hence you'd like to open his career with "Tice was fired by the NSA in May 2005, just days after publicly urging Congress..." in order to push the unfounded narrative that Tice's dismissal was caused by his going public with his complaints as opposed to there being antecedents. In other words, a smear campaign against Tice's former employers. If that isn't what you want then what do you want? Perhaps you can help us here with the nature of your objection, absent which we can only speculate what might satisfy you. By the way, the Washington Times' very first sentence mentions "he suspected a co-worker was a Chinese agent" such that if mentioning this early is an outrage, the Washington Times is also guilty.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

External links

The breaking the set link clearly violates WP:ELNO, specifically #s 1 and 8. I'm also not seeing what an IMDb link is good for when the person's main fame comes from being a government whistleblower and not in film, especially when it's an incomplete list of appearances where he always appears as himself. Both need to be removed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how Breaking the Set violates any policy or guideline. Criterion 1 is entirely subjective and probably not even relevant, while criterion 8 is simply absurd and probably being misused here. The IMDb is a filmography link, which is entirely relevant to his role as a whistleblower who uses the media to get his message across. Both links, therefore, do not need to be removed. I will again make the observation that you are misusing policies and guidelines to remove relevant material from articles you have a bias against, and I think the community needs to address this continuing problem emanating from user accounts used for this purpose. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Your continued personal attacks on me are noted, but you have not made a strong argument that my interpretation is wrong. If 8 is "absurd," gain consensus to remove it at the relevant guideline. If #1 is subjective, explain why I'm wrong instead of impugning my character. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no personal attack here at all. Your contribution history demonstrably shows that you misuse policies and guidelines to target and attack specific topics where you have a bias or a POV. This happens to be one of them. Your own user page proves this point with substantiating evidence. Did you think that nobody would notice? On the other hand, users who do have normal concerns about the use of external links and other appendices, target a broad category of articles for cleanup, often addressing each and every article in a specific category, covering articles from all over the spectrum. You have never done this! Instead, you target only a specific subset of articles where you have a POV, and then disrupt the article by removing appendices and edit warring with the editors of that page. That's exactly what ou are doing here and that's exactly what you've done countless times in the past several years. There's no personal attack here at all, simply an evidence-based observation of your behavior. Furthermore, you do not have consensus to remove the links. You are the one who needs to gain consensus, not me. Viriditas (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You clearly have not actually reviewed my contribution history. The consensus sitewide is that at least the Breaking the Set piece violates our guideline. I'm fine with further discussion on the irrelevant IMDb link, however. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed your contributions, only to find that you have created mostly unsourced, non-notable article stubs, indicating you have little knowledge or experience as to how to write and source articles. In fact, most of the articles you've created should not even exist. I have also found that you specifically target articles that do not subscribe to your POV and then you attempt to treat a content guideline like ELNO as a policy, and use it to remove links that don't adhere to your POV. Your interpretation of ELNO is once again at fault. A link to an interview with Tice on the Breaking the Set show is acceptable, and your specious use of ELNO is the problem. There is nothing to discuss in regards to the relevant use of IMDb as it is used appropriately. At least two editors have reverted you, so it is now time for you to seek a third opinion or file an RFC. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

As almost none of what you've written is true, you're correct that there's nothing to discuss. As you have not actually made an argument as to why the use of those links is appropriate yet, your claims hold no weight. Hopefully the others who have opinions can chime in so we can move on, perhaps without the continued, off-topic vitriol you're derailing this conversation with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's all true, and the links are entirely appropriate per policy and guidelines. You have not demonstrated nor shown how the links are inappropriate. Instead, you have once again added a poorly placed maintenance tagged and cited a guideline you don't appear to understand. Again, your only options at this point are for you to file a request for a third opinion or an RFC. You cannot continue to selectively disrupt Wikipedia articles based on your POV. I hope you understand. Tice's entry on IMDb is relevant and informative and the link to his interview on Breaking the Set on RT is no different to any number of the thousands of interviews we link to on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC or any other media outlet. Mundane and entirely acceptable. Again, you are attempting to push your POV, not enforce any guideline. Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with these links.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain how they meet the guideline, @Bdell555:? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"What can normally be linked: ... Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to... movie or television credits, interview transcripts..." The RT link is in fact better than an interview transcript because readers can see and hear the subject of this article. The interview is a typical and representative Tice TV interview.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Except the RT link clearly violates WP:ELNO #1 (as it's not a unique resource for the subject) and #8 (as it's a video that requires external plugins to view). Furthermore, information in this interview could be incorporated into the article if it's reliable information, thus not needing it for these purposes. So how do you square those points? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No it does not "clearly" violate anything. What could possibly be unreliable about it when you can see Tice talking in the video? You think that might be someone else? You are not bringing anything new to this discussion, where the consensus is against you.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is with me, as the external links guideline is the consensus of the site. Will you address what is listed as the reasons the link is bad? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the consensus is that you are misinterpreting the external links guideline. I have already noted that "interview transcripts" are explicitly listed in the policy as an example of something that cannot be integrated into the article and constitutes a suitable external link. No browser plugin is needed to view as the page gives an option to download (there is also no "direct link" to the video: the link is to a page that hosts it), and even if a plugin were needed, "Links to be considered" merely calls for material requiring plug-ins to be "annotated as such" as opposed to normally excluded (never mind excluded in every case). There is no need to continue to address questions of yours that have already been fully answered.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

There has been no argument thus far that I am misinterpreting the guideline. There is one set of personal attacks on me and my character that do not address the question. Your comment does, so we'll go with that. The browser plugin needed to view the video is flash, or, if I download it, a program that plays mp4s. Thus, it clearly and unequivocally violates #8. Furthermore, the video is 28+ minutes long, and he is only part of a quarter of it. This video isn't even about him, it's utterly irrelevant to the topic. Finally, there is no justification for the inclusion of the link being offered still, so do we need to keep going in circles on this or can we remove the violating link and move on? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there has been an argument. Clearly presented. We have indeed moved on, and I suggest you respect that consensus.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The consensus, sitewide, is that the link is bad. I assume you will not further protest its removal? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There is disagreement with your interpretation of EL, thus you failed to achieve consensus for removal so far. You could ask for comment/input/clarification at EL's talk page if you feel strongly that the links are in violation of policies/guidelines and are not an improvement for the article but the opposite.TMCk (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Note: We even have a noticeboard for this.TMCk (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a disagreement, yes, but not a real coherent one. I've taken part in that noticeboard before, but this shouldn't even be controversial. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the arguments, it appears to me that Thargor Orlando is way out of line. The links in no way deserve the tag and should remain. By the way, no one contacted me, I noticed the edits to this article that I have watchlisted. Again, the tag should be removed at once via consensus here. Jusdafax 04:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jusdafax:, perhaps you can do what others have not and explain why the link meets our guideline? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Russ Tice. 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/20140219134952/http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/oct/20/20041020-112923-1126r/?page=all to http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/oct/20/20041020-112923-1126r/?page=all
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pulsejournal.com/business/content/shared/news/nation/stories/05/05_WHISTLEBLOWER_FIRED.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)